The UN Summit of the Future that took place in New York over the weekend pitched strengthened diplomatic cooperation as the key to protecting the rights of present and future generations from environmental breakdown, amongst other issues.

As politicians, business leaders and civil society gathered in New York to discuss urgent progress needed on climate and nature, the upcoming diplomatic calendar was in sharp focus – in particular, the deadline for updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in February 2025. NDCs are commitments on emissions-cutting that countries submit to the UN every 5 years, and they are central for the Paris Agreement’s mechanism to ratchet up countries’ decarbonisation ambitions over time.

But now is also the moment to start asking, what comes after and with the NDCs?

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

The conversation must evolve to ensure that international targets are translated into strong national laws to guarantee their full delivery. For us at ClientEarth, that looks like two things at national level; the adoption of Future Generation Acts to incorporate long-term thinking into governance, and the implementation of ambitious and science-driven framework climate laws.

UK leads the way

So far, framework climate laws have been adopted in almost 60 countries around the world. The first was the UK’s groundbreaking 2008 Climate Change Act. It committed the UK government to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with a pathway to achieving ‘Net Zero’ by 2050, and setting 5-year carbon budgets. It also established the Climate Change Committee – an expert, independent body that advises the government and ensures emissions targets are evidence-based and independently assessed.

Research says it has been working: a study from the London School of Economics suggests that the act has helped to reduce UK emissions over its 16 years, especially in the power sector: the share of low-carbon generation increased from 20% in 2008 to 45% in 2016, and experts say the act was a major driver of this transformation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its sixth assessment report, agreed that “climate laws have been growing in number and have helped deliver mitigation and adaptation outcomes”.

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

Such framework climate laws create a clear and binding legal foundation for climate action that stands the test of time and changing politics. They create stronger obligations on states to protect both present and future generations. They also provide clarity to business and investors on the long-term direction of policy and economic change.

It’s an area of environmental advocacy and legislation ClientEarth has worked in for over a decade. In Poland, in the absence of a legally binding government-level plan to tackle climate change, our lawyers put together a draft law to put pressure on the government to act. Our lawyers, alongside partners, are now supporting the development of framework climate laws in multiple countries, as we did with New Zealand’s Zero Carbon Act in 2018.

Future generations in focus

Future Generations Acts, like that introduced by Wales in 2015, are also a significant step that countries can take. Children and those not yet born have no recourse to participate in current decision-making processes, yet they stand to suffer the effects of our deteriorating climate far more than those currently holding power.

The first ever Declaration on Future Generations, agreed on Sunday by world leaders at the UN, was a commitment by countries to take account of future generations in decision-making. Their rights should now also be fully recognised in national law.

The law has an immense power to shape the world around us – both for those living in it today, and those who will inherit it in the future – and that’s why having the commitments made in the heady world of international diplomacy enshrined in binding national laws is a crucial next step for global climate action.

The post New global climate commitments critical – but strong national laws must follow appeared first on Climate Home News.

In the two decades since Greenpeace launched its groundbreaking Energy Revolution scenarios in 2005, renewable energy uptake has accelerated at speeds most analysts could not have anticipated, but leaders at the UN General Assembly must act even more boldly. 

Greenpeace’s pioneering vision for the clean energy transition was once considered unrealistic, perhaps even idealistic – but given the rapid changes to the world’s power generation, the scenarios have been proven right and perhaps not even ambitious enough. 

It’s a charge, however, that can be more readily laid at current world leaders attending the UN General Assembly in New York this month who lack sufficient ambition.  

Under existing policies and targets, the International Energy Agency (IEA) found in June that renewable energy capacity would grow to 8,000 gigawatts (GW) by 2030, missing the target to triple capacity to 11,000 GW – an objective agreed at the UN climate talks COP28 in Dubai last year. 

Global goal of tripling renewables by 2030 still out of reach, says IRENA

Political leaders must now turn that promise into action as part of a fast and fair fossil fuel phase-out. These are issues to also be discussed in New York at the first Global Renewables Summit, which I will attend, and where governments will be urged to ‘Now Deliver Change’. 

With new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for 2035 due by next February, it is essential they include robust policies and targets for renewable energy expansion, while also targeting the goal of doubling the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030. 

Let’s be clear: the consequences for a lack of action are dire. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from under-nutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone. Climate action now is essential. 

All three of the world’s hottest years on record – 2023, 2020 and 2016 – have occurred since the Paris Agreement in 2015 set the goal to limit warming to 1.5°C and already 2024 is on track to eclipse last year.  

Renewable energy implementation must now reach the heights of our stated ambition if we’re to stave off the worst impacts of a changing climate and protect people from harm. 

Rising demand fuels risk

The IEA is urging governments to close the “bridgeable” gap between current policies and what’s required to meet the 2030 renewables targets.  

That requires an accelerated roll-out of renewables, but we must also improve energy efficiency and total energy demand reductions to minimise the adverse impacts of mining for the critical minerals essential for today’s clean energy. 

The IEA notes solar PV and wind energy capacity accounted for 95 percent of growth in renewables expansion in 2023 as demand for critical minerals remained robust. 

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

However, to limit warming to 1.5°C, one of the latest IEA scenarios estimates that $800 billion of investment in mining for critical minerals is required up to 2040. This need for new supplies, however, puts Indigenous Peoples, local communities and the environment at risk. 

Critical minerals present a multitude of complex issues, such as the inherent uncertainty of the demand estimates. Rather than ramping up mining to an uncertain projection while trying to limit adverse impacts, we must first understand which impacts might be avoidable. 

Opaque supply chains

Actions to achieve overall energy, resource and material reductions, such as through energy efficiency and circularity, must be combined with long-term holistic societal and policy changes to minimise environmental impacts and stay within planetary boundaries. 

Better public transport systems, as outlined in Greenpeace’s Sustainable Mobility Vision, can greatly reduce the need for critical minerals in electric vehicles – a huge source of forecast demand – while promoting more equitable access to mobility. 

Critical minerals in short supply should be prioritised for the energy transition above other uses, and substitution is a great opportunity to leverage abundant and lower-impact options (for example, EV batteries that do not use key metals such as nickel and cobalt). 

Human rights must be “at the core” of mining for transition minerals, UN panel says

Where mining is required, it needs to occur within limits, avoiding sensitive areas – including the deep sea – and it must respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, ensuring their empowerment in decision-making, with benefits shared equitably. 

There’s also plenty of work to be done in ensuring adequate governance, traceability, human rights, worker safety and equity across the energy transition supply chains, which often remain relatively opaque and fraught with challenges. 

But like any problem, there are solutions if we’re brave and prepared to not only envision a new world, but commit with concerted action to bringing it to life. Imagine how far and how quickly we could go if today’s political leaders put their full weight behind an urgent renewables push. 

The climate crisis demands bold, transformational change and the only thing stopping us is a lack of political will to act now. 

The post Global push to triple renewables requires responsible mining of minerals appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a big country in the Americas, an elderly leader defeats his far-right rival by a narrow margin. After facing a coup attempt, he starts off his government reversing several of his predecessor’s nefarious policies, rebuilding federal governance, and proposing ambitious measures to tackle the climate crisis.  

Soon, however, it becomes clear that the new government can’t or won’t deliver on its progressive agenda: the president faces severe hurdles in a Congress tipped to the far right. The elderly leader’s popularity starts to plummet, even though the economy is doing fine, and job creation is spiking. His adversaries regroup and are threatening to take back power at the next election. 

This could be the story of the United States – but it’s Brazil we’re talking about. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, 78, led in 2022 a coalition of democrats across the political spectrum to salvage his country from the grip of autocracy. 

Slow progress in Baku risks derailing talks on new climate finance goal at COP29

His tightly won election was greeted with relief by the international community, but environmentalists had particular reason to celebrate. Lula’s far-right predecessor saw Amazon deforestation increase by 60% over his term and turned Brazil not only into a pariah but also a liability for the global fight against climate change. 

More environmentally conscious now than in his two previous administrations, former union leader Lula vowed to prioritize the fight against the climate crisis. He gave native Brazilians a seat in the cabinet for the first time and promised to end deforestation by 2030, starting by re-enacting the Amazon Deforestation Control Plan that made Brazil a success story of climate mitigation in the past.  

Lula also offered to host the 2025 UN climate conference in Brazil, resurrected environmental funds, and corrected his country’s embattled climate pledge. The efforts paid off: in 2023, Amazon deforestation dropped by 22% and a further reduction is expected for 2024. 

Stakes high for COP30

Understandably, the world started to look up to Brazil in search of leadership in this critical decade for climate action. As Europe has weakened its position in the wake of farmers’ protests and the rise of the far-right in the EU parliamentary elections – and the US faces the threat of Trump 2.0 – the stakes are getting higher for COP30, the UN climate summit to be held in the rainforest city of Belém next year under Lula’s baton.   

Alas, Mr. da Silva has little to show for it so far. The Brazilian president has faced a hostile Congress, dominated by the far-right and the rural caucus, and empowered by Jair Bolsonaro, whose government gave Congress increased control over the federal budget.  

In the tough negotiations with such a parliament, the environmental agenda has been a bargaining chip. More anti-environment and anti-Indigenous bill projects have advanced since 2023 than during the whole Bolsonaro administration.  

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

Right now, three dozen legislative proposals are under examination that could make it impossible to control deforestation and meet the country’s climate pledges. Lula’s negotiators in Congress have faced this barrage with embarrassing apathy. 

In a situation similar to that of Joe Biden in the United States, Lula’s polling has dropped – for no obvious economic reason. Joblessness is at its lowest since before the 2015 recession; inflation is under control; real wages have increased, and with them the purchasing power of families; and GDP growth, though mediocre, is steady.  

The perceived weakness of a government that has so far failed to make transformative changes (and whose greatest merit is precisely to make Brazil normal again) works as the proverbial blood in the water for the opposition: as a result, the government gets even weaker and more likely to forgo progressive agendas.  

New oil and roads

To be sure, a fair share of environmentalists’ disappointment stems from Lula’s own actions. The president has been determined to make Brazil the world’s 4th biggest oil producer (today it ranks 9th) at the expense of the global climate, even though Brazil right now is ablaze and its major cities are covered in smoke from record-breaking wildfires.  

Lula’s plan involves opening up new hydrocarbon frontiers both on land and offshore, including in the Amazon. His administration is also hell-bent on constructing a highly controversial road that cuts through the heart of the rainforest, which is feared to facilitate land-grabbing and illegal timber extraction and could increase emissions from deforestation by 8 billion tons by 2050.  

Human rights must be “at the core” of mining for transition minerals, UN panel says

Da Silva’s Workers’ Party is riddled with old-school backers of national development who don’t believe in the green economy and isolate pro-climate officials such as Finance Minister Fernando Haddad and Environment Minister Marina Silva. Bizarrely, Lula also bets his international prestige on non-starters, like Ukraine, while leaving unattended the only geopolitical agenda where he and his country could really make a difference: climate change.  

“Lead by example” is a motto of the Brazilian government whenever it tries to portray itself as a trusted champion of the Paris Agreement global warming limit of 1.5oC. Right now, the world would do better searching for leadership elsewhere. The good news is that Lula can still be persuaded to wear the mantle. COP30 is his golden opportunity – but it is a window that will not remain open for long. 

The post Is Brazil’s Lula a climate leader? appeared first on Climate Home News.

A few years ago, the world was on a path to ending coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel and the single biggest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. Active and sustained campaigning brought coal closer to the point of death and the world to a coal-free future.

Several developments made this evident. One, the shrinking of the pipeline of new coal and the shutting down of hundreds of coal projects across the globe. Two, the commitment of 44 governments to end the construction of new coal plants and cancellation by a further 33 countries of new coal projects. Three, the shifts in the policies of several public financial institutions and private banks to either wind down or immediately end coal financing. And four, the emergence of cheaper renewables that downgraded new investments in coal as a costly mistake.

Since 2015, more than half of countries with coal power have reduced or kept their operating capacity flat. In addition, announced, pre-permit, permitted and construction coal capacity was reduced by 68% globally. From 2015 to 2021, changes in the global pipeline of proposed coal power plants showed a 76% collapse in coal construction.

Fossil fuel transition back in draft pact for UN Summit of the Future after outcry

There was broad consensus that coal power generation must be rapidly phased out to reduce emissions significantly and, consequently, the risks and impacts of climate change. Anti-coal campaigns hounded corporations on the terrible economics of coal-based energy. They successfully pressured hundreds of firms to stop financing or pull back investments in coal or issue policies to limit exposure to coal. They also made coal uninsurable.

A litany of research and analysis of the implications of coal combustion on climate targets echoed the pressure. According to a 2021 report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, coal phase-out must take place in advanced economies by 2030 and in the rest of the world by 2040. An assessment model exploring the implications of the 2C temperature limit has found that, globally, over 80% of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 to meet the 2C target.

Conflict boost for coal

Despite all of this, coal is rising again today, driven by demand growth and operating capacity increases in developing and emerging economies. Global coal use and capacity rebounded in 2022 and grew to an all-time high in 2023. Total global capacity in pre-construction also increased by 6% in 2023.

The demise of coal, as it turns out, is a lot of gas, literally and figuratively.

Climate campaigners marched to Mendiola Street, near Malacanang Palace in Manila, on Sept 13, 2024, calling out the Philippines energy department and President Marcos for allowing coal expansion despite a 2020 moratorium. The protesters demanded an end to new coal and rapid phaseout of all coal by 2035. (Photo: APMDD)

The failure of governments to rapidly shift to renewable energy is key to coal’s staying power. The energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine triggered a buying frenzy for coal and gas, driving prices to record levels. Asian countries increased coal production to secure energy supply. Some European countries brought mothballed coal-burning power plants back online or removed caps on production at coal-fired plants.

No wonder fossil fuels still dominated global energy demand in 2022, with coal holding 35% of the share in the power sector. This, despite a massive renewables growth of 266 gigawatts – the highest growth ever – bolstered by solar and wind.

Asia is the hotbed of both coal resurgence and fossil gas expansion. China, India and Indonesia already account for more than 70% of the world’s coal production. India and China, both of which have adopted aggressive renewables targets, are substantially using more coal and are poised to increase their coal use significantly in the coming years.

Finance flows to fossil fuels

The world’s top commercial banks are mainly responsible for the global flow of funds for new coal in Asia. These banks are headquartered in rich countries like the US, Canada and the UK that have not built a new coal plant within their countries for years. At the same time, major Asian banks are now playing a growing role in coal expansion in the region. Having weak or non-existent exclusions on coal, these banks are creating new coal financing “havens” in the region.

The same is true for the flow of finance for the gas build-out. The major players are the world’s top commercial banks, major Asian banks and public financial institutions. Japan’s megabanks and state-bank Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) lead the world’s biggest financiers of Southeast Asia’s gas expansion.

EU “green” funds invest millions in expanding coal giants in China, India

Over 60% of global gas-fired capacity in development is based in Asia. Governments are pursuing the gas build-out to ostensibly meet growing energy demand while turning away from coal. Current gas expansion plans in Southeast Asia could lead to a doubling of gas-fired power capacity and an 80% increase in LNG import capacity. This would lock the region into an economically volatile fuel that is dangerous for people and the climate.

Alongside the planned expansion of gas power, coal’s resurgence will be massively detrimental to climate goals. It also draws investment away from the transition to renewable energy. Coal and gas will not deliver affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy in Asia, where millions suffer from energy poverty.

Renewables have become the cheapest and fastest-growing source of electricity worldwide, with annual capacity additions more than doubling from 2015 to 2022. We must replace coal with renewables – not with dirty, inefficient, volatile energy sources like gas.

On September 13, climate activists are holding mobilisations in over 50 countries on all continents calling for a fast, fair and funded phase-out of fossil fuels and the delivery of climate finance. These kick off a Global Week of Action for Climate Finance and a Fossil-Free Future ahead of Climate Week NYC (September 22-29) when world leaders assemble for the UN General Assembly and the first UN Summit of the Future where they will agree a Pact for the Future. For details of the actions: https://payupandphaseout.org

The post The demise of coal, as it turns out, is a lot of gas appeared first on Climate Home News.

John Podesta visited Beijing last week on his first trip to China as US climate envoy. Both countries’ new climate action plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), were high on his agenda, along with talks on methane, the circular economy and sub-national cooperation.    

The discussions on NDCs were relatively low-key, and that appears to be a strategic choice. With constant emphasis that China will take actions “at its own pace”, Beijing is unlikely to play into any “US persuades China” narrative, where China is hit up for political points that land in its competitor’s basket.   

Rather than pressuring, engagement with Beijing should be about building a strong case for China’s growing self-interest in raising climate ambition now, based on robust economic, political and social pillars. 

Bigger share of COP29 badges for Global South NGOs upsets rich-country groups

Podesta landed in China amid a bit of a climate policy revival. Beijing recently issued measures instructing provinces and industries to use more renewable power and to adopt better carbon accounting and confirmed that China will apply a hard emissions cap by 2030 at the latest. 

It’s good news for an international community that had started to worry whether the climate issue was slipping down China’s political agenda. But it’s not clear whether the recent positive signals from Beijing mean that China will necessarily be bolder in setting its new international commitments.  

Economic boon 

Climate diplomacy is heating up as the deadline for countries to submit 2035 NDCs approaches early next year. American and European climate diplomats are seeking affirmation from China that its new NDC will be ambitious. But China is keeping its cards close to its chest and has so far only confirmed it will deliver its new NDC on time in 2025. In response to its western counterparts, Chinese policymakers still stick to long-standing positions, arguing that they are more focused on implementation than on grand targets that may not be realized in the end.  

The obvious constraints to China’s ambition on its new NDC include the domestic economy, where ensuring steady growth remains the primary concern for governments at all levels. As a consequence, reforms that could cause structural changes in industries and jobs have stagnated.  

Lessons from trade tensions targeting “overcapacity” in China’s cleantech industry

But for China’s domestic economy, stronger climate action—buoyed by ambitious targets—is unmistakably an economic boon. The cleantech industry is becoming a new economic driver in China. And companies, especially in the solar and EV sectors, are rapidly expanding their manufacturing capacity in anticipation of strong future demand.  

While exports of cleantech products keep growing, the size of the domestic market means it will remain the “base” for Chinese companies. Chinese policymakers’ conventional “under-promise, over-deliver” style of target-setting is not enough for the industry. This year, China is already hitting its 2030 target on wind and solar installation. Stronger sectoral targets for the next 5 to 10 years will help expand the domestic market and give the industry and investors the confidence it needs. 

Responsible global power 

Internationally, China should also see the growing self-interest in setting strong targets and leading global climate action. It’s clear that China wants greater recognition as a responsible global power – and its decision to focus on implementation is a way of differentiating itself from Western powers. But this strategy will not succeed if it ends up presenting a weak target that gives no one aspiration or hope. 

By 2035, global emissions need to be reduced by at least 60% from 2019 levels, in order to keep within the 1.5°C warming limit, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In terms of China’s share, different models suggest a 30%-80% cut of emissions from the peak by 2035 is needed to align with the 1.5C global goal.  

Chinese policy makers may argue that modeling is too far from the economic and social realities. But it is exactly because of this gap that countries need ambitious policy targets to alter the curve of business-as-usual. Readjustments can only move us so far from business as usual. Emissions reductions need a well-defined target to orient themselves towards. 

Verra axing of Shell’s rice-farming carbon credits in China fuels integrity fears

The possibility of a Trump 2.0 inevitably constrains the potential for climate ambition in many countries. But China is an exception, thanks to its strong cleantech industry. The clean transition of China’s economy is independent of a Trump or Harris victory, so should be China’s international commitment.  

China should see the coming months as a window of opportunity to demonstrate its unimpeachable role in international climate politics. When the global process is at risk of losing momentum, a robust new NDC from China would be a shot-in-the-arm.   

Fundamentally, tackling climate change is a matter of public health and safety. China has just experienced a summer of historic flooding and weather disruption. In July alone, storms, floods and related disasters affected nearly 23 million people and caused $10 billion in direct economic losses, according to China’s Ministry of Emergency Management.  

Economic and political gains aside, there is no stronger evidence than broken families and communities to demand robust action to mitigate climate impacts.  

The post How to convince Beijing of the case for stronger climate targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

There is a fierce scramble underway for the minerals to enable a low-carbon future – and it is costing Africa $24 billion a year and risking a global energy transition.

Africa has long been the world’s supplier of raw materials, from gold and diamonds to oil and gas. Now, with over 40% of the global reserves of transition minerals, we face the prospect of continuing this role into the green economy.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) alone holds 60% of the world’s cobalt, a critical component for lithium-ion batteries. However, if the current trends continue, Africa will once again find itself exporting raw materials while others – predominantly in China, Europe, and the United States – reap the financial rewards and the benefits of the technologies produced by them. Currently Africa is left to bear the brunt of the climate crisis while others profit from our resources.

Lithium boom: Zimbabwe looks to China to secure a place in the EV battery supply chain

Economic modelling from Publish What You Pay, released this week, shows a stark opportunity lost. Africa could boost its GDP by at least $24 billion annually and create 2.3 million jobs by introducing robust manufacturing and trade policies for transition minerals supply chains. The biggest job opportunities lie in manufacturing things like solar panels and batteries which would only be possible with technology transfer and skilling up a new green workforce on the continent.

And this is only part of the picture. As well as transforming minerals into products that can be exported at better prices – bolstering economies and, hopefully, driving development – African countries could use them to build their own cleaner, affordable energy systems. This is a continent where 600 million still don’t have access to electricity.

West shutting out Africa

But the world’s wealthiest nations are determined to maintain control over critical mineral supply chains, prioritising their own economic interests. The EU has set its sights on processing 40% of the critical minerals it consumes within its borders by 2030, while the UK is adopting a similar approach.

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

The US, through its Inflation Reduction Act, is offering tax incentives to electric vehicle manufacturers that source, process or recycle minerals within the US or its free trade agreement (FTA) partners. The US has 20 trade agreements in effect and only one is with an African country: Morocco.

These moves to “secure” supplies of minerals block sensible policies for Africa to capture more of the economic value in global transition mineral value chains.

Green industrial strategy for the continent

In response, some leaders are taking steps to ensure they see benefits. Last week,  Zambia’s mining minister announced a state investment firm that will hold at least a 30% share of all future critical mineral production.

However, isolated national efforts like Zambia’s recent move, are not enough. This challenge goes beyond individual economies. What’s at stake is Africa’s ability to shape its future and take a central role in the global energy transition – not as a mere supplier of raw materials, but as a hub of innovation, manufacturing and sustainable development. To achieve this, African nations must work together, leveraging their collective power.

Africa must reap the benefits of its energy transition minerals

We need a coordinated industrial strategy across the continent, where African nations cooperate to develop their mineral processing and manufacturing capabilities. Some of the solutions are within our grasp; finalising and fully implementing the African Continental Free Trade Area, if done right, could be a game-changer by allowing African countries to trade with each other more easily and develop regional industries that can compete globally.

The African Union is currently developing a green minerals strategy which could chart a course to deeper regional economic integration. The Africa Minerals Development Centre, set up by the Africa Union in 2016, could super-charge this progress if it were to receive the necessary 15 ratifications from member states to be a fully-fledged institution; it currently has just four.

African leaders must promise benefits for Africans

Above all, we need commitment from our leaders that Africa’s mineral wealth will benefit its own people. The mining industry is among the most harmful to people and planet, and the most brutal in its repression of critics. We need transparent governance of the mining sector and robust laws to protect communities and the environment, along with a commitment to building local industries that create jobs and drive sustainable development.

This month, we might see the discussion around equity, trade and development in the minerals scramble take on the UN stage if the principles from the panel on critical energy transition minerals live up to their mandate of ensuring “the race to net zero cannot trample over the poor.” But change is happening too slowly.

Africa must not be relegated to the role of the world’s green mine. We have the resources, the talent and the need to develop industries that support our sustainable development. In turn, we will accelerate the global energy transition. It’s time for Africa to take its rightful place – not as a mere supplier of raw materials, but as a leader in the new, green economy.

The post Relegating Africa to the world’s green mine is costing us appeared first on Climate Home News.

Initially the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was hailed as a game-changer in the fight against illegal forest clearing.

It was the first law of its kind in the world – and when it came into force in June 2023 it had an overwhelming democratic mandate from EU member states and the European Parliament. 

The law signalled their resolve to end EU complicity in global forest destruction by only allowing EU market access to companies that can prove their products made from cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee and rubber are deforestation-free.  

Agricultural production is the biggest driver of deforestation on the planet, and these specific commodities’ impact on forests and peoples’ rights has been nothing short of catastrophic. 

But as the EUDR’s implementation day – December 30, 2024 – edges closer, the positivity has been supplanted by a barrage of negative stories. 

More cocaine, fewer diapers?

In March, Austria’s agricultural ministry called for implementation to be postponed. This appeal has been echoed by agricultural ministries in Czechia, Finland, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden, as well as the European People’s Party (EPP). 

The debate around the law has grown increasingly fractious. 

In May, the US Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture wrote to the European Commission demanding that the EU delay the law, as it posed “critical challenges” to American producers.  

EU hit with lawsuit over green labelling of aviation and shipping investments

Meanwhile South American diplomats warned it would aggravate Europe’s cocaine problem, as poor Peruvian and Colombian farmers wouldn’t be able to prove that their coffee or cacao wasn’t grown on deforested land and would shift to farming coca leaves instead. 

As well as more cocaine on their streets, Europeans would find fewer diapers, sanitary pads and other hygiene products on their supermarket shelves, according to US paper-makers. At the same time, the European timber industry claimed that the law was “a huge regulatory and administrative monster”. 

And all this came against a backdrop of warnings about price rises for food, drink and other goods. 

Industry sabotage 

So how did a law designed to tackle one of the greatest environmental challenges of our time become so divisive? And what is the true picture on the ground as industries prepare to implement the law? 

Two things are abundantly clear. The first is that agricultural deforestation is a deep-seated, complex problem, and eliminating it presents real challenges. 

Fern, which first called for a law to combat the illegal deforestation tainting the EU’s imports of agricultural commodities a decade ago, has consistently highlighted one of the biggest challenges: ensuring that the smallholders who could be affected by the regulation receive the specific support they need, and that companies don’t squeeze them out of their supply chains. 

Second, powerful vested interests within affected industries and EU member states are intent on sabotaging it. 

A proper assessment paints a different picture. 

Galvanising effect 

Away from breathless headlines about Europe being flooded with cocaine, the humdrum work of preparing for implementation is steadily progressing. 

Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana are the world’s biggest cocoa producers, and Europe is their largest market. The new law therefore could have a profound impact on those countries’ economies and peoples’ lives. 

While European industry and big US wood companies are claiming they can’t meet the EUDR’s requirements in time, Ghana’s cocoa regulator, COCOBOD, recently stated that their traceability system – which will prove sustainability by tracing cocoa beans from the farm where they’re produced to the port of shipment – will be operational from October 2024. 

Can the rising cost of chocolate help cocoa producers go green?

In Cote d’Ivoire, a similar story is also unfolding. 

The Ivorian government has been distributing ID cards to farmers that will increase traceability and allow them to receive e-payments. Though this system will take time to roll out, it will stop the widespread fraudulent underpayments which are so damaging to small-scale farmers’ livelihoods. 

It’s no surprise then that a group of 120 Ghanaian and Ivorian civil society and farmer organisations recently wrote to EU decision-makers, expressing their deep concerns about member states trying to delay the EUDR.  

Indigenous land rights 

Their call was echoed by more than 170 NGOs from around the world, including Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil (APIB), which represents more than 300 Brazilian Indigenous Peoples’ groups. 

APIB have long been at the forefront of efforts to protect the Amazon and Brazil’s other precious biomes from the ravages of agribusiness and loggers. They see the EUDR as a way of not just protecting nature but helping to safeguard Indigenous Peoples’ territorial rights. Earlier this year, APIB called for the EUDR to be extended into non-forest biomes such as the Cerrado. 

Some consumer goods giants who will be affected by the EUDR are also defending it: in July, Nestle, Mars Wrigley and Ferrero wrote to the European Commission defending the law as “an important step forward in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector”. 

They called for more EU support, which should include funds to help smallholders adjust to the law’s demands, and equitably negotiated partnerships with the countries producing goods that fall under the legislation’s scope. 

Support for affected producers

Last year, the world lost an area of forest almost as big as Switzerland; destruction that released about a half as much carbon dioxide as the United States does annually through burning fossil fuels. 

Delaying or abandoning the law on the eve of it being applied is not an option, but its success depends on how it’s implemented: how the EU rises to its inevitable challenges, and how far the EU is prepared to increase its support to affected smallholders and countries. 

We need to redouble our commitment to making it work and oppose those resisting it out of short-sighted self-interest. 

The post Delaying the EU’s anti-deforestation law is not an option  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Dear COP29 President-Designate Babayev, 

My name is Joseph Sikulu, and I am Tongan. Last week you visited my home island, where your team witnessed torrential rains and an earthquake. You witnessed how susceptible our people are to disasters, and how prepared we must be to meet them.

The escalating climate crisis exacerbates already destructive disasters and last week, as COP29 President-Designate, you met with the UN Secretary-General here in Tonga and acknowledged our realities. You made a commitment to amplify the voices of the Pacific Islands and build a more resilient, sustainable future ahead of COP29.

But the time for amplifying our voices is over. We need action. Fossil fuels are at the root of this crisis, fossil fuels threaten our islands.

Despite being confronted with devastating climate impacts, and the prospects of many more, we gathered in solidarity for the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting. We fight. And if we fight, we expect the same from you.

Fossil fuel transition back in draft pact for UN Summit of the Future after outcry

The Pacific has done the least to contribute to the climate crisis, yet we are fighting it the hardest. Pacific island countries have committed to achieving net zero by 2050 and 100% renewable energy targets. A transition to renewables means hope and survival.

If we can do it, so can you. As the next COP President, it is your duty to demonstrate leadership. In a letter to country delegations you called on them to deliver 1.5C-aligned NDCs and committed Azerbaijan to doing the same. But keeping 1.5 alive means no fossil fuel expansion.

Yet, this year, your president, Ilham Aliyev, called fossil fuels “a gift from the gods”. For us in the Pacific, such words aren’t just careless — they’re cruel. Our very homes are at risk, and keeping our Pacific homes means no fossil fuel expansion.

‘No more empty words’

Currently, Azerbaijan does not lead. Azerbaijan is nowhere near 1.5-aligned. Your climate goal uses accounting tricks to continue business as usual. You speak of “reducing emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2050”. However, your emissions were much higher in 1990 than they are in the twenty-first century. We need to completely phase out fossil fuels by 2050. Your climate goal is to do nothing while you plan to expand fossil fuels for exports.

Instead of holding the fossil fuel industry to account, you have presented a greenwashing fund to allow industry to continue with business as usual. The fund masks the ongoing expansion of fossil fuel production by SOCAR, your state oil company which is set to be the first to contribute. The $1-billion fund will operate at market rates instead of concessional finance, a pitiful gesture when set against the colossal sums needed for genuine climate action and reparations – a cynical attempt to distract from your country’s destructive environmental practices.

Leaders are cutting fossil fuel finance – next comes unlocking clean energy for all

We can’t afford any more empty words. The world needs you to lead it towards an ambitious and fair new collective finance goal at COP29 to facilitate the global energy transition. We need real, new and transparent finance, coupled with a global effort, particularly on behalf of countries in the Global North and those, like yours and Brazil, that will host international climate summits. It’s your responsibility to make sure that COP29 results in meaningful climate finance commitments and the financial resources to swiftly transition away from fossil fuels for good, with justice, equity and respect at the forefront.

We have neither the time nor the patience for more scams, or games of smoke and mirrors like your greenwashing fund. To keep global warming below 1.5C, we need a full and immediate phase-out of fossil fuels – period.

Azerbaijan must step up with ambitious climate goals before November, especially if it seeks to be seen as a respected climate host. Real climate leadership is not optional; it’s a prerequisite for hosting climate summits – and so should be respecting and upholding human rights and civic space. Now is the time to make real commitments – and to deliver on them.

The post As Pacific Islanders, we need climate action – not greenwashing – from Azerbaijan appeared first on Climate Home News.

It’s a quiet climate success story: over 40 countries and public finance institutions have cut their international public finance to fossil fuels by two-thirds over the past three years.  

At the COP 26 climate talks in Glasgow, UK, 39 countries and public finance institutions launched the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP). They committed to end their overseas public support for fossil fuels and instead scale up their support for clean energy. Joined by Norway and Australia at COP 28, the partnership now numbers 41. 

Our research finds that countries are largely delivering on their promise. Signatories’ collective fossil fuel financing in 2023 amounted to $5.2 billion, a decrease of two-thirds from the pre-CETP baseline. This is a historic achievement. 

There are a few laggards, such as the United States, Italy, Switzerland and Germany, which either still need to change their policies or have passed substandard policies that leave large loopholes for fossil fuel financing. However, even among these signatories fossil fuel finance is falling. 

Clean energy for the rich?

Source: IISD report, August 2024: Out With the Old, Slow With the New

Source: IISD report, August 2024: Out With the Old, Slow With the New

This is symptomatic of a larger issue. In 2023, China and advanced economies accounted for 90% of new solar PV and wind capacity installations, and 85% of investment in renewable energy. The lack of clean energy investment going to emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) outside of China is a worrying trend. 

Crowding in private investment 

Public finance is critical to bridge the gap in clean energy investment. It can lower risk for other investors because it is often provided at preferential below-market rates and longer time horizons. This can crowd in much larger flows of private investment for proposed projects. 

The International Energy Agency estimates that for the world to stay on a 1.5°C pathway, annual concessional funding in EMDEs from developed economies and development finance institutions would need to reach $80-100 billion annually by 2030. 

EU hit with lawsuit over green labelling of aviation and shipping investments

CETP signatories, and other high-income countries and public financial institutions, have an important role to play in scaling up concessional finance for the energy transition in EMDEs. They need to adopt ambitious and quantitative targets for rapidly scaling up good-quality public finance for clean energy. 

To meet the CETP’s clean energy commitment, signatories should, at the very least, aim to provide as much clean energy finance per year as their average pre-CETP fossil fuel support. Ideally, policies should stipulate much larger amounts. 

Avoiding more debt stress 

Policies should target low-income countries for finance to achieve universal energy access. The cost of capital is often higher in these countries due to a range of fiscal, socioeconomic and climate risks. But that should not be an excuse for public development finance institutions not to invest, since they are not driven by the profit motive. 

To be effective, financing needs to be high-quality. From 2020 to 2022, 83% of signatories’ international clean energy finance to low- and lower-middle-income countries was delivered through loans.  

Clean energy finance must not further burden Global South countries, which are spending almost half their budgets servicing debts. Policies must ensure a much larger portion will be delivered through grants and highly concessional instruments.  

Switzerland and Canada propose ways to expand climate finance donors 

The story is not over in terms of shifting public money away from fossil fuels. China, Republic of Korea and Japan are not CETP members, and together they continue to provide an average of $21 billion annually in international public finance for fossil fuels. The next step is to bring these countries along with G20 countries and multilateral development banks on board with the CETP initiative. 

Domestic public finance for fossil fuels persists, as well as fossil fuel subsidies. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies alone exceeded $1.5 trillion in 2022. Ending these subsidies can free up even more public money to invest in solutions for people and planet. 

In the year of the new climate finance goal to be agreed at COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, every penny counts.

The post Leaders are cutting fossil fuel finance – next comes unlocking clean energy for all appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Philippines now finds itself in a position to once more shape the global direction of addressing loss and damage (L&D). 

More than a decade after the landfall of super-typhoon Haiyan changed how the world responded to the climate crisis, the country will host the board of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FLD) for the next few years. This gives it a leadership role in determining how the Fund will run and function to provide much-needed support to those most affected by typhoons, sea level rise, and other impacts.     

This also puts pressure on the national government to not just set the tone for the administration of the Fund, but to prove it can match its global calls for climate justice with policies and solutions at the national level.  

Climate accountability 

The “Climate Accountability (CLIMA) Bill”, currently filed in the Philippines Congress, aims to accomplish two goals. The first is to hold big businesses accountable for their pollutive actions through stronger integration of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights into legal and policy frameworks.  

The legislation also seeks to further empower citizens to seek redress against these businesses for harmful practices that cause violations of their human rights, aligned with the “polluter pays” principle.  

The second objective is the establishment of a national fund for those seeking support after being hit by extreme climate change impacts. It can be seen as a domestic counterpart to the FLD, which makes how it is structured and operationalized just as important to the country’s strategies at the international scale. 

In Hurricane Beryl’s shadow, loss and damage fund makes progress on set-up

If enacted, the proposed legislation would be the first of its kind in the world, serving as a testing ground for some of the critical issues associated with responding to L&D that the rest of the world can follow. One such issue is determining which cases and claims would qualify as “loss and damage” – which is currently a subject of debate at the global level. 

Another issue is putting into practice attribution science, which looks at how climate change and the emissions that worsen it trigger and intensify specific extreme weather events. While still an evolving discipline, this will play an important role in determining just how liable polluters are for causing disastrous storms like Haiyan. 

Adapting current policies 

At the moment, there is no primary climate-related L&D policy in the Philippines. While mechanisms do exist for accounting for losses and damages, these largely cover the impacts and costs of extreme weather events, especially from typhoons and flooding. 
These mechanisms are also more oriented for assessing disasters that are not always climate-related and may not be suitable for assessing the impacts of slow onset events like sea level rise. Furthermore, they are not able to fully capture non-economic costs, such as loss of ecosystem services, impacts on mental health, and loss of cultural heritage. 

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

Along with the CLIMA Bill, the time for a national L&D policy to respond to the climate crisis has never been better than in the next few months. The Philippine government has been actively updating its climate strategies, such as the National Adaptation Plan and an implementation plan for its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.  

Any new law or policy responding to L&D must be in sync with strategies for adaptation and reducing emissions, along with the country’s positions at the Fund’s board and in other global decision-making processes. It must also effectively translate the global urgency of addressing L&D into potential interventions at the national level. 

Widening the responsibility net 

The L&D narrative has been largely anchored on developed countries and fossil fuel corporations needing to be held accountable for causing the climate crisis. Moving forward, this must continue to be upheld in global decision-making processes as the most vulnerable continue to seek and obtain justice. 

In a world first, Grenada activates debt pause after Hurricane Beryl destruction

Nonetheless, as L&D can be interpreted as climate risks and impacts that are beyond existing capacities for adaptation and mitigation, it means that accountability could also be applied to national and local governments, financiers of fossil fuel-related operations, entities spreading climate disinformation, and others that are enhancing these climate risks, impacts, and vulnerabilities. 

Through its statements at the global level and its new policies at the national level, the Philippines could pave the way for a new era in L&D governance. The process will not be easy. Big businesses, local or global, could insinuate that a new climate policy would hurt the economy. Finding enough funding or setting the criteria for who receives support will be difficult.  

Whatever it does, the world will be watching.

The post How can governments tackle loss and damage at the national level? appeared first on Climate Home News.

The global push toward renewable energy, intended to reduce climate-aggravating emissions, has revealed how the environmental and social costs of extracting the minerals it requires fall disproportionately on local communities and ecosystems.  

Many argue that electromobility and renewable energy technologies will help mitigate climate change – but adopting them on a large scale would require a massive increase in the mining of minerals such as lithium, which are key to their development.  

According to the World Bank, the extraction of 3 billion tons of minerals over the next 30 years is crucial to powering the global energy transition. The International Energy Agency further predicts a four-fold increase in mineral extraction by 2040 to meet climate targets.  

However, the rush for these so-called “critical” minerals risks amplifying the very crises it seeks to help solve, exacerbating ecological degradation and perpetuating socio-economic injustice in the Global South. 

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

The very naming of these transition minerals as “critical” creates a false sense of urgency, reinforcing the current damaging system of extraction, and failing to consider the protection of communities, ecosystems, and species in areas of exploitation. 

While mainstream strategies emphasize technological fixes, a deeper examination reveals that, without addressing the broader implications of mineral extraction, the quest for a greener future may only deepen existing environmental and human rights violations.  

UN-backed principles 

The UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals was formed in April this year to identify common and voluntary principles that will help developing countries benefit from equitable, fair and sustainable management of these minerals.  

The Panel brings together strange bedfellows – not least China and the US – and will need to work hard to create consensus to identify principles and recommendations for governments, companies, investors and the international community on human rights, environmental protection, justice and equity in value chains, benefit-sharing, responsible investments, transparency and international collaboration. It must raise the level of ambition and listen directly to civil society organizations and rights-holders, including local communities.  

Our reflection on what the Panel cannot ignore points to three elements: a status quo approach to “development”; a high level of technological optimism concerning mining; and a lack of urgency regarding ecosystem limits and communities’ rights.  

Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone

First, we acknowledge that the Panel is under pressure from powerful actors, but it will need to resist the assertion that mining is always beneficial to the economic growth and prosperity of nations. This status-quo perspective reinforces the notion of unlimited natural resources for human consumption, mirroring the economic development promises of the early 20th century, which contributed to the current climate crisis.   

The Panel must not fail to consider the possibility of degrowth or the imposition of limits on mining activities that could lead to reduced material and energy consumption. Nor should it neglect other forms of traditional and local knowledge that may offer possibilities for alternative development. 

Then, on the impacts, pollution and other ecosystem disruptions caused by mining, it is consistently stated that assessments and evaluations are necessary – and that these can preserve ecosystem integrity.  

The Panel must acknowledge the irreversibility of certain mining impacts on ecosystems, which are already evident. This belies the optimistic view that all mining problems can be resolved through technology, a notion that is both false and unrealistic. What’s more, it undermines the precautionary principle, which calls for protective action from suspected harms, even before scientific proof exists.  

Finally, in the dominant narrative, transition minerals are found in “empty” places, deemed void of life, where only the resources to be extracted are counted. This ignores both the biodiversity and traditional communities that inhabit these areas.  

Indigenous rights at risk 

More than half of the minerals needed for the energy transition are found in or near indigenous territories, which are already facing the consequences of the climate and ecological crisis, such as extreme aridity, permanent water shortages and scarce water availability.  

These impacts may be increased by mining project pressures and mineral extractive activities, which are already facing the impacts of the climate and ecological crisis, such as extreme aridity, permanent water shortages or scarce water availability.  

It is essential to ensure respect for the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination; to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) before projects are begun; to carry out human rights and environmental due diligence; and to ensure not only remediation of impacts but also the ability of local people to maintain their own cultural, social, economic and political ways. 

Lithium tug of war: the US-China rivalry for Argentina’s white gold

In addition, current plans for the extraction of transition minerals are limited to the scale of the mining concession in question, without considering the cumulative impacts derived from others operating in the same area and ignoring the socioeconomic activities already taking place in these ecosystems.  

Instead, it is essential to ensure the bio-capacity of ecosystems to maintain their life-supporting functions and the diversity of uses by communities in territories, not just industrial ones. Decisions on mineral extraction should not be based solely on market demand, but also on the biophysical limits of ecosystems and, more sensibly, on the balance of water systems.    

The UN Panel has been established at a time when we can apply the lessons learned from the historical impacts of mining worldwide. This calls for the Panel to raise the level of ambition of its work by generating and advancing binding guidelines and mechanisms.  

Gathered this week in Nairobi, the Panel is working to set the rules of the game, defining principles and recommendations which will be officially presented in September during the UN General Assembly. It has a unique opportunity to oversee substantive changes to the global energy system – one that we cannot afford to miss. 

The post The UN can set a new course on “critical” transition minerals   appeared first on Climate Home News.

Imagine walking through a city where every building is a testament to sustainability, resilience and innovation. A city built by – and now serving – a prosperous, diverse and cohesive society.   

This vision of Europe is not a distant dream.   

It’s an achievable reality if the European Commission delivers on advancing its sustainable building policy – plans for which should be firmly at the top of President Ursula von der Leyen’s inbox when she returns from summer recess later this month.  

In just a few short weeks, her second term will begin in earnest, as will her second push at keeping Europe’s green transition alive – a five-year marathon to cement both her and the bloc’s environmental legacy. 

The Commission’s activity to date has been commendable. The revision of the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) were key steps towards accelerating climate action in the sector and driving plans under the Renovation Wave to boost energy efficiency in both public and private buildings.   

Renewable-energy carbon credits rejected by high-integrity scheme

In the “Political Guidelines released shortly after her re-election, von der Leyen has shown promising signs of continuing to champion sustainable buildings as a climate solution. There is a pledge to create the first EU commissioner with direct responsibility for housing, while our sector awaits with interest the new “Circular Economy Act”, designed to create market demand for reused and recycled materials. 

This is promising – but von der Leyen must go further both in implementing existing policies and in developing new ones to maximise the holistic benefits of sustainable buildings for everyone. 

We know already that sustainable buildings have huge greenhouse gas reduction potential. Buildings are responsible for about 40% of total energy consumption in the EU and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy, so they can help improve energy security, reducing the bloc’s exposure to geopolitical shocks and reliance on fossil fuels.     

Creating jobs, lowering energy costs 

What isn’t spoken about enough is that they have the potential to address other issues facing Europe today: the cost of living and the unemployment crises.   

For me, these less-discussed issues in the context of buildings are just as, if not more, important due to their co-benefits for people and society.    

Take the energy efficient renovation of buildings, for example. The widespread availability of well-insulated buildings that keep out the heat during summer but retain the warmth during winter will significantly cut energy costs across the continent.   

The benefits of this will be far-reaching, but particularly for vulnerable or low-income households. Given soaring energy bills, improving energy efficiency across buildings would not only reduce associated costs, but also enhance living conditions.   

The benefits of renovating buildings do not stop here.   

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy supply chains

This task alone could create millions of employment opportunities across Europe: 18 jobs are created for every €1 million invested in this type of renovation.   

Bearing in mind figures from the European Commission, which calculated that €275 billion will be needed annually to bridge the building renovation gap in the EU, this level of investment could lead to nearly 5 million extra jobs across the bloc.   

Not only that, there is a real financial incentive for national governments to look towards investing in the building sector to save in the long run. Data from the Spanish government showed that while supporting one person through unemployment cost €20,000, funding a new construction role amounted to €14,000, a significant decrease. These statistics show a real-world example of how buildings can both address governmental issues and create better prospects for individuals.   

Blueprint ready to go 

Europe is at a significant moment in its history.   

We are only five years away from 2030, a deadline by which Europe committed to slash half its emissions, determining whether it will be on track to become the first climate-neutral continent. Yet the recent parliamentary elections showed a record number of seats from parties that could make the path to net zero more challenging. 

Von der Leyen has a real chance to confirm her legacy of green policies by driving an energy-efficient, regenerative and just transition in the built environment. World Green Building Council’s Europe Regional Network stands ready to continue to build momentum with the Commission over the next five years and create tangible benefits at the individual, societal and national levels.   

Let’s create a brighter, equitable and more sustainable future for all of Europe. The blueprint is ready; we just need to turn it into reality.   

The World Green Building Council leads BuildingLife, a project that drives the Commission’s EU Green Deal across the bloc by working to eliminate the whole-life carbon impact of buildings. 

The post How better buildings can help von der Leyen maintain her green legacy    appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seventh Assessment Report can and must be ready in time for the second Global Stocktake (GST).

The IPCC report plays a pivotal role in assessing climate change science and informing government decisions, especially in the context of multilateral negotiations. 

The GST is a key element of the Paris Agreement, designed to evaluate the world’s progress towards long-term climate goals. It must be conducted “in the light of equity and the best available science,” underscoring the importance of IPCC assessments as a primary input for the GST.

As an IPCC author from the Global South, I believe that ensuring the IPCC cycle aligns with GST timelines is crucial for maintaining the integrity of international climate cooperation. 

Efforts to enhance the inclusion of developing country voices should be prioritized over inordinate delays, which could risk the irrelevance of the IPCC report for the second Global Stocktake – taking place in 2028.

Concerns over accelerating process

A delayed production at the three IPCC working groups—which craft three reports covering the physical science of climate change, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation— is being justified under three main arguments.

First, those in favour of delaying the report claim that expediting the process could risk a lack of representation of underrepresented communities. A delay may impact the inclusion of voices from the Global South and non-English speakers, reducing the diversity of perspectives essential for a comprehensive assessment.

Comment: It’s time for Azerbaijan to shift gears on diplomacy ahead of COP29

Another argument is that the topics covered in the report could also be reduced in range. Ensuring a broad array of topics is vital for addressing the multifaceted nature of climate change and providing a holistic understanding.

Finally, delays would risk spreading out key messages from the different IPCC working groups. Timely integration of insights from the different working groups is crucial for a cohesive and comprehensive assessment.

Measures for inclusion 

The IPCC’s role is to provide credible scientific assessments to the UNFCCC process and national decision-makers. Time constraints may lead to some compromises, but it is better to minimize these than to forego IPCC input entirely. The IPCC must ensure its assessments are available in time for the second GST to maintain its relevance and impact on global climate policy-making.

On the inclusion of underrepresented communities, ensuring representation is more about deliberate efforts than merely the time available. Creating networks for southern scholars, facilitating special issues in academic journals, and convening regional meetings can enhance representation.

Delegates convene in a huddle on the fourth day of IPCC-61 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou

Focused attention on these efforts in the next IPCC cycle is more effective than strictly adhering to traditional timelines. My experience as an IPCC author from the Global South indicates that inclusion results from proactive initiatives rather than extended timelines.

Successive IPCC cycles have increasingly included literature from developing regions and better represented perspectives from the Global South. For instance, AR6 highlighted issues of equity, impacts on vulnerable communities, and development pathways relevant to developing countries.

Without IPCC input, the GST may lack essential Southern perspectives. The direction of travel within the IPCC has been towards greater concern for under-represented regions, countries, and research communities. Removing IPCC input risks losing an important source of southern perspectives.

No risk of losing quality

Accelerating the cycle by a few months does not significantly compromise the report’s robustness. Past assessments have been completed within five to six years, and with urgency, drafting and expert reviews can be slightly expedited.

Reviews by governments remain crucial to the science-policy interface. The effective time required for a single working group report is approximately four years from the call for experts for the scoping meeting. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, it is feasible to shorten the drafting and review process by a few months without compromising the quality.

Concerns about topic range and integration can be mitigated through proper planning of publications and coordinated efforts across working groups. Modifying the assessment report process to be more flexible is preferable to rendering the IPCC policy irrelevant. Appropriate planning can achieve a significant degree of integration, even if not perfect.

UN chief appeals for global action to tackle deadly extreme heat

Designing the IPCC cycle in ways that prevent input to the GST risks undercutting an essential element of international cooperation—providing scientific assessment to political decision-makers.

Concerns about the under-representation of developing country voices are legitimate but can be better addressed by redoubling efforts to enhance these voices in the IPCC, rather than through delay. Ensuring timely IPCC input to the second GST is essential for effective global action on climate change and for the voices of developing countries to be adequately represented.

This opinion piece is adapted from a letter written by Dr Sokona and 39 other IPCC authors from developing countries ahead of the IPCC’s plenary session in Sofia, Bulgaria

The post The IPCC must produce its flagship report in time for the next UN global stocktake appeared first on Climate Home News.

July will be a month of records. Athletes and spectators gather for the Paris Olympics to celebrate feats of human endurance and record-breaking achievement. But July is also seeing records of another kind breaking.

This month we experienced the hottest day ever in over 120,000 years meaning global temperatures are now the highest they have ever been as a result of climate change caused by burning coal, oil and gas, and deforestation. 

This also means real-world impacts – every day, every hour and every minute. Just in the past few weeks, Hurricane Beryl destroyed parts of the Caribbean, a heatwave caused power outages in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and there were severe floods in Kenya. 

In just four months, Azerbaijan will be in the global spotlight for two weeks when it will be responsible for spearheading UN climate talks in Baku. Government, businesses, media and civil society are anxious to know what the COP29 Presidency has been doing to shift the gears on diplomacy and ramp up global ambition. 

COP29 priorities

In its recent Letter to Parties, the COP29 Presidency outlined some of its processes leading to Baku. It said its two pillars are to “Enhance Ambition, Enable Action”.  It has pursued a raft of initiatives, but these will not pave the way for the systems change that is required.

The task at hand is clear.

First, we need a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. Second, we need a strong climate finance goal to deliver on this. Third, we need countries to submit ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that respond to the Global Stocktake and robustly adhere to the science. 

Comment: A global wealth tax is needed to help fund a just green transition

The COP29 Presidency has a crucial strategic role to play in building pressure on countries to demonstrate what they are doing to meet all these commitments. Finding the landing ground on these pillars cannot wait until November. The real work is done in the months and weeks before the summit.

Let’s not forget that the COP28 deal was meant to mark the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. Yet, progress on this since the Dubai summit has been woefully slow. The window for a 1.5℃ future is closing fast and Azerbaijan, a significant fossil exporter itself, cannot ignore the root cause of the problem.

Finance deal

Similarly, we must avert a failure to agree to the new climate finance goal in Baku.

The Presidency says negotiating a fair and ambitious New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) is their priority. If that’s the case, then the clock is ticking. Effectively leading these finance talks will require proactive steps and a recognition of the scale of financing required. At least $1 trillion of investment is needed for climate and environment by 2030.

Azerbaijan’s proposal for a  Climate Finance Action Fund (yet another fund with insufficient money!) would rightly mean a mechanism through which polluters do finally pay. However, this cannot be used as an excuse for countries to continue with fossil fuel expansion.

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

The recent appointment of Denmark’s Dan Jørgensen and Egypt’s Yasmine Fouad as a Ministerial Pairing for the finance deal is welcome.

But in addition to their support, there has to be political will for system change. There must be alignment on areas of agreement and expectations. Balancing the needs and demands of 190+ countries is challenging. But by engaging with champions from business, government and civil society across the board it can be done.

Civil society engagement

Azerbaijan does not need to reinvent the wheel with shiny new deals. Creating the enabling conditions and encouraging countries to implement existing commitments can have the greatest impact on tackling the climate crisis. 

Azerbaijan will benefit from continuing to engage tirelessly with credible actors who can help it avoid pitfalls and needless mistakes. Sporadic consultations will not suffice; consistent dialogue is key.

Lastly, Azerbaijan should be prepared for intense scrutiny from the media and civil society.

In the coming weeks and months, it must engage openly and transparently with those who will question its actions and motives. They must avoid increasing distrust in the process. They must directly address concerns over the COP being co-opted by fossil fuel interests as well as reports that it is intensifying a crackdown on civil society. 

Azerbaijan’s role as the host of COP29 places it in a position of significant responsibility and opportunity not only to advance the negotiations but build a legacy for the climate regime and future generations. Setting clear timelines, leveraging expert advice, intensifying finance talks and keeping pressure on countries to deliver can all result in a successful COP.

The post It’s time for Azerbaijan to shift gears on diplomacy ahead of COP29 appeared first on Climate Home News.

When G20 finance ministers gather in Rio de Janeiro this week, Brazil and France have a chance to put these powerful countries on track to deliver a global wealth tax that could raise over $680 billion per year in the fight to tackle poverty and the climate crisis. Both countries have been vocal supporters of taxing the super-rich to fund international development and climate action.  

In April, finance ministers Fernando Haddad (Brazil) and Bruno Le Maire (France) announced their intent to tax the wealth of billionaires by at least two percent annually, prompting ministers from Germany, South Africa and Spain to back the proposal. As the current host of the G20, Brazil commissioned an investigation into the feasibility of this global wealth tax – and the results were published by French economist Gabriel Zucman in June, generating further momentum in efforts to fill the funding gap for climate and development.  

Zucman’s findings show that a global wealth tax on the super-rich – billionaires and people with assets worth more than $100 million – could be enforced successfully even if all countries did not adopt it. It is also a popular measure: more than two-thirds of people across seventeen G20 countries show support for making the super-rich pay higher taxes as a means of funding major improvements to our economy and lifestyles.  

This isn’t surprising. Ensuring that billionaires are properly taxed could deliver significant, tangible benefits in people’s lives and go some way to addressing the systemic injustices and inequality reflected by the climate crisis and poverty. 

The world needs a new global deal on climate and development finance

An ambitious global wealth tax, together with higher and permanent tax on oil corporations and extraction, would provide hundreds of billions of dollars/euros each year to properly fund scaling up renewable energy, rolling out heat pumps and insulation programmes to lower the cost of heating or cooling our homes, new public transport links, future-proof jobs and much more – helping communities to thrive.  

It would also end more than a decade of broken promises by G20 states, ensuring that some of the world’s wealthiest countries have enough money in their national coffers to provide adequate finance to pay for those suffering the consequences of climate impacts now. Helping the poorest communities prepare for unnatural disasters like increased wildfires, flooding and sea level rise, and ensuring people can rebuild their homes, infrastructure and places of work when preventative measures are not an option. 

Power to communities

A global wealth tax is a moral imperative. By implementing a fairer system of taxation, the G20 could accelerate a just transition to a low-carbon economy, cutting dangerous carbon emissions and boosting living standards and energy access at great scale, while also tackling deep-rooted injustice. Delivering finance for community-oriented renewable energy projects across Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific would put power back in the hands of communities that continue to suffer from the violent legacy of colonialism and extractive profiteering. 

For this to be achieved France, and other wealthy nations in the G20 like Germany and the UK, must be willing to make concessions and assume historical responsibility for exploiting fossil fuel extraction in the economically poorer countries whose citizens are experiencing the worst consequences of the climate crisis. The emerging French government must deliver concrete plans to redirect its fortune and tax its billionaires towards a renewable energy-powered planet. 

Where East African oil pipeline meets sea, displaced farmers bemoan “bad deal” on compensation

It is incumbent on both Brazil and France to seize the opportunity presented by growing support to deliver a global wealth tax at the meeting of powerful finance ministers this week. Both countries must do everything they can to build trust and political will around the crucial proposal. But this will be a challenge if they undermine their stance on the international stage with contrasting domestic policy, something both governments are guilty of. 

Brazil has been pushing for new oil projects, including in the Amazon and is gearing up to become the fourth-largest oil producer in the world. France, despite being fined by the European Commission, is still not on track to meet its domestic renewable energy targets and announced in February a two billion-euro cut to the budget allocated for environmental and energy transition programmes. It is high time for both countries to stop the smoke and mirrors approach to international diplomacy, by aligning their commitments at national and international levels. 

Leaders’ summit

This week, ministers Haddad and Le Maire have a responsibility to rally their G20 counterparts around the wealth tax proposal and send a strong and unified signal to heads of state and governments to take concrete action that delivers a global wealth tax on billionaires when they meet in November. 

The stakes are high. The vast scale of global inequality means that nearly one in eleven people around the world live below the poverty line according the World Bank. In addition, this is set to be yet another record-breaking year for climate impacts, in a critical decade to prevent global heating from tipping over the 1.5°C threshold – a limit beyond which the ability of impacted communities to survive and thrive will be put at intolerable risk. We need to see vast quantities of finance mobilised to scale up renewable energy at the speed needed, and billionaires and multi-millionaires need to be forced to pay up.  

We’re all rooting for this one to work – it can take us a long way.

The post A global wealth tax is needed to help fund a just green transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

There are few moments in life that count forever. Choosing who (and if) to marry, becoming a parent, buying a house… Before all of these come the last years of the Greek Lykeio (senior high school) and the critical final exams held during the month of June. The grades one gets at the end of those three years give shape to all the life milestones to come.  

This year’s exams – especially their final days, June 11-13 – were for sure memorable… Temperatures soared to 43C in the month of June in much of the country – an unprecedented occurrence in our lifetime, which forced us to go through this important rite of passage at the end of high school in unbearable conditions.  

Difficulty to focus and breathe, dry mouths during oral exams, stifling heat slowing one’s handwriting, and temperatures that the human body cannot endure for long – these were not the ideal conditions for a successful graduation.  

But the heatwave that messed up our graduation exams is not just bad luck. It is the result of very bad decisions. Recent studies have attributed Greece’s searing heat and ensuing wildfires of the past years to climate change. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that the burning of fossil fuels is a primary cause for the excessive heating and rapidly rising temperatures.

Saudi visa crackdown left heatwave-hit Hajj pilgrims scared to ask for help

This year’s heatwave was not only intense, but earlier than in previous years. As schools close for three months in the summer when the summer heat is high, there is normally not much need for air conditioning and most public schools don’t have more than ceiling fans to cool off.  

The climate crisis has become an unfair obstacle to our individual prospects, affecting our entire generation across countries and continents. Of course, we will work hard to go through all the precious moments that life can offer, but it will be impossible to look back at this boiling month of June and ignore how badly it impacted our grades – and our future.  

This might be a year that fossil fuels, and the companies that profit out of them, stole our opportunity to make memories and build a bright future. 

Climate chaos hitting children

What we have missed in Greece this year pales in comparison to what others around the world have lost. Millions are displaced by floods in Bangladesh, while wildfires and storms claim victims from the Caribbean to China and Canada.  

Children are often those more severely affected: we’re living through a global decline in the provision of education, with the number of children missing out on schooling inflating to a quarter billion. Extreme heat waves, fuelled by fossil fuel companies, threaten our generation’s future. In our times, the climate crisis is no longer just a warning. It is a harsh reality that is affecting our daily lives. 

Climate chaos is real – and we are already facing its impacts. Yet governments have failed to move beyond fossil fuels and continue to depend on oil and gas companies, whose profits have been going strong, at an average of $3 billion a day for the last 50 years.  

UK court ruling provides ammo for anti-fossil fuel lawyers worldwide

Big oil and gas majors like Shell, TotalEnergies, and ENI have known about the impacts of climate change for decades. Yet even though they kept making record profits – they never devoted their talents and resources to fix the problem. They didn’t use their political ties to ring the alarm bell. They rather invested millions and millions in greenwashing and denial.  

Many others knew as well. Even our grandparents knew the lines of Greek singer Cat Stevens (today Yusuf Islam): “You roll on roads… pumping petrol gas… But they just go on and on and it seems that you can’t get off.” It was impossible to ignore.  

Now it’s definitely time to jump off the fossil fuel wagon. Our generation must devote all its energies to raise awareness of how climate chaos is affecting us all, and to mobilise more people to support climate and environmental action. Alternatives must be pursued, and historical polluters must pay for all that they’ve taken from us – including our future. 

The post To keep its profits, Big Oil stole our future  appeared first on Climate Home News.

At COP29 in Baku in November, the world will come together to agree a new target for climate finance. The stakes are huge given record temperatures and heatwaves, floods and droughts wreaking havoc globally.  

Tackling climate change and its consequences – and supporting wider human development – needs urgent investment. But the international financial system is struggling to respond. Is it time now to agree a new framework for international climate and development finance? Can the G20 under Brazil’s leadership, and international leaders meeting at the United Nations in New York in September, prepare the ground for COP29?  

Almost 54 years ago, in 1970, the world came together at the UN to set a target for rich countries to support poorer countries. They promised 0.7% of national income as “official development assistance” (ODA) to improve economic outcomes and reduce poverty. At the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009, world leaders again came together and promised to mobilise an annual $100bn to finance climate action by 2020. They said this would be “new and additional” to development finance.  

Hurricane Beryl shows why the new UK government must ramp up climate finance

Since then, with the exception of a few Europeans, rich nations have failed to meet the 0.7% target. In 2022, ODA peaked at $211bn, or 0.37% of combined OECD national income. Almost 15% of this was used to finance refugee-related costs in OECD countries themselves. The climate commitment was met in 2022, two years late. Without ODA levels rising, the 33% of ODA classified as climate-related cannot reasonably be claimed as “additional”.   

 In practice, maintaining this distinction between climate and development finance has proved difficult. For example, is planting trees in an urban landscape a climate investment because it absorbs emissions, a health investment because it reduces street-level temperatures, or a biodiversity investment as it creates habitats for wildlife? 

 The challenge of navigating these distinctions means it is difficult to track commitments or secure meaningful accountability against promises made. And it leaves many countries juggling a false trade-off between investments for the planet and for their people.  

Trillions needed

It is absolutely clear, however, that financing for poorer countries needs to increase dramatically. Despite progress over recent decades, development needs remain significant, with major setbacks through the pandemic. The Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance estimates, presented to the G20, indicate that by 2030 $5.4 trillion a year will be needed for development, climate and nature. Of this, $1 trillion a year will be required in external financing for developing countries for climate and nature alone, of which roughly half will need to come from international public finance.  

International public finance – including new and additional aid finance from rich countries – is needed to provide concessional resources for the poorest and most indebted countries. It is needed to anchor capital increases for international financial institutions that can leverage this at least ten-fold, in part by borrowing from private capital markets. These institutions, together with other development finance institutions and strong policy environments, are key to bringing in private lenders and investors, whether by reducing risk or helping develop investment pipelines. 

The Loss and Damage Fund must not leave fragile states behind

As well as additional finance, poorer countries need money that better responds to their needs. In recent years, the relentless cycle of summits has spawned dozens of initiatives. The landscape is fragmented, with over 80 funds or instruments in the climate space alone. It has become increasingly difficult for poor countries to navigate this. There is an urgent need for a moratorium on new funds and to agree principles and coordination mechanisms for all external finance – building on the aid effectiveness principles agreed in the 2000s. 

Binding 0.7% commitment?

Taking these elements together, is it time now to drop the voluntary framework of ODA crafted in the last century to meet the problems of the last century? Can countries come together now to agree a new framework for official climate and development assistance, with a binding commitment for rich countries to finally meet the 0.7% national income promise by, say, 2030?  

Such a target, negotiated under a UN framework, would double the flow of aid finance. That funding would anchor multilateral, public and private investments that are needed to close the financing gap. A negotiated process could also bring in emerging countries like China that already provide significant finance. It could clarify definitions and shift arrangements for monitoring climate and other development spend from the OECD to the UN to improve accountability. And it could begin to consolidate the range of instruments and make them more responsive to the needs of poor countries. 

With public finances under strain around the world, many will say this is simply unaffordable. But international polling indicates that people are willing to contribute 1% of their income to fight climate change. Will politicians have the courage to engage their electorates? And at the G20, in the UN, in the lead up to Baku and beyond, will they have the vision to collaborate internationally to agree a new deal that delivers both development and climate justice? 

The post The world needs a new global deal on climate and development finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

This month has been unprecedented, even in a news cycle that has grown increasingly immune to ever-worsening climate catastrophes. After Beryl, a powerful category five hurricane, smashed its way across the Caribbean, an alarming report by the Copernicus Climate Change Service found that the planet has breached 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming for the twelfth month straight.  

For a new UK government pledging to take strong climate action at home, this must be a wake-up call for it to act on its historic responsibilities as a major global greenhouse gas polluter. These two alarming events alone show why it must put climate finance at the heart of its climate agenda as COP29 rapidly approaches. 

In Hurricane Beryl’s shadow, loss and damage fund makes progress on set-up

The Caribbean is one of the regions most at risk of climate change, with 70 percent of its population living or working in coastal areas surrounded by ever-warming seas that make hurricanes like Beryl more common and more violent. While a category five hurricane is unprecedented this early in the year, forecasters have already predicted that the region could experience up to seven severe hurricanes between now and the end of October.  

Extreme climate shocks are not only wreaking havoc, claiming lives, and destroying whole communities – they are also severely affecting the region’s tourism-dependent economies. Already it’s been estimated that the clean-up alone will cost tens of millions of dollars – a cost that doesn’t even begin to factor in what’s needed to rebuild destroyed communities still paying the price of previous disasters – crises that are gendered in their nature.  

Costly damage

Women and girls are more than 14 times more likely to be killed by climate shocks, according to Women’s Environmental Leadership Australia, while our own research found that women also face an increased risk of non-economic impacts such as gender-based violence and forced child marriage.

Hurricane Maria – the deadliest Atlantic hurricane to make landfall in the 21st century – cost the island nation of Dominica an estimated 225 percent of its GDP, while Hurricane Irma in the same year cost Antigua and Barbuda more than $136 million in damages, with the tourism industry representing around 44 percent of all losses.  

Even seven years on, the scale of the destruction has meant that communities are still rebuilding while dealing with hurricanes that worsen with intensity and frequency with each passing year. Yet, despite this, small island nations that have only contributed around 1% of all global carbon emissions, have struggled to unlock climate finance, accessing a mere $1.5bn out of the $100bn pledged in total to Global South countries.   

Negative debt spiral

To make matters worse, countries across the Caribbean have no choice but to turn to international financial institutions and take on eye-watering levels of debt to help communities regain their footing. Debt laden with restrictive repayment conditions further locks countries into a negative spiral – forcing governments to shape their economies and societies in order to service their debts.  

All this means that small island nations are left to play catch up, forever stuck on the back foot. Instead of spending the meagre levels of finance pledged to resilience-proofing their economies and communities, loans are used to service debts while interest rates for repayments globally remain at a record high.  

In its manifesto, Britain’s Labour Party spoke about “tackling unsustainable debt” as a “priority area” in its global commitments – indeed a positive step forward. But in power we need it to act and end the colonial debt system and support countries in the Caribbean and beyond move towards a just and climate resilient future. 

The Loss and Damage Fund must not leave fragile states behind

For a new government keen to show global leadership on climate, this year’s COP summit is a vital moment for the UK to play a much stronger role on climate finance than its Conservative predecessors. As the fourth-highest historic carbon emitter in the world, the UK has a moral and historic responsibility to address climate change, but its actions haven’t matched its words so far. 

During its election campaign, Labour failed to pledge new funds to address the huge gulf in climate financing for losses and damages, opting instead to simply deliver the previous government’s low-ball commitments to spend £11.6bn between 2021-2026. With nations set to meet at COP this year to define new annual climate finance commitments for Global South countries – known as the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) – Labour needs to be much more ambitious in Azerbaijan. The future of communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis depends on it. 

Now, in the words of Grenada’s Prime Minister Dickson Mitchell, is not the time for countries like the UK to “sit idly by with platitudes and tokenism.” Now is the time for radical action and for the new UK government to stand up and deliver for the billions of people facing a runaway climate emergency. 

The post Hurricane Beryl shows why the new UK government must ramp up climate finance  appeared first on Climate Home News.

As the Loss and Damage Fund’s board meets this week, it is addressing key issues such as selecting a host country, how to disburse its financial resources, and lobbying for more funding from donors. However, the agenda currently doesn’t address the challenges communities in fragile contexts will face in accessing the fund. This oversight mirrors a recurring pattern in international climate talks, where the needs and realities of fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS) often receive little to no attention. 

FCS, as defined by the World Bank, experience high levels of institutional and social fragility and violent conflict. These nations, which include Afghanistan, Mali and Niger to name a few, often face extreme climate hazards and struggle to cope due to weak institutions, poor governance, and ongoing conflict.  

Together, fragility and climate risks make these countries particularly vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis. Because of their vulnerability, fragile contexts are frequently deemed too risky for climate finance investments, as project partners find it challenging to operate and donors are concerned about their return on investment.   

A simmering conflict over one of Latin America’s biggest wind hubs confronts Mexico’s next president

While the Paris Agreement prioritizes Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) for international climate finance, LDCs and SIDS with additional challenges like violent conflict and fragility face barriers, receiving significantly less financing than more stable regions.  

Mercy Corps’ analysis reveals that the 10 most fragile states received only $223 million in climate adaptation financing in 2021, less than 1% of total flows. Without prioritizing the unique needs of fragile contexts, the Loss and Damage Fund risks excluding these climate-vulnerable communities once again. 

Action needed from the start

There are no references to fragility or conflict in the COP decision that established the Loss and Damage Fund or the Governing Instrument, which sets the Fund’s rules and practices. Additionally, there is no mention of how fragile or conflict-affected places in more “stable” countries will receive financing through the Fund.  

Fragility and conflict can limit how communities and institutions across a particular country respond to climate impacts. For example, in Northern Kenya, where Mercy Corps implements several climate adaptation and food security programs, unpredictable rainfall affects water resources, creating pressure on pastoral livelihoods and leading to conflict over water and pasture. Relatively weak institutions at the local government and community level lack the capabilities and resources to plan and implement climate adaptation interventions.

If the Loss and Damage Fund does not address how to support both fragile states and contexts like Northern Kenya now, it will be hard to incorporate these considerations later.   

New South African government fuels optimism for faster energy transition

Advocating for specific challenges in fragile contexts during the Fund’s initial setup is crucial, as evidenced by Mercy Corps’ experience with the multi-billion-dollar UN-backed Green Climate Fund (GCF). Although the GCF has made strides to consider communities affected by climate change, conflict, and fragility through its policies and programs, including endorsing the UAE’s Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace at COP28 last year, it still struggles to effectively serve communities in fragile contexts.  

Prioritizing finance for those who need it most

At the second meeting of the Loss and Damage Fund’s board this week, its members should take the following steps to realize the Fund’s promise and ensure loss and damage financing reaches those who truly need it most: 

1. Designate a board member for fragile and conflict-affected situations: This idea, initially proposed by Afghanistan for the GCF, was never fully realized. Board Members play an important role in shaping the policies and procedures of the Loss and Damage Fund and in the future, approving projects. Additionally, an active observer from civil society can represent the views of FCS at Board meetings.
2. Develop a framework to identify “particularly vulnerable” countries: The Loss and Damage Fund board will need to determine which countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change and thus, eligible to receive financing. To ensure a comprehensive understanding of vulnerability, the LDF must include fragility metrics such as economic, political, social cohesion, and security dimensions in any forthcoming vulnerability framework. 
3. Develop and approve operational policies and frameworks for fragile contexts: To effectively utilize loss and damage finance, the Fund should adopt policies and tools that allow fragile contexts to flexibly respond to shocks and disrupt the climate-conflict cycle. Mercy Corps’ Assessment for Adaptation to Conflict and Climate Threats, for example, examines the dynamics between climate change and conflict, and identifies entry points and approaches to interrupt the cycle of fragility. In Mali and Niger, where we piloted this tool, program participants identified the rainy season – especially the beginning and the end – as the time when many of the land-based conflicts take place between farmers and herders. It is being used by the UK government to plan ways to resolve tensions and support women who are particularly vulnerable.   

The creation of the Loss and Damage Fund was a significant victory for nations that have contributed the least to climate change yet bear the brunt of its impacts. The board of the Loss and Damage Fund now has a critical opportunity to ensure inclusion and equity by guaranteeing that all communities, especially those in fragile and conflict-affected states, have access to the necessary funding to address loss and damage. It is imperative that no one is left behind in this global effort to combat the climate crisis.

The post The Loss and Damage Fund must not leave fragile states behind  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Global temperatures have crossed 1.1^oC above pre-industrial levels. They are likely to cross the 1.5^oC Paris Agreement threshold within the next decade, and despite countries’ pledges to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions entering the atmosphere, the world is likely to breach  2^oC of warming.

Moving beyond these thresholds significantly raises the threat of irreversible tipping points around the world. 

While scientists insist that decarbonization efforts, net-zero targets, and wide-scale adaptation must be prioritized, the Global Stocktake Report notes that our emissions keep rising. Given this race against time, controversial approaches are being put on the table, such as solar radiation modification (SRM, also known as solar geoengineering), a potential stopgap measure against worsening climate change. 

Still in its research infancy, SRM refers to large-scale, intentional interventions that increase the amount of sunlight reflected back into space to counteract some types of climate change impacts.

If ever used, it is proposed as a range of relatively fast-acting approaches with potential global benefits, but even this may well be debatable. Governance over the use or non-use of these technologies needs a global approach that requires deep public understanding. 

Untangling uncertainty

SRM technologies offer two sides of the same coin –  potential benefits include reducing global temperature rise and secondary benefits such as slowing the rate of sea level rise, and limiting harm to the poles, but potential risks include impacts on precipitation patterns, agriculture, and biodiversity. 

Uncertainty exists in both the science and the social response.

The usefulness of SRM in the context of climate change is deeply dependent on how science unfolds, who the decision makers are, who has access, willingness, capacity and resources required to master these technologies and the context within which it exists.

Nations fail to agree ban or research on solar geoengineering

To be clear, SRM is not a solution to climate change. It can only be considered alongside robust decarbonization and adaptation efforts. Given the early stages of the development of SRM, more information, discussion, and open-minded conversations with broad groups of stakeholders are needed.

We are at a clear inflection point for the field where momentum is clearly shifting in funding, research, media, and governance. However, much of the narrative about SRM is currently being built in the Global North, where the majority of research and funding on this subject exists.

African voices unheard

The use, or non-use, of this suite of technologies will have global impacts. It is all the more important for the Global South to be actively and effectively engaged with SRM research and governance, due to its potential impacts on their climate vulnerable communities. 

Despite Africa’s low contributions (< 4%) to global greenhouse gas emissions, it suffers disproportionate climate change impacts. Its agrarian-dependent economy  necessitates an elevated interest in changing local and regional weather patterns; there are strong incentives for Africa to better understand the physical and socio-economic implications of SRM. 

African research and policy perspectives on SRM are starting, highlighting several gaps that exist in understanding how these technologies may benefit or harm the continent’s climate efforts.

EU “green” funds invest millions in expanding coal giants in China, India

One key example is the recent deliberation on a SRM resolution at the Sixth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6). The Africa Group (AG) functioned as a bloc during the deliberation, and proposed the establishment of a publicly accessible repository of existing scientific information, research, and activities on SRM, including submissions from member states and stakeholders.

While the resolution did not reach consensus, the deliberations signified an important shift that African nations are starting to weigh in on the issue. 

Building awareness

But more resources, expertise, and engagement are necessary to generate African knowledge and capacity across a range of sectors to contribute to – and start leading – SRM deliberations in the international sphere.

Policymakers across Africa need access to relevant information and an informed civil society sector to shape decisions. Diverse perspectives on whether and how to consider SRM, with grounding and knowledge in the near term, can help African nations prepare for the critical decisions to come.   

Building awareness on this topic, with unbiased information rooted in science and based in the African context, will provide answers from both physical and social science perspectives for inclusive and fair SRM decision-making.

UN action on gender and climate faces uphill climb as warming hurts women

Driving demand to focus on specific issues that Africans are raising, and building their capacity to govern through their key government and NGO institutions, is necessary to enable informed deliberations on SRM regulations at national, regional and international levels. 

This summer, the African Climate Foundation and The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering are kicking off a series of Africa-focused workshops to build knowledge around the science, governance, and justice dimensions of SRM.

The first two in the series will highlight African scientists and thought leaders and are virtual and open to the public.

We hope to catalyze interest and engagement across the African continent, widen public discourse on SRM and ensure these discussions go beyond certain circles of experts and the negotiating community. Debates on SRM need to reflect the full spectrum of interests in Africa, and it is time for voices across the continent to coordinate and coalesce.

The post Africa cannot afford to be complacent about solar radiation management appeared first on Climate Home News.

Europe’s first comprehensive climate risk assessment, published in May, sent a clear and unequivocal message: climate risks facing Europe have reached a critical level and urgently require decisive actions from European policymakers.  

Yet the recent EU parliamentary elections – which delivered significant gains for Europe’s far-right and dealt a blow to its green parties – alongside a recently leaked list of EU Council priorities for the next five years, indicate a marked U-turn in the EU’s commitment to climate action.  

The EU has faced a dramatically changed geopolitical situation over the past few years, marked by the upsurge of far-right political forces in several member states, growing trade-tensions with China, and a humanitarian disaster and heightened energy security risk caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.  

Against this backdrop, EU policymakers have had to make tough decisions on strengthening security in Europe, diverting their attention to defense, security and migration issues, although this has come at the expense of the EU’s much flagged international climate leadership and green agenda.  

IEA calls for next national climate plans to target coal phase-down

We argue that the EU should stay the course on climate action. Despite geopolitical turns and a backlash from some industries over legislation brought on by the Green Deal, European policymakers have a responsibility to follow through on climate commitments – and thereby avoid the tremendous risks that face us if they do not. 

Exacerbating geopolitical risks 

Protests have included those by European farmers against sustainability provisions in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Recently, the EU Council only just managed to approve the highly anticipated, but embattled Nature Restoration Law, thanks to a rare display of political defiance by the Austrian environment minister.  

The law provides critical policy levers for improving Europe’s much degraded ecosystems, strengthening their resilience towards climate change. Hence this vote was critical, although it may still face a legal challenge.  

Despite dilution, officials say new nature law can restore EU carbon sinks

There is ample irony in the notion that political efforts and financial resources should be diverted to enhance Europe’s defence and security capabilities and strengthen the EU’s external borders from human migration. Climate change is certain to exacerbate the impacts and risks from geopolitical conflicts and wars and will be the mega-driver of migration over the coming years. 

And while legislation that requires businesses to take action on climate change and biodiversity loss is certainly going to be burdensome for some, these costs pale in comparison with the effects that climate change will have on the European economy.  

Corporate credit rating downgrades due to companies’ exposure to climate risks have already accelerated, according to S&P Global. And climate-induced disruptions of supply chains are likely to cost the global economy up to $25 trillion over the next 35 years under the current trajectory. Much of this cost will be borne by businesses. 

Ways to protect Europe 

EU-level policies are currently dangerously inadequate to safeguard European lives and livelihoods from the majority of the potentially catastrophic threats that will loom over Europe in the coming years and decades.  

But there are solutions, if bold action is taken in the following areas: 

• Protect and restore marine and coastal ecosystems by minimising pressures from overfishing, agricultural runoff and other industrial activities to avoid disastrous degradation of marine ecosystems. 
• Conserve and restore Europe’s forests through the recently passed Nature Restoration Law to safeguard Europe’s ecosystems and their many services on which the European economy and wider society heavily depend. 
• Leverage the Common Agricultural Policy to strengthen incentives and policy certainty for transforming and adapting Europe’s agricultural sector to extreme heat and drought. 
• Shore up the preparedness of healthcare systems and resources against the impacts of heat waves on vulnerable populations and outdoor workers, especially in southern Europe.  

• Bolster investments in climate adaptation abroad. This support will also be critical to reduce cascading climate risks that originate beyond Europe’s outer borders.   

With this comprehensive body of scientific evidence and advice at hand, European policymakers must resist the urge to adopt a tunnel-vision approach and focus solely on near-term risks, but rather approach climate change as a systemic threat to European’s economy, society and natural capital.  

The scientific community already has called on policymakers to reverse the current course of retreat from the EU environmental agenda, in an open letter to the EU’s legislative bodies.  

EU warns “delaying tactics” have made plastic treaty deal “very difficult”

The actions taken by the incoming group of elected lawmakers and appointed officials will determine the level of harm and damage European citizens will have to endure over the coming decades. It is critical that European policymakers take the long view.  

The decisions and actions they take today will lock our children’s future onto a path. Only today’s policymakers can make sure that path takes us towards a world that can sustain a functioning social order and human life.  

The post New European Parliament must act on climate change as a systemic threat   appeared first on Climate Home News.

“Overcapacity”, a geeky economic term, has recently become the new buzzword for international discussion around China’s solar and electric vehicle industries. It is also becoming one of the thorniest issues in China’s relations with other major economies.

Notably, the word was mentioned five times in the G7 Leaders Communiqué released last week, with the G7 countries framing it collectively as a global challenge.

It is a debate that was initially sparked by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during her April visit to Beijing. According to her, China’s cleantech industry has excess capacities that cannot be absorbed domestically, leading to exports at depressed prices. And she stressed that this should be a concern not only for the US, but also for Europe and other emerging markets.

Days after climate talks, US slaps tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar panels

China strongly disagreed with this claim, while Yellen’s concern resonated in the EU, which has long focused on China’s market dominance. In short, there is an overcapacity of “overcapacities”, with neither side finding identical terms of reference. But as this debate is a harbinger of how climate solutions and political agendas will interweave, it’s worth parsing out some lessons for each side, on their own terms.

The US’ “overcapacity” claim as presented by Yellen is a non-starter in China.

China’s clean energy industry is an important point of pride internationally and a source of legitimacy domestically for Beijing. From that perspective countering the “overcapacity” claim is both emotionally and strategically important.

Strategically, this claim is being used to justify trade measures and tariffs against China’s clean energy products. Emotionally, the cleantech industry is a modern-day success story of China’s entrepreneurship and innovation. In China’s public discourse, the US “overcapacity” claims lands as a rejection of that success.

Lithium tug of war: the US-China rivalry for Argentina’s white gold

The result is a political debate in which – by design – no side can convince the other. And the lesson? This posturing is at odds with US-China climate diplomacy as we’ve known it to function in the past. Whatever objectives this approach serves, it does not include closer climate collaboration between the US and China, even as multilateral climate action at the UN level still requires them to take action in concert.

In China, discussion on “overcapacity” emerged from an ongoing conversation about how to manage investment hype. And the answer lies on the demand side.

For investors inside China at a time of challenging economics, few industries are as attractive as the clean energy industry. And business leaders have focused on the risks of hot money and breakneck expansion of clean energy manufacturing capacity for some time now, particularly in the solar industry.

This was probably the origin of “overcapacity”. But in China, this has been a familiar, almost perennial discussion of investment and industrial cycles. While the US argument equates exports to overcapacity, Chinese companies argue that it is demand that determines overcapacity, and they make investment and expansion decisions based on projections of both domestic and global demand.

Q&A: What you need to know about electric vehicles (EVs) and their batteries

That said, the size of China’s domestic market means it will remain the “base” for Chinese manufacturers. In the overseas market, the “overcapacity” claim underscores the complexity and uncertainties Chinese companies face.

For Chinese policymakers, one obvious response to the new market dynamics should be taking domestic demand to new levels. That means addressing lingering questions for China’s renewable energy future – namely, how to resolve the impact of coal. China’s power market was designed for a system dependent on coal, but it needs reform to allow wind and solar to take the central role. Injecting new political momentum to accelerate the reform will be key.

The EU has long been concerned about China’s market dominance, and the “overcapacity” debate is pushing it to decide its role in this trilateral trade and climate dynamic.

Even before this debate erupted, the EU had already begun, subtly, to diversify supply chains and build its own industrial strength, reducing dependence on Chinese products. Last week, the EU announced a maximum tariff of 38% on imported Chinese-made electric vehicles, concluding that Chinese EV makers are benefiting from “unfair subsidies”.

At this stage, it’s still unclear if this is the end of the EU’s low-key approach to date. Cultivating an EU-based clean industry hub without compromising the global response to climate change is a challenge, especially as the EU positions itself as a climate leader.

Entering the fray of US-China tension only makes this feat more complex, especially given uncertainties on the US end in an election year. How the EU approaches this climate and trade nexus will ultimately shape the trilateral dynamic among the world’s three largest carbon emitters in the coming years.

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

For China, where relations with the EU and other countries are concerned, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at the hidden messages in the “overcapacity” debate. Other countries want more than just Chinese products.

Climate leadership is not a buyer-seller relationship, but one between partners who want solutions that create local jobs, develop opportunities, and enable native development of a sustainable future.

China should see its role in the global clean transition as more than a manufacturing hub. The transition requires tools, technology, finance and know-how, and China has much to offer. It is time for China to think more creatively about how to leverage its industrial advantages to provide the solutions with which the world is currently under-supplied.

The post Lessons from trade tensions targeting “overcapacity” in China’s cleantech industry appeared first on Climate Home News.

There’s no getting around it. The recently concluded climate talks in Bonn have left the goal of limiting global heating to under 1.5C in peril.  The reason: rich countries are backtracking on their financial pledges.   

The crucial deadline for next year’s new national climate plans, known as NDCs – which are the bedrock for the collective global effort to tackle climate change – are now in danger. This is because developing countries have no assurances that the climate finance they were promised, and which fund the NDCs, will be there.  

The theme of this year’s COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, is supposed to be climate finance. It is the meeting where the world is tasked with agreeing a new long-term global finance goal.  

This goal is the key ingredient to tackling climate injustice, and how we help vulnerable people adapt to the climate crisis and fund the transition to a zero-carbon energy system. However, at the mid-year talks in Bonn this month, rich countries dragged their feet, blocked progress and deliberately offered only vague signals about their intentions.  

UN climate chief warns of “steep mountain to climb” for COP29 after Bonn blame-game

They also attempted to unpick the commitment they made at COP28 in Dubai: to have an annual dialogue specifically on climate finance. They are now suggesting it cover other issues.  

Rich countries also used up valuable time arguing about who should pay the bill, trying to get some developing countries to also be included in the donor base. This was something they continued to talk about in the G7 summit communique issued this weekend. Delay and fudging on the new climate finance goal are hugely dangerous because the Bonn session was crucial to ensuring a successful COP29. 

Waiting for US election? 

COP summits take a huge amount of preparation with negotiators taking all year to lay the groundwork for the final landing zones that will be finalised this year in Baku. Leaving it all to the last minute would be disastrous and could result in a failure that derails international momentum on climate change just as Donald Trump is elected US President. 

The infuriating go-slow in Bonn seems to be because countries are waiting for the result of this election before making any finance commitments. This is folly.   

The need for a coalition of the sensible – to counter the ignorance and malice emanating from a potential Trump White House – will only be greater should the Republican candidate win.  

The victims of the climate crisis will need support, and the energy transition will need to be funded, whoever is elected as the next US president. Dragging out the process to the point where Baku might end up being a chaotic rush will only make things worse.  

COP29 host lacks influence 

The horrors of climate change continue to rage daily. Heatwaves mercilessly ravage lives, with over 100 people reported dead in India and over 50 lives claimed in Sudan during the Bonn talks. These are not just statistics; they are human lives from vulnerable countries, who once dared to hope for a better tomorrow.  

The dark clouds forming over Baku are compounded by the fact that the Azeri presidency for COP29 is inexperienced, with few diplomatic allies and lacking in geopolitical or economic weight to knock heads together as needed. The lack of a strong host in 2024 means we need to see leadership from other quarters. 

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

Those other would-be leaders must ensure that the negotiators see the coming dangers ahead and work to catch up and avoid them. The crucial opportunities for this are the UN General Assembly summit in September and the pre-COP meeting in Baku. It’s vital that much clearer and more ambitious negotiations take place so that ministers have a streamlined process when they get to Baku in November.   

Without that, we risk getting an underwhelming finance goal or even a failed COP. That would imperil millions of people who need climate finance, as well as taking the wind out of the sails of the NDCs from developing countries, which are due to be published next year.  How can these poorer countries be expected to slay the climate dragon with paper swords, having gotten zero assurances on the long-term finance they need?  

If countries can set a clear and unambiguous path for future finance in Baku, then the world will be set up for a hope-filled and ambitious round of climate action plans next year. This is the best way to protect the world from the volatility of the US election. The work to achieve that starts now.  

The post New finance goal needed to protect climate momentum from a Trump win  appeared first on Climate Home News.

A few weeks ago, leaders of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) met in Antigua & Barbuda to discuss our next decade of action. This, for us, is the critical decade, no less. We have a few years to change the tides that are swallowing our islands and extinguishing our culture and our identity.  

Pacific Island communities are unwilling witnesses of the climate crisis – emitting minuscule amounts of greenhouse gases while bearing the brunt of the extreme and devastating consequences of the world’s failure to break its addiction to fossil fuels.  

During that meeting, we heard from some G7 leaders that they will support our priorities, that a fossil fuel phase-out and a just and equitable transition is necessary. But these cannot be hollow words. As the single greatest security threat for our region, it is time to implement your commitments or be held accountable for your lack of inaction by carrying the loss of our future generations on your shoulders. 

Just a few months ago, at the UN climate talks in Dubai, countries around the world finally agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. This week in Bonn, any talk of how countries plan to implement this agreement was noticeably absent.

Bonn bulletin: Fossil fuel transition left homeless

But now, G7 nations – Canada, Japan, Italy, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France – are gathering at a historic time for climate politics, holding one of the first opportunities to show their leadership by putting the COP28 decision on fossil fuels into action. 

This will also be the last time these countries meet before they are required to submit updated and enhanced climate plans through to 2035 under the Paris Agreement. It is a final chance for G7 nations to adopt the measures that are necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C. 

Despite having both the capacity and the responsibility to be leaders driving forward a full, fast, fair and funded phase-out of fossil fuels, these countries are not walking the walk – at home or abroad.

Islands as “collateral damage”?

Some G7 countries have plans to massively expand fossil fuel production at home despite science telling us that no new oil, gas, or coal projects are compatible with a safe climate, while others are using billions of the public’s money to finance more fossil fuel infrastructure abroad. 

We are urging G7 nations to demonstrate true leadership at the upcoming negotiations, immediately halting the approval of all new fossil fuel projects and committing to 1.5°C-aligned timelines for phasing out existing fossil fuel reliance in a just and equitable manner.  

This transition must prioritise the needs of developing countries, which bear the brunt of climate change impacts despite contributing the least to its causes. 

G7 coal charade: Funding the fire they claim to fight

G7 countries have already committed to end international public finance for fossil fuel projects but continue approving billions of dollars for fossil fuel infrastructure. They are giving the fossil fuel industry a lifeline, indebting vulnerable countries, and delaying a just energy transition.  

In the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: “The idea that an entire island state could become collateral damage for profiteering by the fossil fuel industry is simply obscene.” 

There is no shortage of public money to enable a just and equitable transition to renewable energy and turn the COP28 agreement into a reality. It is just poorly distributed to the most harmful parts of the global economy that are driving climate change and inequality: fossil fuels, unfair colonial debts, and the super-rich. 

We need G7 countries to pay their fair share on fair terms for fossil fuel phase-out and the other crises we face. Climate finance remains the critical enabler of action – over the course of our meetings in Antigua & Barbuda we heard some G7 countries make commitments and pledges; we also heard a lot of solutions and options that will exacerbate our debt burden.  

But for us, it is clear. Climate finance must be scaled up to meet the trillions of dollars needed for adaptation, mitigation, and addressing loss and damage; and sent to where it is most needed – on fair terms that do not further burden our economies with debt. 

Hold fossil fuel firms to account

The members of the G7 are among the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nations. They have a responsibility to lead the way both at home and abroad. Anything less is hypocrisy and gross negligence, and risks endangering the implementation of the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels. 

The Pacific Island nations have been vocal advocates for ambitious climate action and have led by example for decades. In 2023, our leaders aspired to a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. We embedded the language of phase-out and transition in our leaders’ declaration.   

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

We have felt the impacts of climate change more acutely than most and have consistently called for comprehensive and equitable global action for the very survival of our nations and for the good of all people and species.  

For Pacific Island nations, the transition to clean and renewable energy is not just a goal but a necessity for survival. We call upon the G7 to reflect the highest possible ambition. These countries must acknowledge and support our aspiration for a fossil fuel-free future, setting an example for sustainable development that prioritizes the well-being of people and planet over profit – and ensure that the fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis bear the cost of their actions. 

The time for action is now. The fate of our planet hangs in the balance, and the decisions made by the G7 nations will shape our collective future. We implore them to heed the call of the Pacific Island nations and rise to the challenge of the climate crisis with boldness, ambition and urgency. Our shared future depends on it. 

The post G7 countries must deliver on COP28 promise to cut fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

Thousands of country representatives have spent the last two weeks in Germany at the UN Bonn Climate Conference, marking the mid-year point to the biggest climate summit of the year: COP29. 

But despite being a core milestone each year for global climate discussions, there is troublingly little to show for it. And with less than six months before COP29 – and after years of negotiations – there has been a shameful lack of commitment on delivering for those on the frontline of the climate crisis.   

Climate finance and adaptation play imperative roles in ensuring communities are able to thrive in the face of unpredictable and unforgiving weather patterns. And while both topics have been heavy on the Bonn agenda, finance negotiations so far have failed to really consider those living with climate uncertainty right now. 

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

WaterAid has been on the ground at the Bonn talks, calling for robust water, sanitation and hygiene indicators to flow directly through key climate adaptation frameworks, especially the Global Goal on Adaptation and the Loss and Damage Fund – both of which will change the course of the future for those living on the frontlines of the climate crisis. 

Support lacking for those on the frontline

Yet countries at Bonn have hit a roadblock on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), with discussions struggling to go beyond a shared acknowledgement of the value of including the support of experts to progress on areas of concern. Progress on GGA targets remains stagnant as parties grapple over country-specific concerns instead of coming to a collective outcome, with less than two days left of the conference. 

Meanwhile, the most recent talks on the Loss and Damage Fund failed to consider the urgency of the escalating climate crisis at hand and the scale of financing needed to ensure frontline nations can recover and rebuild from impacts of climate change. 

North Africa’s disappearing nomads: Why my community needs climate finance

The new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) – a new and larger target that is expected to replace the current $100bn climate finance goal – is also high on the Bonn agenda. Many core elements of this new climate fund goal are yet to be agreed.

WaterAid is calling for the NCQG to have sub-goals for adaptation and loss and damage, as well as for the finance pot to have a direct channel to vulnerable communities so they can be involved in ensuring the funds go to where the support is most needed.  

Too much or too little water

Whilst conversations at Bonn have been lukewarm, the climate crisis has remained red hot. Right now, countries around the world are watching it unfold in real time. From flooding and cyclones to drought and deadly heatwaves, communities are dealing with the terrifying reality of living with too much or too little water.  

Southern Asia is being exposed in particular to a dangerous and chaotic cocktail of unpredictable weather, making life unbearable for those on the climate frontline. 

In late May, Cyclone Remal hit coastal parts of southern Bangladesh with gale speeds of up to 110km/h causing devastation across the country for 8.4 million people, leaving many without power, damaging crops and making tube wells and latrines unusable.  

Meanwhile, record temperatures were recorded in Bangladesh through April and May where temperatures soared above 43 degrees Celsius, scorching 80% of the country and leaving thousands without power. 

At the same time, Pakistan witnessed its wettest April since 1961, with the south-western province of Punjab experiencing a staggering 437 percent more rainfall than usual, fuelling the malnourishment of 1.5 million children and damaging 3,500 homes.  

Water infrastructure key to adaptation

Water, sanitation and hygiene equip communities like those across South Asia with the ability to adapt to climate change, protecting livelihoods and farms. These basic essentials ensure people are not subject to the spread of waterborne diseases while preventing families from being forced to migrate due to sea level rises.  

From flood defences to drought resistance, water also acts as a guiding light as to where donors should direct climate finance, ensuring long-term support reaches the people who need it most. Investment in water-related infrastructure in low and middle-income countries is expected to deliver at least $500 billion a year in economic value, protecting countless lives and boosting economic prosperity. 

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

Now is the time for global leaders to put pen to paper and set plans in motion to ensure that we see real progress on how we achieve the GGA targets at the grassroots and that the necessary level of climate funding reaches those who need it most, without further delay.  

This truly is a matter of life and death – and prioritising action on water, sanitation and hygiene across global adaptation goals may be our only hope to prevent climate change from washing away people’s futures.  

The post Bonn makes only lukewarm progress to tackle a red-hot climate crisis appeared first on Climate Home News.

The G7’s top leaders convene in Italy this week as the world swelters through its 12th hottest month on record. One key issue that needs to be addressed is G7 members’ continued bankrolling of coal, from fossil fuel subsidies to public financing and private investments.

The latest evidence shows that the world’s largest banks – the majority of which are headquartered in G7 nations – continue to pour fuel on the fire of coal expansion.

As the G7 summit approaches, there is a chance for countries to match their rhetoric with action. It is not enough for governments and regulators to “call on” private finance to end their support for coal power. The continued financing of coal by the private sector shows that countries must take concrete steps to implement policies that stem the global flow of funds that fuel the expansion of the coal industry and redirect them to clean energy investments.  

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

While attention is often directed at public fossil fuel subsidies for coal (which are a problem), the billions of dollars in commercial financing for the coal industry’s expansion cannot be ignored. Commercial banks provided a staggering $470 billion to the coal industry between 2021 and 2023 – money that could have otherwise been channelled into clean energy investments, grid infrastructure improvements, and energy efficiency. 

And the majority of this financing comes from financial institutions headquartered in G7 countries. Collectively, these banks provided $101 billion for coal development in the form of loans and facilitated bonds between 2021 and 2023.  

Worst offenders: US and Japan

Topping the list of offenders are US and Japanese banks, which are the largest coal lenders in the world. Bank of America, actually increased its funding of the coal industry by 30% between 2016 and 2023. It provided a whopping $6 billion in loans and facilitation of capital market issuances to the coal industry in the last three years. For perspective, $6 billion is the size of the entire GDP of the Maldives.

Japanese banks are not faring better.  Coal financing between 2021 and 2023 remained dominated by its megabanks, Mizuho ($8.1 billion), MUFG ($6.1 billion) and SMBC ($4.7 billion).  

Estimates suggest that the absolute greenhouse gas emissions associated with the activities financed by commercial banks in G7 countries are more than the combined emissions of Germany, Italy, the UK, and France. While banks do not directly produce all these emissions, they are borne out of their lending and investment activities of companies that they support.  

No shortage of public money to pay for a just energy transition

The ironic cherry on top is that this amount provided by commercial banks in G7 countries to the coal industry is more than twice the total pledged by the G7-led International Partners Group (IPG) to support the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), an intergovernmental initiative intended to provide technical assistance and financial resources to help developing countries with their clean energy transitions. 

Coal phaseout unclear

Nor is the G7 showing great leadership when it comes to their own coal phaseout plans. The US alone still has over 200 gigawatts (GW) of remaining operational coal capacity alone. While this has been falling, there are also signs that this decline is stalling – 200 GW is more than the entire coal operating capacity of all the JETP recipient countries. And Japan has no clear coal phaseout plan despite its commitment.  

This shows that the capital required for the energy transition is available, but just poorly allocated. Financial regulations, such as stricter capital requirements and outright prohibitions, play a crucial role in redirecting capital and investments towards the energy transition. This must include setting international standards to stem the flow of funds towards the continued expansion of the coal industry and restrict financing to coal developers that continue to contribute to environmental degradation and air pollution.  

Financial regulation

The Italian presidency of the G7 2024 has a responsibility to prioritise climate-forward action across different sectors, including financial regulation. G7 Central Banks need to keep up the pressure on keeping climate action at the forefront of negotiations, and call for more international coordination and standard setting. 

Even if the G7 achieves its coal exit goal by the “first half of the 2030s”, this timeline falls short of what scientists say is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C, a critical threshold to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said last week, “We are in control of the wheel that takes us off the highway to climate hell.” Individual G7 members must take an introspective look at changing outdated policies to adopt strong, binding regulations on private financing for coal.  

The data on private finance for coal is attributable to Urgewald and can be accessed at www.stillbankingoncoal.org.  

The post G7 coal charade: Funding the fire they claim to fight  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Rich countries have a bill to pay. A study in the journal Nature says they will owe low- and middle-income countries an estimated $100 trillion-$200 trillion by 2050 since they have caused the climate crisis with their outsized emissions, while developing nations bear the brunt of the impacts. 

As negotiators gather in Bonn this week to prepare for November’s COP29 climate summit, wealthy governments have to face the music and pay their fair share of climate finance. With low-income countries struggling with rising seas and spiralling unjust debts, the stakes have never been higher. The good news? Rich countries can deliver the funds needed for climate action. What is lacking is the political will, as usual. But we can change this.

Bonn bulletin: Crunch time for climate finance

At last year’s COP negotiations, world leaders recognised for the first time that all countries must “transition away from fossil fuels” in energy systems. This year they must agree on a new climate finance goal for 2025, which will set a new benchmark for the quantity and terms of the money owed.

Year after year, wealthy countries have failed to pay up. While transitioning away from fossil fuels is technically possible and relatively low-cost, the failure to finance transformative climate solutions like 100% renewable-ready grids, energy access, and programs to support workers and community transitions is one of the key remaining obstacles to tackling the climate crisis. Meanwhile, the lack of funding to adapt and respond to climate impacts means fires, droughts and floods are already bringing devastating consequences.

As UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell has said, “A quantum leap this year in climate finance is both essential and entirely achievable.” But, as negotiations have begun to establish a new global climate finance target, wealthy countries are once again trying to shirk their responsibilities.

Loans and ‘private-sector first’

They have come to the table with only tiny amounts of money. Worse, they argue it should be delivered mostly as loans, investments and guarantees – which they profit from, while climate vulnerable ‘recipient’ countries rack up debt. The US, Canada, UK and their peers claim that there is not enough public money to do anything else. Yet we know they can come up with enormous sums, like for COVID stimulus plans and for bailing out the banks.

Wealthy countries say the private sector can cover most of the costs instead. This ‘private sector first’ approach is particularly emphasized for energy finance. The idea is that all that is needed is a bit of public finance to ‘de-risk’ energy investments and attract much greater sums of private finance.

But as a former World Bank Director has argued, this approach has consistently delivered far less money than promised and “has injustice and inequality built in,” while reducing the role of government action for creating the right market conditions to deliver profits to investors. We need much more public funding to be delivered as grants for a fair energy transition.

Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate

Rather than relying on the private sector, rich countries can afford the grants and highly concessional finance required for a fast, fair and full phase-out of fossil fuels, which societies and communities want. There is no shortage of public money available to fund climate action at home and abroad. Rather, a lot of it is currently going to the wrong things, like dirty fossil fuels, wars and the super-rich.

The lack of progress is also a symptom of a larger global financial system where a handful of Global North governments and corporations have near-full control. This unjust architecture results in a net $2 trillion a year outflow from low-income countries to high-income countries, historic levels of inequality and food insecurity, and record profits for oil and gas companies.

Make polluters pay

To raise the funds, wealthy governments can start by cutting off the flow of public money to fossil fuels and making polluters pay. The science is clear that there is no room for any new investments in oil, gas or coal infrastructure if we want to secure a liveable planet. And yet governments continue to pour more fuel on the fire, using public money to fund continued fossil fuel expansion to the tune of $1.7 trillion in 2022. 

There is already momentum to stop a particularly influential form of fossil fuel support. At the COP26 global climate conference in Glasgow, 41 countries and institutions joined the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP). They pledged to end all direct international public finance for unabated fossil fuels by the end of 2022 and instead prioritise their international public finance for the clean energy transition.

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

With the passing of the end of the 2022 deadline, eight out of the sixteen CETP signatories with significant amounts of international energy finance have adopted policies that end fossil fuel support – and we see international fossil finance figures dropping by billions as a result.

Making fossil fuel companies pay for their pollution through a ‘windfall’ tax on fossil fuel companies in the richest countries could raise an estimated $900 billion by 2030. Alongside taxing windfall profits, a progressive tax on extreme wealth starting at 2% would raise $2.5 trillion to 3.6 trillion a year. Brazil currently has a proposal to tax the super-rich globally, which is gaining momentum at the G20. 

Canceling illegitimate debts in the Global South can free up even more.

The public money is there for a liveable future for all. As leaders negotiate on the next climate target, we must ensure those most responsible for the climate crisis finally pay up.

The post No shortage of public money to pay for a just energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

Citizens up and down the UK are heading to the polls on July 4 – and though it has yet to feature as a campaign priority for the major parties, climate policy is a clear dividing line between the two main parties: the Conservatives and Labour.  

While the Conservatives have diluted existing climate policies and pushed ahead with more oil and gas extraction in the North Sea, Labour have said they will halt new licensing in the North Sea and set up a new entity, GB Energy, to scale up clean generation and drive down bills.  

Given this dividing line, the upcoming election is set to see a clash between the forces of climate obstructionism – those organisations, individuals and media outlets that seek to delay, derail or discredit climate policy – and those that advocate for it.  

Right-wing pushback on EU’s green laws misjudges rural views

But climate obstructionism is not a new phenomenon within the UK. Ever since climate change was put on the agenda of UK politics by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a UN speech in 1989, there has been an orchestrated attempt to weaken and dilute measures to address global heating.  

The approach and strategies adopted by climate sceptic groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Institute of Economic Affairs and key allies in the right-wing media, such as the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, have shifted from disputing the science of climate change to exaggerating the economic costs of climate action and downplaying the benefits. 

Influencing public perceptions 

Our research shows that climate obstructionism in the UK is highly dynamic and constantly adapting to a rapidly changing policy environment by seeking to shape public perceptions of the feasibility and desirability of climate policies.   

Those working to increase policy ambition on climate change must confront climate obstructionism in the run-up to the UK general election and beyond it. Ahead of July 4, this is what to watch out for.  

With our colleagues Dr Ruth McKie of De Montfort University and Dr James Painter of the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, we identified the main channels through which climate obstructionism operates in the UK and the organisations that maintain it for a recent publication for the Climate Change Social Science Network (CSSN).  

Climate obstructionism is ever-present across the UK media. Traditional media outlets, like the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, have persistently opposed climate policy, providing platforms for individuals with direct links to fossil fuel firms or organised sceptic groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation (now rebranded as Net Zero Watch) and giving voice to politicians who are part of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group.  

Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government

More recently these outlets have peddled misinformation around key green technologies, such as wind and solar farms, heat pumps and electric vehicles, while demonising the campaigns of climate activists and seeking to discredit their supporters. Newer media outlets, such as GB News, often give a platform to climate deniers or airtime to misinformation and then share clips across social media.  

As July 4 draws closer, these outlets will scrutinise the main parties’ climate policies. We can anticipate that Labour’s policies will be painted as a threat to national security, jobs and to households already facing a cost-of-living crisis.  

Some Conservatives and the Reform Party will be given an opportunity to dispute the urgency and necessity of climate policy, in particular net zero emissions, given the latter has called for a national referendum about whether to abandon the goal altogether. More often than not, these lines of attack of prospective policies will reflect obstructionist talking points, which overstate the costs of climate action, while ignoring the costs of inaction, and downplay the UK’s role in the climate crisis relative to other countries such as China.  

Fossil fuel lobbying 

Climate obstructionism in the UK is also maintained through the political power of the fossil fuel industry which makes recurring threats of job losses or to move its investments elsewhere to avoid stronger policy. These often land with politicians due to the perceived centrality of these companies to growth and prosperity.  

Party donations – from fossil fuel firms or those who benefit from their expansion – to individual politicians or political parties are pivotal for providing access and a say in determining the shape and scope of policy. In 2022, the Conservatives received £3.5 million in donations from those with direct links to fossil fuel production while Labour has also accepted donations from large polluters. Tightening the regulations around party donations, and making them more transparent, could help curtail climate obstructionism.  

Climate obstructionism is also advanced through institutional channels. There are a myriad of opportunities for fossil fuel interests to gain access or shape policy outcomes in the UK. All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are effective fora for obstructionist actors to lobby politicians and shape policy – often without breaking any rules.  

Access is also secured through an ever-revolving door between industry and government and the use of secondments. Since 2011, an estimated 127 former oil and gas employees have gone into top government roles. The next government could introduce ‘cool off’ periods for those leaving government and seeking to enter it from industry to address this issue. 

UN chief calls on governments to ban fossil fuel ads

As the urgency of addressing the climate crisis becomes starker with each passing week, and the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels becomes ever clearer, those that benefit from maintaining the status quo will step up their obstructionism.  

Delivering a just transition to a net zero economy not only requires citizens to be able to engage in an informed manner with proposals to address the climate crisis, it also requires that the democratic process is not compromised by those interests that want to prolong dependence on the fossil fuels driving the climate crisis.  

Whichever party wins on July 4, they will have a critical role to play in ensuring the UK does its fair share in addressing the climate crisis within a closing window to deliver effective action. We cannot afford to allow climate obstructionists to jeopardise this vital opportunity to change path and raise ambition. 

The post UK general election: Watch out for climate obstructionism   appeared first on Climate Home News.

Frontline communities around the world are shouldering the deleterious injustices of climate change, especially in Africa despite it emitting only around 4% of total global carbon emissions. 

A case in point is the nomadic Amazigh tribes in the southeastern reaches of Morocco. The Amazighs are the oldest known inhabitants of Northern Africa. Their ancestral lifestyle is threatened by climate change, manifest in consecutive years of drought, relentlessly eroding their rights, including access to water and education, and their heritage. 

The story is personal to me, as I am from this region, and these are my people. My father was a nomad but was forced to give up nomadic life and settle in a village due to drought in the early 1980s. 

Among our tribe, “we’ve gone from nearly 600 tents in 1961 to just a few dozen today”, my father declares. According to the national census, Morocco’s total nomadic population in 2014 stood at just 25,274, a 63% drop from 2004. 

“Great enabler of climate action” – UN urges Bonn progress on new finance goal

As pastoralists reliant on livestock, particularly sheep and goats, nomadic families depend on suitable pastures, but drought increasingly has rendered pastures and water sources barren. “This is the eighth consecutive year of drought, this situation is unprecedented,” a 91-year-old nomad told me. 

This is also a story of loss and damage to the nomads’ very culture and way of life. As someone familiar with the experience of displacement, I have witnessed how climate change strikes at the heart of our culture and identity. It’s not just about losing homes or livelihoods — it’s about losing the very essence of who we are.  

Each drought-induced exodus undermines our traditions, leaving us adrift in a world that seems less and less familiar.  

This is an existential crisis for my community. 

In search of water 

In Morocco, the frequency of droughts has increased fivefold, from one dry year in 15 between 1930-1990 to one dry year in three over the last two decades. Now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a doubling of drought frequency in North Africa to come.  

Water is being lost, and much is lost with it. As Moha Oufane, another nomad, said to me: “Water is everything. It’s the most important thing for us. We can buy food and feed livestock with what’s left in the mountains or by going into debt, but water can’t be bought. It’s priceless.”

Water shortages are disrupting traditional pastoral routes, forcing families to give up nomadism or put themselves at risk. In the past, the year would be structured around a well-defined nomadic pattern: summer months were devoted to Agdal-to-Imilchil, while winter months were spent on the Errachidia side, with a return to Assoul (a village in Tinghir) and the surrounding area when the cold set in.  

Today, this traditional route no longer exists. Nomads go where little water remains, to preserve their livelihoods and the lives of their livestock. 

Only one new water point exists on this traditional route, a project led by the Moroccan state. “This project is extremely beneficial for us,” Moha says. “Similar projects in other nearby areas would be of immense help to us.”

Loss and damage sub-goal

Many nomads are forced to go into debt to feed their livestock, their main source of income, which worsens their situation. According to Moha, some accumulated debts of nearly 30,000 dh ($3,000) between October 2023 and January 2024”. Debt has long been used by these communities, but this was when nomads were confident of being able to pay it back after good rainfall seasons, which is no longer the case. 

Conflicts over territory and diminishing water-dependent resources, once unthinkable, now disrupt the social cohesion and hospitality for which nomadic communities are renowned. 

The plight of Morocco’s nomads illustrates the need for international support for climate-affected communities. Rich historic-emitter countries must honour their obligations to provide climate finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  

Quality – not just quantity – matters in the new climate finance goal

Economic costs of loss and damage in developing countries are estimated to reach $290-580bn/year by 2030. Grant finance, not debt, must be provided for communities to repair and recover. Developing countries should not have to spend a penny to cope with loss and damage they did not cause. However, despite the celebrations, the new UN Loss and Damage Fund has only received $725 million in pledges. 

We need a sub-goal for loss and damage in the New Collective Quantified Goal (“NCQG”) on climate finance, to be debated over the coming days at the mid-year UN climate negotiations in Bonn and the agreed at COP29 in Baku. It is immoral for developed countries to be blocking such a sub-goal. 

It is outrageous that nomads and frontline communities should be left to fend for themselves and see their ancestral lifestyles, identities and cultures eroded, while some wealthy nations prosper from investment in fossil fuels and find public finance for their own purposes but not for climate finance. We refuse to be collateral damage in a game of power and profit. 

The post North Africa’s disappearing nomads: Why my community needs climate finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

As this European Parliament term began, Fridays for Future school strikes, inspired by Greta Thunberg, were sweeping Europe, with young people demanding that political leaders act decisively against climate change’s mortal threat. 

Five years on, as the parliament entered its final chapter, very different protests erupted in Brussels and across Europe – this time led by farmers, who clashed with police and brought the city to gridlock. The farmers’ grievances were many, from rising energy and fertiliser costs, to cheap imports and environmental rules.  

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

Just as Fridays for Future signified growing pressure on politicians to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises, the farmers’ protests have been seen as a stark warning of the rural backlash against doing so. 

In reality, the reasons for the farmers’ anger are more diffuse.     

Climate and forests centre-stage 

In the early days of the current parliament, the school strikers’ message appeared to be getting through. Tackling climate change was  “this generation’s defining task”, the European Commission declared. Within 100 days of taking office, the new Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met her manifesto promise of launching the European Green Deal. 

The following few years saw climate and forests take centre-stage in EU policymaking to an unprecedented degree: from the Climate Law, which wrote into the statutes the EU’s goal to be climate neutral by 2050, to the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), setting binding targets to bring back nature across Europe, and the EU Regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR), the first legislation of its kind in the world, which aims to stop EU consumption from devastating forests around the world. 

Then came the backlash. 

Despite exit, EU seeks to save green reforms to energy investment treaty

Over the past year, vested industry interests and EU member states have tried to sabotage key pieces of the European Green Deal, including the NRL and the EUDR. 

This pushback against laws to protect the natural world is now a battleground in EU parliamentary elections, with populist, far-right and centre-right parties seeing it as fertile vote-winning territory. 

The centre-right European People’s Party, the largest group in the European Parliament, has been campaigning against key planks of the Green Deal, including the NRL, while promoting itself as the defender of rural interests. 

But the views of the rural constituencies whose votes they covet are not as simplistic or polarised as widely depicted. 

Deep listening 

At Fern, we’ve increasingly worked with people who share the same forest policy goals but are bitterly opposed to one another.

This is why we commissioned the insight firm GlobeScan to run focus groups among rural communities in four highly forested countries: Czechia, France, Germany and Poland. We wanted to find out what those whose concerns have been used to justify the backlash against green laws really think. The results contradict the prevailing narrative. 

All participants – selected with a balance of genders, occupations, political views and socio-economic statuses – felt that forests should be protected by law, and unanimously rejected the idea that such protection measures are a threat to rural economic development or an assault on property rights.

They felt deeply attached to their forests, saw them as public goods, were concerned about the state of them, and had a strong sense of responsibility and ownership towards them. They also wanted to see action to improve industrial forest management practices and mitigate climate change. 

Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government

While there was some sympathy for concerns around too much bureaucracy, even those who expressed this view felt forests should be protected by laws. Moreover, they saw the EU as having a primary role in providing support and incentives, and developing initiatives to fight the climate and biodiversity crises.  

Given how much EU politicians have put rural concerns at the heart of their arguments for rolling back the Green Deal – and are now using them in their election campaigns – it’s telling that their narratives on this do not resonate widely. Even foresters with right-leaning political views saw most of them as extreme and oversimplified. 

The lesson here is that the simplistic, divisive arguments that dominate the public debate over rural people and laws to protect nature do not reflect the complex reality of peoples’ lives or their attitudes. Where a divide exists between those pushing for strong laws to protect nature and the rural communities supposedly resisting them, it’s far from irreconcilable. 

Bridging any such gaps by listening and understanding each other’s perspectives is vital for all our futures. Those elected to the next EU Parliament would be wise to heed this. 

For further information, see: Rural Perspectives on Forest Protection 

The post Right-wing pushback on EU’s green laws misjudges rural views  appeared first on Climate Home News.

With climate negotiators gathered at mid-year UN talks in Bonn, Germany, to prepare for COP29, a critical question hangs in the air: how can we ensure that the money mobilized to address the climate crisis is not only sufficient in quantity, but also effective in quality? 

Negotiators have been tasked to set a new collective quantified goal, or NCQG, on climate finance, which rapidly scales the amount of money we need globally for climate action. In the face of stark needs, the NCQG must be ambitious.  

Experts estimate that by 2030, $2.4 trillion will be required annually to support the needs of developing countries alone. 

“Great enabler of climate action” – UN urges Bonn progress on new finance goal

With just five months before the goal is on the decision-making table at COP29, it is also critical that negotiators consider the issue of quality – such as the type of financing, the ways money is accessed, alignment with national priorities, the predictability of funds, and their impact. 

High-quality climate finance should not create additional burdens and has clear pathways to access for countries and communities in need. However, many developing countries have expressed concern that the current quality of finance is far from where it needs to be. 

Concessional and accessible 

An important signal of quality in climate finance is the degree of concessionality – or how favorable the terms of financing are. Concessional finance includes grants and loans with low interest rates and longer repayment periods, which are easier for recipient countries to manage.  

Concessional tools also have potential to scale action by mobilizing private finance. These ‘blended finance’ approaches can often do far more than a traditional grant or loan. For example, to build a solar plant in Uzbekistan, the World Bank utilized concessional loans to mitigate financial risk and incentivize private-sector participation. 

However, in recent years, more than 70% of public climate finance has been delivered through loans, most of which have been non-concessional. This poses a challenge as many developing countries face burgeoning debt crises, and non-concessional loans risk further indebting these vulnerable states.  

Yet, countries in debt distress like Ghana and Zambia still received 17% of their climate finance through loans in 2021. Without proper concessionality, climate finance meant to build resilience can paradoxically make things worse. 

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late 

Another measure of quality is the accessibility of finance. Increased climate finance must come with clear channels of access for developing countries, but bureaucratic hurdles, limited transparency, and rigid funding terms can hinder governments from accessing international funding streams.  

For example, small island states have struggled to access resources from climate funds due to capacity constraints in navigating the finance landscape. Access to private finance is also lacking as private funders perceive high risks of investing in emerging markets. If climate finance flows remain unavailable or inaccessible to developing countries, it will be impossible to meaningfully address their needs and priorities. 

Multi-layered goal 

The structure of the NCQG can incorporate elements of impact, concessionality and access. Negotiators should pursue a goal with multiple layers – setting a support target for providing public finance to developing countries, alongside an investment target for mobilizing all sources of finance globally. 

The support goal should be underpinned by concessional finance, targeting the national priorities of developing countries through grant and other non-debt financial instruments fit for purpose. These layers can foster blended approaches that scale available finance and enable greater access without creating new debt burdens. 

Lastly, for public finance to more effectively open new channels of access, we need steady reform in the broader financial system, including the multilateral development banks (MDBs). The MDBs are undertaking reforms to simplify access and increase lending capacity, and made new announcements at the World Bank’s Spring Meetings in April, which will allow public financing from MDBs to catalyze greater private finance flows and mitigate risks of debt distress. 

Pairing quantitative and qualitative elements should be at the top of the agenda in Bonn. Many countries have already called for qualitative elements to be incorporated into the goal. Now, delivering this quality – via greater concessionality, accessibility, and innovation – will be vital to ensure that climate finance can play a transformative role in addressing the complex challenges posed by climate change. 

The post Quality – not just quantity – matters in the new climate finance goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

When the Stade de France in Paris is filled to capacity, it holds 81,400 people. You would then need another 2,484 to reach the number of badge-wearing participants at last year’s UN COP28 climate change conference in Dubai. This illustrates the sheer size of what was the world’s most important climate-focused event in 2023. 

But it also begs the question, do these annual ‘mega-gatherings’ actually deliver anything? 

One thing is abundantly clear: despite almost three decades of COPs and ballooning attendance, our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and the world continues to warm. 

Process hijacking purpose  

My colleagues and I at Clim-Eat – the think-and-do-tank for food and climate that I founded in 2021 – recently published a paper examining the efficacy of COP summits, specifically in relation to food and agriculture. We found several failures. 

Firstly, negotiations on food and agriculture have moved at a snail’s pace over the past 17 years. In spite of numerous meetings, workshops, submissions and decisions, there has been literally no real-world impact as a result.  

Secondly, the trend of COP host countries – known as Presidencies – launching special initiatives on specific issues of interest has achieved little. These initiatives receive plenty of media attention when announced but amount to little more than virtue signalling. 

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

For example, at the launch of COP21’s 4p1000 Initiative, France’s then-Minister of Agriculture said it could reconcile aims of food security and the fight against climate change. Today, the initiative has yet to report anything on the positive climate action it sought to create.  

The same goes for Morocco’s COP22 initiative on Adaptation in African Agriculture. It no longer mentions its ambitious target of raising $30 billion to support farmers – presumably because it hasn’t been reached. There are plenty of other examples of special initiatives being quietly ushered out of the spotlight.  

Unwarranted optimism

Let’s remember that COP negotiations first recognised agriculture as the key to solving climate change in 2006. It then took six years to agree on the next steps. Then, only in 2022, 16 years after the initial point, did the negotiations agree that “socioeconomic and food security dimensions are critical when dealing with climate change in agriculture and food systems.” Sixteen years to build a sentence to combat a third of global emissions.  

This suggests there’s little reason to be optimistic about the Emirates Declaration on Food and Agriculture, a special initiative launched at last year’s COP28. Signed by 159 countries, it called for action to adapt food systems to climate change, but the summit’s official negotiations on food and agriculture failed to acknowledge the declaration or reflect its priorities. The declaration itself is a creative collection of various adjectives and adverbs, reaffirmations and goals to ‘strengthen’ commitments. And six months after its launch, it is not clear whether it has led to anything at all; placing faith in its outcomes is utterly fanciful. 

The path forward

This cycle of the UNFCCC and COP Presidencies applauding special initiatives in the short term without holding countries responsible in the long term has to stop. The hamster wheel of inaction continues to spin.  

But we can slow it down and perhaps get off the wheel altogether. To do this, my colleagues and I concluded that the UN needs to: 

• Reform the UNFCCC process to prioritise measurable results and impacts, shifting its role to that of a watchdog ensuring action from all actors rather than merely organising large, costly meetings. 
• Make COPs leaner and less frequent/hold them every other year, reducing participant numbers and focusing on productive meetings. 
• Increase transparency regarding the financial costs of COPs, participation and emissions, to hold the UN accountable. 

Implementing these recommendations will not be easy. It means changing entrenched ways and tackling entrenched interests. There will be push-back.  

But as the UN’s mid-year climate talks begin in Bonn this week, observe the promises made with little follow-through, the unwarranted yet celebratory atmosphere filling the air – largely destined to be forgotten. Notice that when the clapping has stopped, and the initiators are no longer in the spotlight, they will slink back into the shadows, waiting to resurface onto the next grand stage at COP29 in Azerbaijan.  

The post The great COP food systems illusion: UN climate talks deliver no real-world action appeared first on Climate Home News.

In three vital and interrelated areas – climate, development and nature – the next UK government could play a significant role in driving progress at a critical time.

It needs to start office on day one with a plan that positions the UK ahead of key summits on those issues – summits that will have a critical bearing on people, planet, and future generations. The time to start preparing is now.

The NATO summit begins within days of the UK general election now planned for July 4. The year ends with G20 meetings in Brazil, a global biodiversity summit (COP16) in Colombia, and the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan. A new UK government could play an important role in rebuilding trust and make a positive contribution to the world by adopting far-sighted positions on climate, development and nature. 

On climate, the next government could immediately signal its intent by comprehensively stepping up its efforts to meet its own national climate commitments, after a period of drift and uncertainty. There is no more powerful message from the UK to the cause of global climate action than the country decisively implementing its own pledges, through concerted action on green energy, transport, infrastructure and land use.  

Progress at home needs to be matched in real time by leadership on the international stage in negotiating an appropriately ambitious and credible ‘new collective quantified goal’ on climate finance.

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

A strong finance outcome at COP29 would acknowledge the historic responsibility for climate change from some of the wealthiest nations, including the UK, while ensuring that all countries play their full part in mobilising the flows of public as well as private finance needed to transition to a 1.5 degree-aligned, resilient and nature-positive economy. Successful resolution of the finance negotiations this year in Baku would open up the possibility for a more ambitious round of climate action en route to COP30 in Belem, Brazil in November 2025. 

Development finance

On international development, the UK can move fast by upholding and restoring its development finance commitments, including to some of the world’s poorest people; by updating its toolkit to meet today’s interlinked development, climate and nature challenges; and by using all of the means at its disposal (including debt relief, multilateral development bank reform, and capital increases) to drive global financial architecture reform and a successful replenishment of the International Development Association 21 later this year.  

The UK can also lead the way in pressing for international support to be integrated and aligned behind countries’ own inclusive, green development plans; and by making the case for multilateral trade reform aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement.  

In addition, the UK has a particular responsibility to resume a global leadership role on debt relief, a role it last played in the early 2000s during the era of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It could take legal and other action to unstick debt cancellation processes for some of the most indebted countries, by bringing private creditors to the table and brokering concerted action on debt relief at the G20.  

Global billionaires tax to fight climate change, hunger rises up political agenda

The UK should lend its political support to the Brazilian government’s laudable G20 initiative on tax reform, as well as its important work on climate and hunger; and support other promising efforts to raise revenue for development, such as levies on shipping and aviation. The next finance minister should consider the UK’s global role on these issues as being as centrally important to their legacy as issues of national economics; and ensure that the UK drives global progress on new flows of finance for climate and development, at the scale set out by economists Nick Stern and Vera Songwe in their 2022 report.   

Protect and restore nature

On nature, the UK should redouble its actions to protect and restore nature and biodiversity at home, including through pursuing more sustainable farming and land management. At the same time, the UK should use its influence and finance to drive global progress on the nature agenda, both in terrestrial ecosystems as well as the ocean. The goal here is to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 and to mobilise major flows of public and private finance to support countries, local communities and Indigenous Peoples to protect their ecosystems.

At the UN biodiversity conference in Colombia in October, the UK could assume a critical role on the global stage by making the case for the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems as fundamental to human life, to addressing the climate crisis, and as one of the most effective forms of pro-poor development assistance.   

At a deeply troubling and fractured time in multilateral affairs, revitalised global leadership from the next UK government on climate, development and nature could make a very constructive contribution to securing the better, fairer, more sustainable and more peaceful world which is still within our grasp to secure.   

 Editor’s note: The latest BBC analysis of opinion polls ahead of the July 4 general election in the UK shows the opposition Labour Party with 45% of voter support, while the ruling Conservative Party trails with 24%.

The post Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government appeared first on Climate Home News.

Pakistan’s southern province of Sindh has been sweltering under 52°C heat in recent days. Not in the news however is that wet-bulb temperatures in the region – a more accurate indicator of risk to human health that accounts for heat and humidity – passed a key danger threshold of 30°C.  

Climate change is increasing the risk of deadly humid heat in developing countries like Pakistan, Mexico and India, and without international support to adapt, vulnerable communities could face catastrophe.  

What is wet-bulb temperature? 

Wet-bulb temperature is an important scientific heat stress metric that accounts for both heat and humidity. When it’s both hot and humid, sweating – the body’s main way of cooling – becomes less effective as there’s too much moisture in the air. This can limit our ability to maintain a core temperature of 37°C – something we all must do to survive. 

A recent study suggests that wet-bulb temperatures beyond 30°C pose severe risks to human health, but the hard physiological limit comes at prolonged exposure (about 6-8 hours) to wet-bulb temperatures of 35°C. At this point, people can experience heat strokes, organ failure, and in extreme cases, even death. 

Climate change and deadly heat 

Globally, around 30% of people are exposed to lethal humid heat. This could reach as much as 50% by 2100 due to global warming. To date, the climate has warmed around 1.3°C as a result of human activity, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. And along with the extra heat, with every 1°C rise the air can hold up to 7% more moisture. 

A comprehensive evaluation of global weather station data reveals that the frequency of extreme humid heat has more than doubled since 1979, with several wet-bulb exceedances of 31-33°C. Another recent study predicts a surge in the frequency and geographic spread of extreme heat events, even at 1.5°C warming.   

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

What this shows is that the humid tropics including monsoon belts are all careening towards the 35°C threshold, which is very worrying for countries like Pakistan. The city of Jacobabad has already breached 35°C wet bulb temperatures many times. More areas of the country are likely to be exposed to such life-threatening conditions more often due to climate change.   

At 1.5°C of warming, much of South Asia, large parts Sahelian Africa, inland Latin America and northern Australia could be subject to at least one day per year of lethal heat. If the world gets to 3°C, this exposure explodes, covering most of South Asia, large parts of Eastern China and Southeast Asia, much of central and west Africa, most of Latin America and Australia and significant parts of the southeastern USA and the Gulf of Mexico.  

Areas of the world that will experience at least one day of deadly heat per year at different levels of warming   

Source: ScienceAdvances 

 Even at 1.5°C of warming, there will be high exposure to lethal heat in large regions where billions presently live. This terrible threat to human life calls for urgent action to limit warming and help at risk communities adapt.  

Adapting to hard limits 

 While 35°C can prove deadly, one study suggests a 32°C wet-bulb threshold as the hard limit for labour. More realistic, human-centred models found this overly optimistic, as direct exposure and other vulnerability factors were ignored. Vulnerable groups including unskilled labourers would be most at risk of losing their income.  

In densely populated urban centres, lethal humid heat is not just a future projection but a current reality. This calls for urgent adaptation measures which integrate the risk of deadly heat into urban planning, public health, early-warning systems and emergency response.  

Investments in green spaces, heat-resilient buildings and urban cooling are vital adaptation strategies. Community initiatives like awareness campaigns, indigenous cooling strategies and local heat action plans are also essential. Households could consider investing in cooling technologies or migrating – options mostly available to the wealthy.  

In Malawi, dubious cyclone aid highlights need for loss and damage fund

As climate change makes lethal humid heat a growing threat in some of the world’s most populous areas, more attention must be paid to understanding its risks – especially in vulnerable regions with huge data gaps. This demands a multidimensional response that combines scientific research, policymaking and community engagement.  

The potential scale and level of risk to human life also reinforces the importance of ensuring that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C global warming limit is met. To do this, we need to halve emissions by 2030. Countries should therefore strengthen their 2030 emissions targets in line with the warming limit as they prepare equally ambitious 2035 targets in updated NDCs. 

The Pakistan heatwave is a terrible reminder of this often-underestimated threat. We must act now to limit warming while we adapt to the growing danger of deadly heat if we are to avoid potentially wide-reaching tragedies in the future.  

The post Developing countries need support adapting to deadly heat appeared first on Climate Home News.

For too long, Africa has supplied the raw materials which drive development abroad, while Africans remain locked in endless cycles of poverty at home.  

This has been happening even before Western European colonial powers carved up the African continent in the 19th century’s “scramble for Africa”, exporting rubber, diamonds, gold, ivory, palm oil and other wealth, to process and transform it into saleable commodities. 

Today, this damaging pattern remains intact, as wealth continues to haemorrhage from Africa in this way. 

To take just one graphic example: 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa – or 53% of the region’s population — still don’t have access to electricity on a continent that possesses all the minerals needed to build its own energy infrastructure.  

Now a new “scramble for Africa” has begun. This time, it is for the African minerals that will be crucial for the world to have any chance of halting climate chaos.  

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

The African continent holds vast quantities of the transition minerals – such as cobalt, lithium and nickel – which are used to help produce, transport, store and use electricity generated from cleaner sources such as wind and sun – and which are a prerequisite for a clean energy future.  

Tanzania, for instance, possesses huge reserves of nickel which is a key ingredient in the lithium-ion batteries that power everything from mobile phones to electric vehicles. 

As the world rushes to secure these precious materials, Africans must break with the past.  

The wealth these minerals generate must spur African development, giving our citizens the roads, hospitals, schools, electricity and other basic services so many of them desperately need. 

“New” partnerships? 

Many of Africa’s historic exploiters are among the Western powers which are now rushing to secure transition minerals. 

The US-led “Mineral Security Partnership,” which includes the European Union and other most powerful economies from the OECD block, is positioning itself in Africa’s resource-rich countries.  

Concurrently, the EU is supposedly redesigning its ties with Africa and other mineral-rich nations through “Strategic Partnerships“.  

All those initiatives are committed to “bring economic benefits to local communities”, allowing partner countries to “move up the value chain” – but are effectively enveloping the continent from multiple angles in a concerted push for resources. 

And it is no secret that mineral exports are ruled by international trade policies set up, influenced and dominated by Western powers, allowing them to access African resources at a good price. 

Zimbabwe looks to China to secure a place in the EV battery supply chain

In this realm, it remains an open question whether these partnerships will pave the way for genuine development, or – as so often in the past – merely serve foreign interests.  

In other words, will they simply be a means of continuing business as usual – keeping Africa trapped in ‘extractivism’ – or offer Africa a path to self-determination? 

Challenging the status quo 

The OECD Forum on Responsible Minerals Supply Chains, taking place this week in Paris, is a crucial opportunity for African leaders to assert their vision for a new era of mineral resource management.  

This event remains a forum dominated by consumer regions’ representatives and priorities, but we Africans need to make ourselves heard.  

We cannot wait any longer. African leaders must challenge the status quo and advocate for deals and trade policies that empower producer nations. 

They can also insist that mining companies respect the rights of the Indigenous and local communities most impacted by mining – peoples whose way of life protects priceless ecosystems that are crucial for preventing climate change, biodiversity loss and the risk of future pandemics emerging from deforested landscapes.  

Calls for responsible mining fail to stem rights abuses linked to transition minerals

Free trade rules favour already industrialised regions. One of the ways to counter this is by creating a web of preferential trade agreements among African countries. This would allow them to access their neighbours’ transition minerals at lower prices, to help them build their own clean energy technologies.  

Regional collaboration is the key to ensuring that Africa gains its rightful place in the new power map drawn by the energy transition. The African Union, the Southern African Development Community and other regional blocs could play a pivotal role in this process, promoting intra-regional trade and economic cohesion. 

African civil society works across borders to ensure that deals signed by African governments with consumer regions reflect the continent’s collective interests. But we can’t do this alone. 

We need to unite with our leaders around a just vision for our minerals. Only then can the continent truly benefit from them, turning the page on a history of exploitation and underdevelopment.  

The post Africa must reap the benefits of its energy transition minerals  appeared first on Climate Home News.

After three decades of negotiations to establish the fund for climate loss and damage, its inaugural board meeting just concluded in Abu Dhabi. The establishment of this fund is a monumental milestone. We are still some way off, but equally historic are seismic shifts underway in how we may finance it.  

The first meeting was a modest success. The fourteen members chosen by developing country constituencies and twelve from developed countries demonstrated unity of purpose. Two impressive and committed co-chairs – Jean Christophe Donnellier of France and South African Richard Sherman – were elected. The new board agreed on processes to select an executive director and a host country.

Mistrust eased between some members of the board and the World Bank, which negotiators had previously chosen, with conditions, to be the secretariat of the fund. This unity and commitment are seeds of hope for the fund’s future.  

Loss and damage board speeds up work to allow countries direct access to funds

These seeds will need money to grow. The only long-run solution to the escalating climate crisis is accelerating the energy transition from fossil fuels. However, due to the lack of progress, we now face losses and damages that require financing of over $150bn per year – according to the IHLEG Report for COP26 and 27.

These losses disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, exacerbating poverty and inequality. Adding injustice to a bleak situation is that the wealthiest countries are most responsible for the stock of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.  

The OECD estimates that total development assistance is $200bn per year, and even though this is half of the commitments made five decades ago, the politics of the day suggest aid money is more likely to be re-channelled for domestic purposes than increased substantially. So where could $100bn plus come from?

Some developed countries promoted the idea that they would initially pay the insurance premiums for a small number of small countries. Twinning insurance to disaster seems natural –  especially if you want to minimise using tax-payers money. But with insurers pulling out of California, Louisiana and Florida because of climate risks, those living in other climate-vulnerable countries – 40% of the world’s population – felt this was at best not scalable and at worse disingenuous.

Climate, like a preexisting medical condition, has become uninsurable. It is now a risk of substantial loss that is growing – and increasingly certain, frequent, and correlated – and so insurance’s spreading and pooling qualities don’t work. If the annual known climate loss is $150bn and rising, yearly premiums cannot be much less without direct or cross-subsidies that no one is budgeting. It’s insurance, not magic. 

Time to test new taxes

For the climate-vulnerable today, the only real insurance against future loss and damage is investing massively in resilience which would generate future savings several times their cost.

One idea mooted by the Inter-American Development Bank is that the multilateral banks lend for a resilience project in a climate-vulnerable country at little more than the banks’ preferential borrowing rates, and donors separately contribute to a substantial reduction in the interest rate once an independent assessment has certified that the investment has achieved the intended resilience.

Countries can borrow for resilience if the repayment period is sufficiently long to capture the savings, but not for current loss and damage. Without grants to fund that, vulnerable countries will drown in debt long before sea levels rise. 

The global financial crisis and COVID showed the promise of long-dismissed ideas. Over the past twenty-four months, 140 countries have agreed an internationally minimum corporate income tax, and the EU has put on an extraterritorial carbon border adjustment tax. The International Maritime Organisation is debating an international levy to fund the shipping industry’s decarbonisation.

Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund

The fund’s board will want to hear proposals from the new taskforce established by Barbados, France, and Kenya to consider international taxes to pay for global public goods.

They will also be interested in the just-published proposal for a Climate Damages Tax on the production of fossil fuels by an amount related to the damage they will cause. One dollar per barrel of oil produced, and its equivalent for coal and gas – an amount easily lost in the monthly volatility of prices – could finance both the loss and damage fund and rebates for the poorest consumers. There are enforcement mechanisms. Oil producers could be required to show they have paid the tax before their shipping insurance is legally enforceable. 

Knowledge that scalable solutions exist is vital because some use their absence to stall progress. However, what we do is not about the how, but how much it matters to us. G7 central bankers purchased $24 trillion of government bonds to stave off recession during COVID and the global financial crisis. It was unprecedented and heroic.

With hindsight, if they had bought bonds that financed climate mitigation, the recovery would have been stronger and quicker, and inflation – heavily driven by fossil fuels – would have been weaker. They would have saved the economy and progressed halfway to ending climate change and limiting loss and damage. Viable financing solutions exist. We have to decide to use them. 

The post Seismic shifts are underway to find finance for loss and damage appeared first on Climate Home News.

Last month, from Bangladesh to Kenya to Washington DC, over 40,000 activists in nearly 20 countries hit the streets calling on banks, governments and financial institutions to “#FixTheFinance” pushing the planet to the brink. 

It’s clear that we can’t address the climate crisis unless we fix the finance flows that are failing the planet. When we know that we have hardly any time left to avoid runaway climate breakdown, it’s absurd that so much of the world’s money is still being poured into fuelling climate change, while barely any is going to the solutions. 

Let’s face it – the climate crisis is really about money, and our choices to use it and make it in really stupid ways.  

G7 offers tepid response to appeal for “bolder” climate action

Many of the world’s most powerful private banks are holding their Annual General Meetings over the next weeks. Banks like Barclays, HSBC and Citibank are pumping billions into fossil fuel expansion, knowing full well that their decisions directly lead to climate chaos and devastating local pollution, particularly for communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. At their AGMs they will undoubtedly celebrate their profits, self-congratulate on miniscule policy tweaks, and try to ignore the clamour of climate criticism.   

ActionAid research last year showed that these banks are financing an astonishing amount of fossil-fuel and industrial agriculture activities in the Global South, causing land grabs, deforestation, water and soil pollution and loss of livelihoods – all compounding the injustice to communities also getting routinely hit by droughts, floods and cyclones thanks to climate change.  

HSBC, for example, is the largest European financer of fossil fuels and agribusiness in the Global South. Barclays is the largest European bank financier to fossil fuels around the world. And Citibank is the largest US financier of fossil fuels in the Global South. The banks have so much power, and so much culpability, much more than most people realise. But they want us to forget the fact that they are working hand in hand with, and profiting from, the industries that are wrecking the planet.  

The banks can actually turn off the taps. They can end the finance flows that are fuelling the climate crisis. So to avert catastrophic climate change, the fossil-financing banks must start saying no to the corporations destroying the planet.  

But it’s not only private finance that is flawed – public funds are being misused as well. Governments are using far more of their public funds to provide subsidies or tax breaks for fossil fuels and industrial agriculture corporations, than they are for climate action. This is ridiculous – it’s hurting the planet, and its hurting people.  

Public funds instead need to be redirected towards just transitions that address climate change and inequality.  

There is growing appetite for climate action. But this just isn’t yet matched by willingness to pay for it. Or even to stop profiting from climate destruction. 

COP29 finance goal

This year’s COP29 climate talks will be a critical test of rich countries’ commitment to securing a liveable planet. The world’s poorest countries are already bearing the spiralling costs of a warming planet. So far they have only received begrudging, tokenistic pennies from the rich polluting countries to help them cope. The offer of loans instead of grants in the name of climate finance is just rubbing salt into the wounds. 

If we want to unleash climate action on a scale to save the planet, rich countries at COP29 will need to agree a far more ambitious new climate finance goal based on grants, not loans. 

Because if we want to save our planet, we will actually need to cover the costs. 

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Last month the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank held their Spring meetings in Washington DC. These institutions are powerful symbols of the planet’s dysfunctional finance systems which urgently need fixing. The World Bank is financing fossil fuels yet being extremely secretive about it. The IMF is pushing climate-devastated countries deeper into debt that often requires further fossil extraction for repayment.

Even as they brand themselves as responsible channels for climate finance, the world’s most powerful financial institutions are pushing our planet to the brink. Their stated aim to get “bigger and better” really amounts to all-out push to get “bigger” but only token tweaks to get “better”.  The Spring meetings ended with business-as-usual backslapping. But if they were taking climate change and its consequences seriously, at the very least, the IMF and World Bank would stop financing fossil fuels and cancel the debts that are pushing climate-vulnerable countries into a vicious cycle.  

Will blossom of reform bear fruit? Spring Meetings leave too much to do

All of these finance flows need fixing. At the moment, the global financial system is better designed to escalate – rather than address – climate change, vulnerability and inequality. The activists, youth and frontline communities who filled the streets last month hope that their calls to stop financing destruction will be heard in the boardrooms and conferences on the other side of the world. 

They say that money talks. This is the year that the climate movement is going to make sure it listens.  

The post How to fix the finance flows that are pushing our planet to the brink appeared first on Climate Home News.

Living in a community on the edge of an acres-wide petrochemical plant in Texas or Louisiana means that you can see, smell, and taste plastic pollution every day. All too often leaders who are charged with making decisions about plastic pollution are too far removed from the impact and easily miss the risks to human health and the environment.

This past week, a thousand miles away, delegates from over 170 countries met in Ottawa, Ontario, to discuss just that: pollution from plastic. This meeting marks the fourth session of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4), where leaders are working to develop a legally binding, global plastics treaty ahead of final negotiations set for November.

As decisions move forward, Beyond Petrochemicals is supporting our community partners to help bring their lived experience to the negotiation process. These frontline leaders are working hard to push for a fair and effective treaty that puts public health, human rights, and the environment first.

But the petrochemical industry is at work too, placing pro-plastic ads near negotiating rooms and touting false solutions like “chemical recycling.” Industry executives continue to downplay the role of plastics in the issue of pollution, even as a new report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that plastic production emits as much carbon pollution as 600 coal-fired power plants annually. By 2050, carbon pollution from plastics production could triple, taking up as much as 20 percent of our remaining carbon budget and undercutting global efforts on climate change.

Canadian minister vows to fight attempts to weaken plastic pollution treaty

It can be hard to relate to the fluctuations of international treaty negotiations or new scientific reports when you spend each day worried about breathing in the pollutants being negotiated. It’s easy to feel like just a number—some statistic about economic hardship or disease. That’s a problem.

Firsthand experience of pollution

Communities know firsthand the impact of plastic pollution at every step of the process. Plastic pollution begins when companies drill and extract oil and gas and use it to process and manufacture petrochemicals for plastics. More than a third of the carbon pollution generated by plastic production happens during the extraction and refining of fossil fuels. And it’s not just carbon pollution, this industry is suffocating communities in places like Texas, Louisiana, and the Ohio River Valley with millions of tons of toxic, cancer-causing pollution.

The global plastics treaty can be a landmark international agreement to address the escalating crisis of plastic pollution at every step – but the only way to get an effective treaty is with the perspectives and input of the communities on the frontlines of petrochemical pollution. Because when communities are trusted to lead, real change is possible.

I have seen the power of communities declaring they are more than a number. Two women separated by a thousand miles and seemingly just as many differences dared to fight the expansion of the petrochemical industry in their community – and they won.

Jill Hunkler, Ohio Valley resident and grassroots leader

Jill Hunkler, a seventh-generation Ohio Valley resident, is a fierce advocate for her community. Faced with plans to displace her friends and neighbors to build the largest ethylene plant of its kind in the United States, she became a leader of a grassroots movement. Phone calls, emails, and meetings helped put the pressure needed on state and federal leaders and stalled what was once seen as inevitable.

Together, they were more than a number and in fact helped avert 1.7 million tons of carbon emissions per year.

Sharon Lavigne of RISE St. James

Sharon Lavigne, a retired teacher from St. James Parish, Louisiana, is tired of the moniker given to her community, “Cancer Alley.” Decades of unabated industrial development have overwhelmed this primarily Black parish leaving a wake of disease and hardship. Sharon knows her parish is more than this, that it is more than a number.

Founding the group RISE St. James, Sharon is leading a multi-generational movement to block a petrochemical and plastics facility poised to produce as much pollution as three new coal plants. Their fight against the Formosa Sunshine plant has gained global attention thanks to her leadership, spurring legal actions and rallying work to ensure this plant is never built.

Sharon and Jill are not alone. Last year, a total of five newly planned petrochemical facilities were blocked by similar community efforts. And last week, after nearly two years of community-led organizing and opposition, Encina Development Group withdrew its plans to build a toxic chemical recycling facility along the Susquehanna River in Point Township, Pennsylvania.

People coming together makes a difference. As the plastics industry works to expand – to build more petrochemical plants and create more plastic than we could ever possibly need – the perspectives of frontline leaders are essential if we are going to arrive at a global plastics treaty that supports a stable climate, a livable planet, and a just future. Alongside powerful community organizers, my colleagues and I are proud to continue this effort to stop the expansion of the petrochemical industry.

Heather McTeer Toney is also the author of Before the Streetlights Come On: Black America’s Urgent Call for Climate Solutions. She was appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Southeast region. In 2004, she became the first woman and African American to be elected mayor of Greenville, Mississippi, a position she held until 2011.

The post ‘More than a number’: Global plastic talks need community experts appeared first on Climate Home News.

Gathered in NYC in mid-April, 87 Indigenous leaders from 35 countries met to hammer out a set of demands to address a common scourge: the green energy transition that has our peoples under siege.  

Worldwide, we are experiencing land-grabs and a rising tide of criminalization and attacks for speaking out against mining and renewable energy projects that violate our rights with impacts that are being documented by UN and other experts. Their research confirms what we know firsthand.     

And yet political and economic actors continue to ignore the evidence, pushing us aside in their rush to build a system to replace fossil fuels, while guided by the same values that are destroying the natural world.  

Ironically, we released this declaration amid the UN’s sustainability week – renewable energy was on the agenda. We were not.  

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

Indigenous peoples are not opposed to pivoting away from oil and gas, nor are we opposed to investing in renewable energy systems as an alternative.  

But we must have a say. More than half the mines that are expected to produce metals and minerals to serve renewable technologies are on or near the territories of Indigenous peoples and peasant communities.  

Resource extraction causing triple crisis  

In the words of the UN’s Global Resource Outlook 2024, released in March with little fanfare by the UN Environment Programme: “the current model of natural resource extraction…is driving an unprecedented triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution”. 

Mining companies have been offered a path to sustainability. Few have started down that path.  

And they won’t unless global and national decision-makers take advantage of this key moment in history to demand change. Indigenous leaders need to be at the table too.

As donors dither, Indigenous funds seek to decolonise green finance

We are not willing to have our territories become the deserts that mining companies create, leaking toxins into our rivers and soils and poisoning our sources of water and food, and by extension our children. 

The playing field for Indigenous peoples is massively unjust. The authors of the Global Resources Outlook cite evidence of national governments that favor companies’ interests “by removing the judicial protection of Indigenous communities, expropriating land…or even using armed forces to protect mining facilities”.  

Why should this matter to people on the other side of the planet? 

Proven to outperform the public and private sectors, Indigenous peoples conserve some of the world’s most biodiverse regions. Negotiators at global climate events do cite our outsize conservation role, but treaty language allows our governments to decide when and whether to recognize or enforce our rights.  

Companies are advised to “engage” with our communities – not so they can avoid harming us, but to prevent costly conflicts that arise in response to outdated and destructive practices. 

These “externalities” that chase us from our ancestral homes and damage our health and the ecosystems we treasure are revealed only when they become “material”, of concern to investors and relevant to risk analysts. 

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

Our resistance is costly and material. Failure to properly obtain our consent before sending in the bulldozers can bring a project to a halt, with a price tag as high as $20 million a week. And communities are learning to use the tools of the commercial legal system to defend themselves. 

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School report that, over time, shareholders benefit most when companies heed the demands of their most influential stakeholders. Indigenous peoples are the stakeholders to please.  

Our communities disrupt supply chains, but when our rights are respected, we can also be the best indicators of a company’s intention to avoid harm to people and planet. 

Call for ban on mining in ‘no-go’ zones 

In the declaration we released in New York earlier this month, we called for laws to reduce the consumption of energy worldwide, and we laid out a path for ensuring that the green transition is a just one. 

We urged our governments to recognize and protect our rights as a priority; to end the killings, the violence and the criminalization of our peoples; and to require corporations to secure our free, prior and informed consent, and avoid harming our lands and resources. 

A growing body of evidence suggests that Indigenous peoples rooted to their ancestral lands can draw on traditional knowledge, stretching back over generations, to help nature evolve and adapt to the changing climate. We understand the sustainable use of wild species and hold in our gardens genetic resources that can protect crops of immeasurable economic and nutritional value. 

Current practices for extracting metals and minerals put our peoples at risk and endanger climate, biodiversity, water, global health and food security. Researchers warned earlier this year that the unprecedented scale of demand for “green” minerals will lay waste to more and more land and drive greater numbers of Indigenous and other local peoples from our homes. 

Q&A: What you need to know about critical minerals

So our declaration also calls on governments to impose a ban on the expansion of mining in “no-go” zones – those sites that our peoples identify as sacred and vital as sources of food and clean water. Indigenous communities, rooted in place by time and tradition, can help stop the green transition from destroying biomes that serve all humanity. 

The UN Secretary-General launches a panel on critical minerals today that seems to recognize the importance of avoiding harm to affected communities and the environment.  

This is a step in the right direction, but Indigenous peoples and our leaders – and recognition and enforcement of our rights – must be at the centre of every proposal for mining and renewable energy that affect us and our territories. This is the only way to keep climate “response measures”, made possible by the Paris Agreement, from harming solutions that exist already. 

The post Indigenous lands feel cruel bite of green energy transition  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Imagine losing your home to catastrophic floods, your loved ones to unprecedented hurricanes, your livelihood to raging wildfires, or your ancestors’ graves to rising sea levels.  

Then, to add insult to injury, imagine losing your voice and rights in the very UN institution mandated to alleviate the costs of these climate-related harms for the hardest hit in communities such as yours.  

Technocrats talking about you, without you; decisions made – including, ironically, on participation and stakeholder engagement – while you have no meaningful say. Justice denied from the outset.   

This could be the dire reality when the new board of the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) convenes for the first time in Abu Dhabi (UAE) next week (April 30 – May 2). Designed to provide long-awaited justice for those suffering the most from climate impacts, the fund risks failing right from the start by limiting access for those it claims to support. 

Expectations mount as loss and damage fund staggers to its feet

Those most affected by the climate crisis know all too well the losses and damages they are suffering and how to repair these harms. Their involvement in the LDF is essential not only for its effectiveness but for its legitimacy and for justice. Even more than any other, this fund needs to be driven by people, to respect their rights, and hear their voices. 

Let’s start with the basics: public participation and access to information are human rights. Accountability, transparency and participation in decision-making are the hallmarks of democratic governance – and their importance for the LDF’s ability to meet local needs and priorities cannot be overstated.  

These fundamental rights are rooted in the understanding that people should hold power over decisions that concern their lives and communities. Science and experience show that such participation also leads to more effective and sustainable outcomes. Getting participation right from the start is essential to the LDF’s legitimacy, equity, effectiveness and potential for transformative change.  

Sidelined in planning 

The LDF would not exist if it were not for the decades-long relentless calls for justice and affirmative action by communities, civil society and Indigenous Peoples, which escalated to an impossible-to-ignore volume over the last few years.  

Despite these loud calls, rightsholders’ representatives were sidelined during the fund’s planning stages last year. While a small group of countries in a Transitional Committee debated the fund’s scope and aims, civil society consistently had to put up a fight merely to be let into the room. 

And history is repeating itself. The LDF’s Governing Instrument (adopted at COP28) reinforces the need to support local communities and recognition of their participation. Yet the first board meeting limits participation to two people per UNFCCC stakeholder group – some of which represent millions, even billions, of people – such as Indigenous Peoples, youth, and women and girls.  

Such overly restrictive numbers do not allow for the representation of the diversity of voices, groups and organisations under the umbrellas of these groups, and will lead to the exclusion of critical voices. 

As donors dither, Indigenous funds seek to decolonise green finance

These limitations are in stark contrast with participation at another UN fund, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which – while it still has a long way to go to enable effective participation – does not limit board meeting observer attendance either in number or by stakeholder groups. The GCF had a significantly higher attendance than the LDF at its first meetings.  

Restricted seating in the actual room will further limit direct interaction with LDF board members making the decisions. The claimed ‘space constraints’ behind the restrictions are particularly unconvincing, coming from a country that organised the biggest climate talks in history just a few months ago.  

Climate justice requires inclusion  

The LDF has the potential to set a new precedent for climate finance – one that values human dignity and amplifies the voices of its beneficiaries. This requires more than a token dialogue with a handful of stakeholders in the first meeting; it necessitates a broad, inclusive consultation process that genuinely influences the fund’s policies.  

By explicitly endorsing the principles of inclusion, non-discrimination, transparency, access to information, empowerment, collaboration, and accountability, and proactively enabling active participation at all stages – from designing board policies and assessing community-level needs to implementation and decision-making – the LDF could live up to expectations and deliver climate justice.  

Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal

If the Board does not explicitly and meaningfully include the diverse voices of the rightsholders who are meant to be the LDF’s main beneficiaries, the fund risks becoming another bureaucratic relic, preserving the status quo of climate injustice.  

During its first meeting next week, the board has a chance to overcome business-as-usual, as decision-makers will discuss procedures for the participation of observers and stakeholders. It must radically choose to enable and support meaningful participation by the diverse range of groups involved.  

The time to act is now. At its inaugural meeting, the board must choose to champion transformative change and genuine justice, setting a course that will define the fund’s legacy. The lives and livelihoods of far too many are on the line.

The post Limiting frontline voices in the Loss and Damage Fund is a recipe for disaster appeared first on Climate Home News.