Beijing’s energy transition is entering a new phase where renewables are starting to drive down demand for fossil fuels rather than simply creating additional capacity, think-tank Ember said.

Electricity generated from clean energy sources, including nuclear, outstripped demand growth in the first half of 2025, cutting fossil fuel use by 2% compared to the same period last year, Ember’s analysis showed.

While coal remains the primary source in the country’s electricity mix, the data raises the prospect that its use in the power sector could soon peak and begin falling. As China is the largest fossil fuel consumer and the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, a long-term shift would give a major boost to efforts to limit global warming.

Muyi Yang, a senior analyst at Ember, said China is no longer just stacking renewables on top of fossil fuels. “Fossil fuel use in power generation and end-use sectors is nearing a plateau,” he added in a written statement. “What once seemed like mere additions now looks like the take-off point for real transformation.”

Coal tension

A separate analysis by Greenpeace East Asia predicted that China’s coal power generation and total emissions from its energy sector could peak as soon as this year under an “ambitious” scenario that sees an accelerated use of non-fossil sources.

Gao Yuhe, Greenpeace East Asia’s climate and energy project manager, said Beijing has a “critical window” to reshape its power system. China must accelerate the integration of renewable energy as the “mainstay of the power system” and stop relying on coal power, she added.

China’s growing spending on the rollout of solar and wind energy has vastly outstripped any other country over recent years. But investment in new coal infrastructure has also continued apace, raising concerns over China’s ability to curb emissions and meet climate targets.

China commissioned 21 gigawatts (GW) of coal power plant capacity in the first half of 2025, the highest amount for the period since 2016, according to a recent analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). Beyond the energy sector, the use of coal as a raw material to produce liquid fuels and chemicals – including plastics – is also soaring.

Coal phase-down timeline needed

President Xi Jinping has committed to phasing down coal use from 2026, while keeping China’s coal power stations primarily as a backup for clean energy. But experts say a wide range of incentives are still supporting new investments.

Greenpeace’s Gao said Beijing should draft a clear timetable for phasing out coal power, as “every new coal approval will limit the space for renewables”.

The different reports point to a contradiction with China doubling down on new coal power approvals at the same time as coal use in its power generation falls to record low.

Ember’s analysis showed China’s push towards a peak in fossil fuel use is also being helped by the rising electrification of transport, heating and industrial production, which have historically depended on the direct use of coal and oil-derived products.

The think-tank believes China’s deployment of a new model based on growing clean energy and end-use electrification could reshape the economics of energy across the world and prompt other countries to follow suit.

China’s model exported overseas

China would stand to benefit directly from such a transformation given its dominant position in the global supply chains of clean energy technologies, electric vehicles and critical minerals.

Energy was among the focus areas of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit last week, when President Xi hosted 20 leaders of non-Western countries, including India’s Narendra Modi and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

The forum closed with an open-ended commitment for China to “jointly develop” 10 gigawatts (GW) of wind and 10 GW of solar power overseas during the next five years.

At climate summit, African leaders call for a bigger role in energy transition

Li Yuxiao, a project lead for Greenpeace East Asia, said significant barriers will need to be removed for that commitment to be delivered.

“Overseas wind and solar investment is a major headache for Chinese investors, and the system is not as well-worked for these types of projects as it once was for coal and remains for other fossil fuels,” she added.

Ineffective financing tools, limited insurance guarantees and lengthy approval processes are cited among the hurdles project developers are still facing.

The post China on course to peak fossil fuel power as soon as this year, reports say appeared first on Climate Home News.

Speaking at the opening event, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed said it’s time to reframe Africa’s role in climate action, instead of focusing on its financial and technological limitations.

“We gather not merely to discuss climate change, but to shape an African decade of delivery, a decade in which ambition becomes pipeline, and pipeline becomes investment backed by sound policy and strong partnerships,” he said.

Second Africa Climate Summit seeks to jump hurdles to green industrialisation

Kenyan President William Ruto agreed, telling the event’s opening ceremony that Africa’s climate ambition must be fueled by “investment, competitiveness and sovereignty”. 

Despite the continent’s goal to reach 300 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity by 2030 – a target set in 2023 in Nairobi – Africa added less than 1% of the world’s renewables deployment last year.

Ruto said this is because “too many investments remain fragmented, too few are scaled, and our regional value chains are not yet strong enough to compete”. 

Ahmed said that African leaders had gathered in Addis Ababa to attract finance and unlock the continent’s potential climate solutions. “We are here to design the world’s next climate economy,” he said, adding that the summit is where “we commit to do these things together with speed, at scale and with integrity”.

In the 2023 Nairobi declaration at the first summit, African leaders adopted a vision to turn the continent into a clean energy hub and to develop local green industries, as the region holds 30% of the world’s critical mineral reserves.

But two years on, a progress report launched in Addis Ababa shows slow gains and many challenges, mainly due to high debt levels in the region and sparse climate finance channelled to African countries.

Calls for investment in local industries

Ruto called for countries to process critical minerals locally before exporting and to develop clean industries, appealing to partners to embrace a vision of Africa “not as a source of raw commodities, but as a continent of innovation, industry, and growth.”

According to the progress report released by Ruto, Africa’s debt distress is crippling its progress, with 32 countries on the continent in, or at high risk of, debt distress. The report also shows Africa is receiving only 23% of the $190 billion in climate finance it needs annually by 2030.

Businesses doubt COP30 logistics as presidency calls on them to come to Belém

Mahamoud Ali Youssouf , chairperson of the African Union Commission, said Africa requires “fair, significant and predictable” climate finance. He added that Africa must collaborate with the international community to address vulnerabilities caused by climate change, debt burdens and unfair global financial systems.

To unlock investments, Africa needs to look within itself, said Meron Tesfamichael, director of the Africa energy programme at the World Resources Institute (WRI). She said the continent needs to strengthen regional trade as well as knowledge-sharing that can add value to its clean energy industries.

“Countries like Kenya that have done a lot around geothermal technology and have a lot of expertise and knowledge can share with other countries who wish to explore that way of investment,” Tesfamichael added.

“Unjust” climate finance

The energy transition so far “has not been fair” and “is too slow”, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement read out by his climate advisor Selwin Hart at the summit’s opening.

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement ten years ago, four of every five clean energy dollars have gone to advanced economies and China, he added, whereas Africa with 60% of the world’s best solar resources and 30% of critical transition minerals receives just 2% of global clean energy investment.

UN climate chief issues rallying cry on national climate plans as deadline looms

“This is the injustice of our time,” Guterres said. But, he added, it is also an opportunity because Africa has the resources, the market, the people and solutions to build a low-carbon future. “What is missing is not potential, but fair finance and policy certainty,” he emphasised.

To help African countries build truly sustainable economies, Guterres said “the international finance system must work for Africa and not against it”.

He called on developed countries to deliver on their international climate finance commitments, change outdated models for pricing risk, reform multilateral development banks and take credible action on debt relief “including skilling-up instruments such as debt for climate and nature swaps”.

The post At climate summit, African leaders call for a bigger role in energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

In 2023, at the first such summit in Nairobi, African leaders adopted a bold vision for the continent to become a clean energy hub and to develop local industries enabling their people to reap more economic benefits through a green industrialisation agenda.

The Nairobi declaration said that with 60% of the world’s best solar resources and 30% of critical mineral reserves which are essential for clean technologies, Africa would aim to process more of its raw materials, make production sustainable, play a bigger part in global supply chains and increase renewables capacity from about 50 gigawatts (GW) in 2022 to 300 GW by 2030.  

But two years on, in a foreword to the progress report, Kenya’s leader William Ruto wrote that Africa continues “to face headwinds – from crippling debt and a persistent shortfall in climate finance to the urgent need to advance adaptation and resilience, without which Africa cannot withstand today’s pressures nor thrive tomorrow”. 

Speaking at the summit’s opening plenary, Ruto added that realising Africa’s vision for a climate-safe future requires action – including from the international community which “must dismantle the structural barriers that continue to hold the continent back”. 

The report showed that some progress has been made but challenges remain. As the world shifts to cleaner energy and high-tech, low-carbon supply chains, Africa is in a “fragile position”, it noted.

The continent accounts for only 2% of global manufacturing value-added, while manufacturing makes up just 11% of its gross domestic product today – compared to almost 18% in the 1980s – creating fewer jobs than in other regions, the report said. 

Analysts told Climate Home that issues such as weak cooperation across the region and a continued focus on exports of low-value goods continue to hamper Africa’s green industrialisation plan. To drive it forward at this week’s summit in Addis Ababa, they said leaders should seek ways to drum up the finance and investment opportunities required to unlock the “climate-positive growth” envisaged in Nairobi. 

Saliem Fakir, executive director of the African Climate Foundation, said Africa must move beyond talk and show leadership on concrete initiatives that can offer “credible investment portfolios and attract the right kind of financing to scale and deliver green industrial development objectives”. 

New finance paradigm needed

Financial constraints have meant that the gap between ambition and delivery remains wide, the progress report said, with 32 African countries in or at high risk of debt distress. External debt exceeded $680 billion in 2023, and around $90 billion is expected to be paid back in 2025, it added.

On top of this, despite rising climate ambition, financial flows remain insufficient, costly and poorly targeted, the report said, with Africa receiving only 23% of the $190 billion it needs annually by 2030. 

To close this gap, the second Africa Climate Summit (ACS2) will need to tackle unsustainable national debt burdens and a global financial architecture that is skewed towards loan-based finance, which compounds the debt problem, experts told Climate Home News.

Meron Tesfamichael, director of the Africa energy programme at the World Resources Institute (WRI), said the continent needs “quality, accessible and affordable finance that does not create more debt and hindrances to economic development and opportunities”, adding that ACS2 should look for ways to ease the bottlenecks. 

The progress report called for global financing systems to be reformed to reflect current development realities, including by expanding concessional finance, delivering faster debt relief and exploring new international levies on shipping, aviation and fossil fuels.  

Seyoum Mekonen, Ethiopia’s minister of planning and development, told journalists before the summit that ACS2 would present a “unified African voice and push for climate financing” ahead of the UN General Assembly this month, the COP30 climate talks in November and the G20 summit in Johannesburg. 

This week’s ACS2 and upcoming multilateral gatherings also provide an opportunity for the continent to ramp up its push for local value addition. Mohamed Adow, founder of the Nairobi-based think-tank Power Shift Africa, said ACS2 should support policies and partnerships that prioritise domestic and intra-regional mineral processing, refining and manufacturing capacity in Africa. 

“This commitment should be advanced through targeted financing, concessional technology transfer, and the development of skills to ensure inclusive and sustainable industrialisation,” he told Climate Home.

$100bn for green industrialisation initiative

The Africa progress report said that since the first summit, various continent-wide efforts have been launched to deliver on its promises, including the Africa Green Industrialisation Initiative aimed at leveraging resources and advancing investments through African financing entities and structured partnerships with governments, philanthropies and multilateral institutions.

On Monday, this initiative was officially made operational, backed by $100 billion from a range of African development and commercial banks to support renewable energy projects and new green industry sectors such as critical minerals, clean fuels and battery manufacturing. 

At an event unveiling the pledges in Addis, Kenya’s Ruto said conversations had moved to collaboration in a short time, adding that with financial institutions, trade and energy partners working together, “we can anchor inclusive and globally competitive green value chains”. 

In February, meanwhile, the African Union officially endorsed Mission 300 to provide electricity access to 300 million people by 2030 – around half of those currently living without it.   

Other programmes include the Alliance for Green Infrastructure in Africa (AGIA), the Accelerated Partnership for Renewables in Africa (APRA) – supported by the European Union – and the Continental Power System Masterplan (CMP). These are all aimed at improving cross-border electricity transmission networks, building resilient infrastructure and providing the clean energy African countries need to decarbonise their economies. 

Boom in solar panel imports boosts hopes for clean energy take-off in Africa

Despite such initiatives – which are at different stages of implementation – Adow of Power Shift Africa said that overall progress on the ground since the Nairobi summit has been “disappointing”.

“While the world accelerates towards a green energy transition, Africa appears to move sluggishly, with the risk of being left further behind,” he said. 

Some experts highlighted encouraging signs such as bans on exports of unprocessed minerals in Nigeria, Namibia and Zimbabwe and regional power projects such as the Zambia-Tanzania interconnector. Fakir of the African Climate Foundation said these showed that green industrialisation had “gained momentum” since the first ACS in Nairobi. 

Kuda Manjonjo, a just transition associate at Power Shift Africa, said that overcoming roadblocks to green growth would require more regional corporation and trade between African countries to support industrialisation at home rather than exporting critical minerals further afield.  

“It is important for Africa… to see its own continent as its primary market,” Manjonjo said. “There is not enough inward-looking to understand what’s possible and the potential that can be set up.”

This article was updated after publication to add the announcement of new funding for the Africa Green Industrialisation Initiative at the Africa Climate Summit on Monday.

The post Second Africa Climate Summit seeks to jump hurdles to green industrialisation appeared first on Climate Home News.

The costly accommodation offer in the city has made planning “difficult to navigate” for businesses, said Ricardo Mussa, chair of a private-sector initiative called Sustainable Business COP (SB COP) led by the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry (CNI).

“Especially for CEOs from large corporations, it has been very difficult to make plans to come to Brazil without having 100% certainty about what they will find here,” Mussa told Climate Home News. “That clearly didn’t help.”

COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago issued a new public letter last week urging companies “to attend and engage through solutions, partnerships, investments, and ideas”. At the same time, he conceded: “We recognize that traveling to Belém presents logistical challenges.”

Speaking to journalists, COP30 CEO Ana Toni rejected concerns that some businesses could stay away, and said the presidency’s call for them to show up in Belém had “nothing to do with logistics”. “We have heard from many private-sector leaders that they will be coming to Belém. We’re not concerned about that,” Toni added.

Nonetheless, Maria Mendiluce, CEO of the We Mean Business Coalition, told Climate Home that her organisation is also endorsing events happening in other Brazilian cities like Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. “It is just ‘come to Brazil’ – that’s the right message for business,” she added.

In Belém, limited accommodation options and astronomical prices for rooms have made it difficult for companies from developing countries to attend COP30, Mendiluce said. “Some of the prices are so high that businesses cannot afford or justify them,” she explained.

The week before COP30, São Paulo will host the Climate Implementation Summit on November 8 and the Climate Action Innovation Zone from November 6 to 9. Both events are aimed at the private sector, and seek to build collaborations around climate solutions.

Mussa said many companies had decided to come to São Paulo and Rio in the week leading up to COP30, before negotiations start on November 10. “We are seeing a lot of confirmations already for the previous week in São Paulo and Rio, with the option to be in Belém depending on who they can meet from the government there,” he added.

Mendiluce argued that “logistics cannot become a barrier for companies to show up at COP as they have always done”.

Bureaucracy stops Belém residents from listing rooms on official COP30 platform

Corporate climate action under pressure

Climate action by the private sector has faced headwinds around the world after the Trump administration took over in the US, with some of the world’s top banks dropping their climate commitments and some multinationals scaling back their climate and sustainability talking points. The US has also imposed tariffs on clean energy imports from some Asian countries.

“In the US, they are trying to navigate very carefully the wording and exposure,” said Mussa. “When you talk to CEOs, the direction hasn’t changed, but they are very careful about how to portray what they’re doing. They don’t want any visibility.”

“That’s not good, because fewer leaders will be speaking out,” he added. “We cannot sugarcoat it – the environment now is much tougher. I would rather have a COP in Brazil in a different environment, but it is what it is.”

Despite the negative mood on climate in the US, Asian and European businesses have taken the lead and are pushing forward on their climate investments, both Mendiluce and Mussa said.

A recent report by the International Energy Agency shows that investments in renewable energy so far in 2025 are double those made in fossil fuels, led by Chinese and European investors. Taken together, China and Europe make up about half of the world’s new spending on clean energy this year, the data shows.

Emerging regions like Africa have also continued to advance, with the continent recording booming solar panel imports from China so far this year, representing a capacity increase of 60% on last year.

Businesses want to see policy coherence and certainty from governments at COP30 “more than ever”, said Mendiluce, who noted that changing policies on climate are a barrier to investment. “We live in a world that’s a little bit upside-down but we need to elevate ourselves from that,” the business leader added.

The post Businesses doubt COP30 logistics as presidency calls on them to come to Belém appeared first on Climate Home News.

A survey carried out by the UN in early August found that the vast majority of government delegations – particularly from poorer countries – had yet to book rooms just a few months before the start of the November talks. Most cited expensive prices.

In response, some influential negotiators have called for the talks to be moved to a bigger city with more accommodation. But the COP30 presidency team has pushed back, insisting the event will be held in Belém on the edge of the Amazon rainforest, a vital store of carbon that helps keep global warming in check.

On the official COP30 accommodation platform, prices for rooms start at around $240 a night – with a minimum stay of ten nights. But Climate Home interviewed three accommodation providers in and around the Amazonian city who are struggling to find a way to rent out rooms at much cheaper rates, starting at $54 in one case and $100 in another.

All three have not listed their properties on the official platform because restrictions put in place by the COP30 presidency mean they are not permitted to do so directly.

A COP30 spokesperson told Climate Home that only real estate agencies with at least 40 properties available and registered with the Regional Real Estate Council of the state of Pará (CRECI-PA) can offer rooms on the platform. CRECI-PA is funded by membership fees from real estate agents – and the COP30 spokesperson said agents must be “up to date with their obligations” to use the COP30 platform.

There are currently “more than 20” such agencies, the spokesperson said. The restrictions are intended to “reduce the so-called transactional cost”, as “working with many very small agencies increases the risk and complexity of managing the platform, since each would have access to add and remove properties”, the spokesperson explained.

COP bureau meeting ends in stalemate as Brazil insists Belém logistics can work

Small providers have to pay one of these agencies to list on their behalf. They told Climate Home this was too expensive and there is no way of knowing which agencies are authorised to list on the platform. One – who wanted to remain anonymous – warned of fraud, with companies falsely claiming to be registered. The COP30 spokesperson said the list of authorised agencies was “not available”.

The three providers – Andreia and Rodolfo Herrera who own a nine-apartment building near the COP30 venue, Alcides Moura who runs the 17-room Hotel COP30 and the provider on Mosqueiro island who wanted to remain anonymous – have listed their properties instead on commercial platforms like Booking.com and Airbnb.

There they have had some limited success. The Herreras have rented some of their nine apartments out to a group of foreigners working for an NGO and are in discussions with another group of delegates from Brazil’s Amazonas state. All three still have rooms to rent.

Many COP30 delegates are unable to book these properties as their employers – governments, companies and non-governmental organisations – have blanket rules against using Airbnb and Booking.com, with governments particularly fearful of being tricked into giving taxpayers money to scammers who use these sites.

In contrast, those controlling the purse-strings at these large organisations see the official accommodation platform as safer, as it comes with the implicit endorsement of the Brazilian government and United Nations.

Andreia Herrera said that being excluded from the accommodation platform was “unfair”. She usually charges $32 a night for an apartment, six kilometres from the COP30 venue, but has upped the price to $54 for the summit – still far cheaper than on the official platform.

The accommodation provider on Mosqueiro said that the island, an hour’s drive from the COP30 venue, had “an amazing quantity of accommodations” but that everyone is facing the same problems, unable to list on the official platform.

On the other side, a negotiator from an African government – which does not allow its representatives to claim expenses for rooms booked through Airbnb and Booking.com – told Climate Home this week that their department had still not booked accommodation. Relaxing the restrictions “would help”, he said.

Defending the rules, a COP30 spokesperson said the Brazilian government is relying on “accredited real estate agencies” as they “can validate the properties and be legally responsible for them – especially as some of the listings in Belém are first-timers, and don’t have any previous reviews”. The advice to smaller accommodation providers is to consult with CRECI to find an agency to partner with.

COP30 president prepares for clash of views on how to respond to NDCs

The Brazilian government has offered to make 2,500 individual rooms available to government negotiators at between $100-600 a night. Least-developed countries and small island developing states were offered 15 rooms each at between $100-200 a night, with all other countries offered ten rooms at $230-600 a night. Some government negotiators have described these prices as still too high.

Brazil remains firm in insisting that the COP30 negotiations and the summit of world leaders preceding it will not be moved from Belém. But some unofficial COP30 events, especially those involving businesses and sub-national governments, will be held in other, larger Brazilian cities just before COP30 begins. They include the C40 World Mayor Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the UN Principles for Responsible Investment conference in São Paulo.

The post Bureaucracy stops Belém residents from listing rooms on official COP30 platform appeared first on Climate Home News.

Simon Stiell made his call in a letter sent to all countries on Wednesday, saying “strong” climate plans were “the best defence” against the global climate crisis.

Countries need to submit their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by the end of September so the UN climate change body can assess cumulative efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 2035, and publish a report ahead of COP30 in November.

This “synthesis report [will] provide an important update of progress”, Stiell wrote, adding that it would likely guide discussions in Belém over what countries should do next to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago is bracing himself for a clash of views on how to respond to that assessment.

Crunch time for NDCs

Fewer than 30 countries have submitted their NDCs so far, with many major polluters – including China, India and the European Union – still missing.

Stiell encouraged leaders to take up an invitation to announce their climate targets at a high-level event organised by UN Secretary-General António Guterres on September 24 in New York. Climate Home News understands that the UN climate body expects a surge of NDC submissions in the coming weeks.

The EU, however, risks showing up empty-handed at the UN event as member states tussle over how its climate goals should be approved. Environment ministers were due to vote on the bloc’s 2040 emissions-cutting target – from which the NDC is derived – at a September 18 meeting. But France wants discussions to be escalated to the leaders’ level, a move that would likely delay the process, Reuters reported.

China has previously indicated it would unveil its new climate targets in the autumn, while Indonesia is planning to submit its NDC before this month’s high-level summit.

‘Engines of economic growth’

“These national climate plans are much more than words on paper,” wrote Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “They are among this century’s most powerful engines of economic growth and rising living standards.”

While visiting some of the world’s largest countries this year, Stiell heard how some business leaders are pushing governments for maximum ambition to secure opportunities and reduce climate risks, a UN official said.

Countries that submit “strong new NDCs are on their way to securing the biggest share of the clean energy boom [and] the millions of jobs and stronger economic growth it is creating”, Stiell added in his letter.

The post UN climate chief issues rallying cry on national climate plans as deadline looms appeared first on Climate Home News.

Set to launch in 2027, ETS2 will put a price on carbon emissions from household heating and road transport, resulting in inevitable price increases in those two sectors. To help mitigate its impact on the most vulnerable households, transport users and micro-enterprises, 25% of the ETS2 revenues will flow into a Social Climate Fund (SCF).

The SCF can be viewed as Europe’s financial safety net for the most vulnerable people, designed to ensure that, as Europe pushes fossil fuels out of homes, cars and cities, it doesn’t push people into poverty. Therefore, ETS2 and the SCF are two sides of the same coin: while ETS2 imposes a necessary climate cost on carbon-intensive activities, the Social Climate Fund is meant to make that transition affordable and just.

To benefit from the SCF, the EU’s member states are required to submit detailed Social Climate Plans to the European Commission, proving that their policies are inclusive, purpose-oriented and based on high-quality data.

However, until now, only a handful of draft plans have been put out for public consultation within EU countries, and most have yet to submit their plans to the Commission. Without binding plans in place, it’s becoming increasingly unclear how, or even whether, that social shield will be deployed in time.

Without robust Social Climate Plans, the revenue collected from the new emissions trading system risks becoming a regressive tax, disproportionately hitting low-income households and transport users – particularly those already suffering from increased energy and transport poverty.

Uneven progress across countries

A joint analysis by E3G and CEE Bankwatch Network, published in mid-June, revealed significant disparities in the progress of Social Climate Plans across eight Central and Eastern European countries.

Some of them – most notably Estonia, Latvia and Poland – have published draft Social Climate Plans outlining how they will channel their SCF allocations to fund building renovations, clean mobility and direct income support.

Poland, for instance, proposes allocating 37% of its SCF share to direct income support, 39% to energy-efficient housing, and 21% to transport, while Estonia commits a striking 76% of funds to building renovation and 21% to public transport.

Latvia’s plan foresees investments in energy-efficient apartment buildings and social housing, as well as support for connecting single family homes and social housing to renewable or district heating systems. In the transport sector, the country opts for micro-mobility, such as bicycles and electric bicycles, as well as investments in public transport and cycle-route expansion.

EU Commission proposes allowing carbon offsets to help meet 2040 climate goal

While these examples deserve praise, the wider picture looks far from ideal, as illustrated by an evolving SCF tracker, which is a collaborative effort of more than 40 EU and national-level civil society organisations. Several countries, such as Hungary, are vocally fighting against the implementation of ETS2 – and by extension, the SCF it would finance.  

Meanwhile, drafting of the Social Climate Plans is not moving at the necessary pace or with sufficient inclusion. Civil society participation has remained severely limited or non-existent in several countries. And critically, there is growing concern that the window for meaningful reforms is closing fast.

New EU budget loosens guardrails for just transition

Another challenge lies in the EU’s new funding priorities. The European Commission unveiled its draft proposal for the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) in July, asking governments to construct detailed national and regional partnership plans. On paper, the MFF presents an opportunity to address social vulnerabilities, integrating existing initiatives like the SCF.

This is evident in the fact that member states are obliged to include a dedicated chapter in their respective national and regional plans outlining their planned investments under the Social Climate Fund. However, this exercise is descriptive and is not intended to provide further food for thought on how the MFF could better address growing social vulnerabilities.

More importantly, by shifting the focus towards increasing competitiveness, instead of much-needed climate and environmental action, the proposal for the EU’s overarching financial framework loosens the very guardrails that would safeguard a just energy transition.

While the new draft EU budget legislation acknowledges the importance of a just transition and regional equity, it introduces several structural shifts that raise red flags – including the proposed discontinuation of the EU’s Just Transition Fund as a standalone instrument, and the elimination of the LIFE programme which has long supported environmental and climate action.

In doing so, the budget proposal fails to support initiatives that have proven to be successful from the environmental and social point of view, while opening the door to big players without the strong environmental and social rules needed to hold them to account.

Lessons from early plans can be scaled up

Despite the mounting risks, there are valuable lessons to draw from countries that have moved ahead with their Social Climate Fund planning. Early frontrunners like Poland and Estonia offer examples that are worth scaling up.

The existing draft plans show how the SCPs can address both emissions and energy poverty. It is clear from the analysis that when backed by political will and high-quality consultations, Social Climate Plans can be more than bureaucratic checklists.

They can – and should – become tangible action plans, topped up by additional revenues from ETS1 and ETS2 to maximise their transformative potential. To enhance transparency and increase implementation quality, monitoring committees should be appointed in all member states. 

Workers and grassroots groups push Just Transition agenda at Bonn climate talks

Without a broader strategy for mainstreaming, ensuring a socially just and fair transition across the EU will remain highly challenging.

Such a transition requires equity considerations at all levels of climate and energy policy-making – not just in targeted compensation mechanisms. This includes embedding social impact assessments into regulatory frameworks, fostering inclusive governance, and aligning labour, housing and education policies with climate goals.

Unless a holistic approach is adopted, there is a real risk that vulnerable groups will continue to bear a disproportionate cost burden, undermining both public support and the long-term sustainability of the green transition.

The post Without robust action, new EU carbon pricing plan could leave vulnerable people behind appeared first on Climate Home News.

The assessment by a coalition of campaign groups and research organisations, published on Wednesday, looked at the policies of 30 major financial institutions on their clients’ management of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks of mining. 

It found widespread gaps and loopholes in policies to mitigate the risks of mining for deforestation, water protection, waste management, human rights and ensuring a living wage for workers along the supply chain. 

Just 13% of financial institutions had clear zero-deforestation policies for funding mining clients and their supply chain. Some banks have zero-deforestation policies that do not include the mining sector. 

None had requirements for mining companies to manage the risks associated with storing mining waste.

The findings come as rural communities in Zambia are demanding a Chinese company pay billions of dollars in compensation and environmental reparations after a dam holding its mining waste collapsed, causing one of the country’s worst environmental disasters.

“This [review] should be a wake-up call for every policymaker, banker and investor: you cannot build a just energy future by trampling rights, displacing communities and torching biodiversity,” said Stephanie Dowlen, a campaigner with Rainforest Action Network and the report’s coordinator. 

“A just transition needs finance that no longer rewards bad behaviour and corporate impunity,” she said.

The ESG policy gap

The assessment was carried out by the Forests & Finance Coalition, an alliance of 11 campaign and research groups working to prevent financial institutions from funding activities that threaten tropical forests. 

The report’s authors looked at ESG policy requirements set by financial institutions for mining companies and their suppliers. 

Banks and investors were selected based on their size and relevance for funding mining activities in tropical forest regions. The assessment covered the policies of Bank of America, BlackRock, BNP Paribas, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Santander among others. 

The financiers’ policies were scored against 34 criteria aligned with international laws and best practice such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the International Labour Organization’s core standards.

On average, the report found financial institutions’ policies scored just 22%, falling short of basic social and environmental safeguards – which require a score of 50%. 100% characterises best-practice policies for mining companies and their supply chains.

American investment management company Vanguard and China’s state-owned investment firm CITIC received the worst scores with just 3%. The Norwegian Government Pension Fund topped the list with 48%. 

Only four of the 30 banks and investors assessed responded to the authors’ findings: Australia’s ANZ, Japanese banks Mitsubishi UFJ Financial and Mizuho, and South Africa’s Nedbank. Their responses were included in the final assessment.

Finance can help improve mining standards

Dowlen said she was “surprised” and “disappointed” that the overall score was so low given the high environmental risks associated with mining and the industry’s history of conflict with communities. 

As countries race to secure the minerals and metals required to manufacture solar panels, batteries and EVs as well as other strategic digital and military technologies, “we see it as a very important time to try and intervene,” she told Climate Home News.

Like many dysfunctional relationships, the UNFCCC and the IPCC need to talk more

“Banks and investors can really contribute to moving that whole sector forward and improving the standards across the board,” Dowlen said.

“We want governments to be stepping up. We want financial regulators, supervisors and central banks to be really engaging with the financial sector in a more meaningful way, because these risks will hit the real economy,” she added. 

Weak environmental and social safeguards

The report found that policies ensuring environmental protection and social safeguards were particularly weak. This is despite analysis showing that more than two-thirds of all transition mineral mines are located in significant biodiversity hotposts. 

Nearly two-thirds of the financiers assessed made general commitments for companies to seek Indigenous Peoples’ free, prior and informed consent ahead of a mining project. 

But no institutions had policies to protect the rights of uncontacted tribes or Indigenous Peoples living in voluntary isolation, despite more than half of energy transition mineral resources being located on or near the lands of Indigenous and peasant peoples. 

Can the ICJ opinion bring climate justice for Indigenous peoples?

Equally, 80% of them had no policies to protect human right defenders. NGO Global Witness has previously identified mining as the biggest industry driver for the killing of environmental defenders. And 40% had no policies requiring mining companies and their supply chains to remedy harms they cause to communities. 

In addition, few institutions required mining clients to develop climate transition plans aligned with limiting warming to 1.5C. 

Only two of the 30 institutions assessed – the Norwegian and Dutch government pension funds – required mining companies to disclose tax payments and refrain from aggressive tax avoidance. This lack of transparency risks undermining resource-rich developing countries’ efforts to use mineral revenues to fund sustainable development, the report said.

Main image: Workers at the Sabi Star lithium mine in Zimbabwe. Photo: REUTERS / Philimon Bulawayo

The post Major financiers neglect energy transition risks from mining as demand booms  appeared first on Climate Home News.

The southern Nigerian region has long been blighted by oil spills, gas flaring and discharges of toxic wastewater that have devastated ecosystems and jeopardised the livelihoods of farmers and fishermen, as well as hitting human health.

In a series of letters dated July 2 and published on Sunday, a working group made up of UN rapporteurs on human rights and environmental issues, said the four companies’ divestments of onshore assets in Nigeria had lacked transparency and proper accountability, which could hinder clean-up efforts and compensation for damage caused by their operations.

Shell accused of trying to wash hands of Nigerian oil spill mess

“The subsidiaries’ operations in Nigeria have caused widespread environmental damage for decades,” the letters read, saying this had threatened numerous basic rights including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the right to safe drinking water and the right to access remedy.

Major multinational oil companies have in recent years sold off their oil assets in Nigeria to local companies, without paying adequate compensation and environmental restoration costs, campaigners say.

In the Niger Delta state of Bayelsa alone, the cost of repairing damage has been estimated by the local environment commission at $12 billion, raising concerns the buyers do not have the means to pay for the clean-up. 

Tobechukwu Diolu, a Niger Delta-based environmental defender, said the UN experts’ position was “a validation” of what communities in the region have been saying for years.

“(It) gives us a form of legal framework to establish a defence for those living with oil spillage, to demand a clean-up fund and to insist that decommissioning cannot be abandoned,” said Diolu, whose climate advocacy organisation Lincgreen Initiative has been working with young people to push for justice in the region.

Leaving the clean-up bill unpaid

The UN experts said divestment of oil and natural gas assets may become more common as the world transitions away from fossil fuels, making compensation for past damage even more crucial.

“It is therefore of considerable importance that human rights abuses arising from the form of divestment now being used by oil companies are fully addressed and effectively remediated and compensated,” they wrote.

Diolu, the local campaigner, said: “Justice must come first before any transition.”

Can the ICJ opinion bring climate justice for Indigenous peoples?

Some hard-hit Niger Delta communities have turned to the courts to seek compensation. Earlier this year, a British court began hearing a case brought by the Bille and Ogale communities against London-headquartered Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary, which was taken over by Renaissance Africa Energy Company. 

Sophie Marjanac, director of legal strategy at the Polluter Pays Project, an advocacy group, said the UN experts’ intervention strengthened lawsuits already underway in Nigerian and international courts by making “it clear the firms have legal obligations to rectify the human rights abuses they’ve caused”.

In a written response to the UN group’s letter, Shell said it had “embedded respect for human rights” in its business principles and conducts divestments responsibly, screening buyers for technical and financial capability.

It said the sale of its Nigerian subsidiary to Renaissance was approved by the federal government after an “extensive review” and due diligence. It added that Renaissance – whose leadership is comprised of former Shell staff – will remain accountable for its share of commitments through a joint venture partnership which also includes Nigeria’s state petroleum company, including “conducting any clean-up and remediation” of spills.

Victims of Zambian copper mine disaster demand multibillion dollar payout

Italy’s Eni “strongly rejected” the UN experts’ accusations, saying they “do not reflect the reality” of its operations in Nigeria. The company said the sale of its onshore assets to Oando was supported by the Nigerian government and followed an in-depth assessment of the buyer’s capacity, which regulators verified. 

Eni added that at the time of the sale it had remediated “100% of the spills” on its joint venture assets, except where sites were inaccessible for security reasons, and had also met its statutory decommissioning and abandonment obligations under Nigeria’s Petroleum Industry Act.

The UN experts did not receive a response from ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies. 

Nigeria’s Ministry of Petroleum Resources and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Climate Home News.

‘Grave concern’

Letters were also addressed to the governments of Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, the US and France, with experts accusing them of failing to take adequate action to prevent the adverse human rights impacts of companies under their jurisdiction.

They also criticised Nigeria’s government, saying its approval of the four companies’ divestments “raises serious concerns as to its fulfilment of its obligation to protect human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment”.

Call for pitches: Climate Home News seeks story ideas on critical mineral supply chains

The UN panel said it was of “grave concern” that the divestments were conducted “without following a human rights-based approach and against international law obligations”, and thereby risk becoming a yardstick for divestments elsewhere. 

“Nigeria is being used as an experiment for divestment without clean-up,” they warned.

Marjanac from the Polluter Pays Project, said urgent intervention by the Nigerian government and the countries where the companies are based would ensure funds are made available for historic liability.

“States have a legal duty to regulate and to protect human rights, and must not let the oil companies off the hook,” she said.

The post UN experts accuse top oil firms of rights violations over Nigerian asset sales appeared first on Climate Home News.

International mining experts have warned that communities will be exposed to long-term health risks for decades without drastic measures to tackle the pollution.

Despite assurances by the company and the government over the clean-up, the US and Finnish governments have told their citizens to evacuate the area due to the pollution risks.

Now local people are demanding Sino-Metals Leach Zambia pay billions of dollars in compensation and reparation costs or face legal challenges.

In February, millions of litres of acidic effluent polluted the Kafue River after the dam holding Sino-Metals’ mining waste burst its walls, polluting one of the country’s most important watersheds.

The government’s response to the spill has been widely seen as a test of its ability to regulate the mining industry as it plans to triple production of copper – a sought-after mineral critical to the energy transition – to three million tonnes a year by 2031.  

It ordered Sino-Metals to pay 1.5 million Zambian Kwachas ($63,000), to compensate affected communities and pay for an assessment of the environmental damage. The company apologised for the spill and helped authorities spread lime along the river to neutralise the acid. 

Last month, the government said recent water and sediment testing showed the threats to public health and the environment had been brought under control. 

But local people and civil society groups have accused the government of whitewashing the true scale of the disaster.

‘Total negligence’

For fishing communities along the Kafue, the government’s reassurances ring hollow. “Total negligence, nothing has been done to clean this river or rectify the situation,” Sean Cornelious, a resident of Chambishi where Sino-Metals’ copper plant is located, told Climate Home News. 

Farmers told local radio Roan FM they received compensation worth just K2,000 ($84) for the loss of their crops and livestock – an amount they described as insulting. 

A group of 150 affected households is demanding Sino-Metals pay $200 million in compensation and $80 billion into a reparation fund to address the long-lasting impacts to communities and the environment. They also denounce a harassment campaign, which they say has seen anyone trying to help affected communities being questioned by police. 

They are expected to file a lawsuit in the local Kitwe High Court. 

“The issue is very serious and requires serious action,” community organiser and environmental campaigner Chilekwa Mumba told Climate Home. Mumba previously led a landmark case against mining firm Vedanta Resources in a British court, which resulted in compensation for polluted communities in the copper mining town of Chingola.  

Separately, another group of 47 households said they would file a lawsuit in the Lusaka High Court if Sino-Metals didn’t agree to pay $220 million in immediate compensation. They are also seeking the creation of a $9.7 billion environmental reparation fund.

Sino-Metals has not responded to a request for comment. Climate Home has contacted the company’s lawyers. The company has previously committed to remedy the situation by cleaning up the river and helping restore people’s livelihoods.

Experts say communities face health risks for decades

More than six months after the spill, the government and waste treatment experts continue to present conflicting assessments of the extent of the environmental damage.  

In a press briefing last month, Zambia’s government spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa said water testing showed that acidity levels have returned to normal and concentrations of heavy metals are steadily decreasing. 

“This means the immediate danger to humans, animals, and plant life has been averted as we speak today,” he said. “All serious implications for public health, water safety, agriculture and the environment have been brought under control. There is, therefore, no cause for alarm.”

However, independent experts at Drizit Zambia, a company which was contracted by Sino-Metals to assess the environmental damage, warned that toxic mining waste is still present in the environment and poses “significant long-term health risks, including organ damage, birth defects, and cancer”. 

Can the ICJ opinion bring climate justice for Indigenous peoples?

In June, the firm warned Sino-Metals and the Zambian government that the scale of the pollution had been grossly understated and called for immediate intervention. It found that 1.5 million tons of toxic sludge spilled from Sino-Metals’ waste dam – 30 times more than the official estimate. Approximately 900,000 cubic metres of toxic waste is still present in the environment, it said. 

Sino-Metals rejected the company’s methodology and terminated its contract the day before the final report was due. Drizit has since initiated legal proceedings against the Chinese firm over the contractual dispute. 

In a statement on Friday, the company said: “We stand by our findings: unless the remaining toxic tailings are removed and safely contained in a properly engineered facility, downstream communities will remain at risk for decades”. 

Environment minister Mike Mposha recently announced that the state had taken over the procurement process for an independent consultant to assess the extent of the pollution.

Finland, US order citizens to evacuate

Drizit’s warning was not the first time the government was told about the extent of the damage. 

In April, EPSE Oy Ltd, a Finnish company specialising in the treatment of mining waste, warned Sino-Metals and the Zambian government of the presence of 24 different heavy metals in the Chinese company’s wastewater pond after testing samples from the site of the leak. 

It found that 16 of them exceeded safe limits set by the World Health Organization. 

In a public statement, EPSE Oy said it was “concerned about the health and safety of the public” and remained open to discuss cooperation on addressing the environmental risks. 

Bangladesh heatwaves hit health hard, making life a costly business

In light of the findings, the Finnish embassy warned against all movements and use of water around the Sino-Metals mine and 20 kilometres downstream. Weeks later, the US government ordered the immediate withdrawal of its personnel from areas affected by the spill. 

In response, Zambia’s government spokesperson Mweetwa accused the US of unjustifiably hitting the “panic button”. 

A system that prioritises profits

Civil society groups have demanded full disclosure of environmental test results and transparency in the cleanup process.

“The lack of transparency and accountability in this matter is a betrayal to the people of Zambia. Those responsible must be held to account,” said Solomon Ngoma, executive director of The Acton Institute for Policy Analysis Centre in Zambia. 

The Catholic Bishops of Zambia denounced the government’s “casual approach to a matter of life and death”. 

“We see a system that seems to prioritise short-term economic gains over long-term environmental health, allowing polluters to operate with impunity,” they said in a statement. 

They urged the government to ensure polluters fairly compensate affected communities and restore ecosystems and to “enforce environmental and mining safety regulations without fear or favour”. 

Main image: A sign to the Sino-Metals Leach Zambia mine in Chambishi, five kilometres from the mine (Photo: Stafrance Zulu)

The post Victims of Zambian copper mine disaster demand multibillion dollar payout appeared first on Climate Home News.

The G77+China umbrella group of developing countries is calling for critical minerals and access to energy to fall within the scope of the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) at the UN climate negotiations and any advice-sharing mechanism that may emerge from COP30 in Brazil in November.

“We see critical minerals as being one of the priorities that we have been trying to address when we look into the just energy transition,” said Egyptian negotiator Khaled Hashem, the G77 group’s lead on this issue, adding that mineral production presents “challenges and opportunities” for developing countries.

Raw materials like copper, cobalt, lithium and nickel are key to green technology like electric vehicle batteries and wind turbines, with large reserves found in developing countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile and Indonesia.

These countries say they want to maximise the benefits of producing minerals and metals for the clean economy – by creating local jobs with high wages, revenues for the government and domestic processing industries – while minimising potential downsides like environmental degradation caused by mining and abuses of workers’ rights.

‘Whole economy’ approach

The concept of “just transition” emerged from labour union movements and has traditionally focused mainly on ensuring that workers in polluting industries, including fossil fuel extraction and power production, and their communities are treated fairly as those jobs disappear.

Hashem said this aspect is important. But, since the launch of the Just Transition Work Programme under the UN climate talks two years ago, developing countries have moved beyond this narrow concept to talk about broader transition issues such as critical minerals, energy access and energy poverty.

Hashem said developing countries are united on this approach, adding that developed-country stances would become clearer at a dialogue taking place in the Ethiopian city of Addis Ababa during UN climate week in early September – but added that he didn’t expect much resistance.

Antonio Hill, an advisor with the Natural Resource Governance Institute, supports the push for COP30 to recognise critical minerals as a key element of the just transition.

Dialogues between governments have also considered how to adapt to climate change in an equitable way, he said. “So we have already gone beyond the green jobs and the workforce, and we are now discussing broader just transitions that encompass the whole of an economy,” he explained.

In particular, the energy transition expert wants this theme to be connected to the COP28 agreement to triple global renewable energy capacity by 2030 – as renewables growth is “what’s behind the rush on critical minerals at the moment”.

This demand, he said, is not particularly controversial, but there is a risk it could be used as leverage in other negotiations at COP30. “I can imagine countries saying ‘well, we’re not going to support this unless…’ – fill in the blank,” he said. Some nations might also argue that critical minerals should be discussed somewhere other than the climate talks, he warned.

Hill said governments at COP30 should agree to support stronger global governance of transition minerals to ensure fair trade and address the social and environmental impacts of their extraction.

Call for new mechanism at COP30

Campaigners and some governments are pushing for a decision at COP30 to set up a new just transition body to advise, coordinate and accelerate action on the issue, which would potentially be called the “Belém Action Mechanism”.

Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition at Climate Action Network International, which represents hundreds of NGOs working on climate issues, said such a mechanism “can become an anchor of fairness in the global climate transition”, turning the concept of just transition “from rhetoric into a real architecture” at COP30.

“If it is done soon and right, it will provide countries with the support and accountability needed to ensure that workers and communities are at the centre – and knock down the barriers countries face to change their economies,” Rosemberg added.

The post Support grows for COP30 ‘just transition’ talks to address critical minerals appeared first on Climate Home News.

The race to secure minerals and metals used to manufacture clean energy technologies has ushered in a new era for mining and natural resource diplomacy.

However, the world is at risk of trading one crisis for another without robust regulations and practices to ensure that mineral extraction and processing doesn’t come at the expense of environmental protection and respect for human rights.

At Climate Home News, we want to investigate ideas, innovations and practices to clean up mineral supply chains while holding actors that cause social and environmental harm to account. This work is part of our Clean Energy Frontier series.

What we are looking for

We are looking for news stories and more in-depth pieces that robustly examine ways to address social and sustainability challenges in the minerals supply chain, track global governance efforts and hold large players accountable for harms to people and the environment.

This could include:

• Technological advances in extraction and processing, supply chain traceability, battery technology and recycling that help limit the environmental impact associated with producing clean energy technologies and ease pressure for new mining.
• Policies designed to address sustainability challenges and social conflict in mineral supply chains.
• Efforts by countries to add value to their mineral resources and ensure local people meaningfully engage with, and benefit from, mineral extraction and processing. We also want to know what is being done globally to support these efforts.
• Best practice examples of how local communities can effectively and equitably benefit from mining projects and where benefit-sharing has gone wrong.
• Developments in the global governance of mineral supply chains, such as regional or international agreements.
• How global trade deals and restrictions are reshaping minerals supply chains and who stands to benefit (or lose out).
• Financial flows and mechanisms to support developing countries’ green industrialisation agendas and the development of clean energy manufacturing.

The ideal story will have an original angle that captures the attention of our international audience.

Most of the articles we are seeking to commission are news stories. However, we are also open to pitches for investigative reporting.

What we are not looking for

• Stories about community opposition to a renewable energy project
• Stories about opposition to mining projects which fail to robustly investigate the reasons for the opposition or fail to engage with local authorities and mining companies
• Stories about start-ups and technological innovations that fail to robustly examine the company’s claims
• Stories about technologies that cannot be scaled or are still at very early pilot stages
• Stories about the challenges posed by end-of-life technologies that don’t address solutions to reduce and mitigate waste
• Stories focusing solely on social and environmental challenges in the mineral supply chain that don’t explore ways to address these issues
• Stories already covered in other media outlets
• Stories that we have already covered

Who can pitch

We welcome pitches from journalists with at least three years’ experience.

You must have fluent spoken and written English. Journalists from all countries are welcome to apply.

We will prioritise reporters who have experience covering climate change, energy, mining or business stories. It helps if you have worked with international media before.

How to pitch

Your pitch should include:

• The top line of the story and essential context in no more than 250 words. If we like the idea, we will ask for more detail
• The sources you would interview (we expect at least three sources for a standard news story)
• Any travel requirement for deeply reported and investigative pieces
• A short summary of your journalism experience, including links to three recent stories you are proud of

We can offer a rate of $0.46 per word for news stories up to 800 words. Fees for investigative and deeply reported stories are agreed on a case by case basis. Travel costs will be negotiated in advance and reimbursed subject to valid receipts.

Please send your pitches with the word ‘Pitch’ in the subject line to project editor Chloé Farand by emailing chloe.farand[at]outlook.com.

The use of AI

We are committed to producing accurate, fair, balanced and independent reporting at all times. Original reporting lies at the heart of what we do. It is the reason why our readers have continued to trust us to produce high-quality and public interest journalism.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be a tool to support research. However, we ask journalists contributing to Climate Home not to use AI to write pitches and stories. We will not respond to pitches that appear to be AI-generated. When contacting us for the first time, please provide clear evidence of your track record as a journalist so that we can verify your identity.

The post Call for pitches: Climate Home News seeks story ideas on critical mineral supply chains  appeared first on Climate Home News.

For centuries, Indigenous peoples have demonstrated the indivisibility of human and ecosystem well-being. Now, the highest court in the world is behind them.

A milestone in an existential battle – that’s how the recent advisory opinion on climate change from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been hailed. Does it signal climate justice for minorities and Indigenous peoples, groups among those most vulnerable to climate change, or is it just another piece of paper?

The ICJ rejected arguments from the worst pollution offenders that only climate change treaties apply in this space, instead affirming the equal relevance of international human rights law in this context.

World’s top court opens door to compensation from countries responsible for climate crisis

It also recognised that degradation of the environment violates our human rights, and that we cannot meaningfully enjoy those rights without a clean, healthy and sustainable environment to live in.

These recognitions are important for all humanity, but particularly so for those whose rights are already the least fulfilled or most at risk – Indigenous peoples and minorities among them.

Reinforcing accountability

Had the ICJ’s opinion been published a few years ago, perhaps the Indigenous Zenadth Kes (or Torres Strait) Islanders would have won their domestic case against Australia. As one of the most marine-oriented and sea life-dependent Indigenous societies on the planet, dramatic sea-level rise has put their material and cultural survival in jeopardy.

“Climate change is like a poison brought to our shores. We live in fear wherever we go,” according to elder and activist Yessie Mosby.

Zenadth Kes elders launched their case against Australia in October 2021, arguing that the state had a duty of care to protect them from the ravages of climate change.

A few weeks ago, the case was dismissed.

The court found that Australia did not owe them a duty of care, even as it acknowledged the devastation and jeopardy they faced. It said that such matters were for parliament, not the courts.

European court rules climate inaction by states breaches human rights

The ICJ’s opinion could have prevented Australia from avoiding responsibility in this way. Though the ink is dry on their defeat, for the future at least, the ICJ’s opinion would support the grounds for appeal in this and similar cases, where domestic courts have not recognised their state’s obligations to its citizens.

The opinion also offers influential support to communities who have already won their legal battles – but whose governments continue to drag their feet on implementation.

This includes cases where communities have rightly argued that state-led climate measures were designed and implemented in violation of their rights – such as in the cases of the Indigenous Ogiek in Kenya, Batwa in the DRC, Kichwa in Peru, and many others. By reinforcing states’ legal obligations, the ICJ opinion helps dismantle the excuses often used to justify delay or inaction.

Legal principles support minority and Indigenous rights

The court also named several important principles for the interpretation and application of international law – with direct implications for the rights of Indigenous peoples and minorities.

The principle of equity strengthens legal claims for Indigenous peoples and minorities to receive targeted protection and support for the preservation of their land, knowledge systems and cultural identity for future generations.

The principle of sustainable development, meanwhile, should prevent development projects that endanger Indigenous land rights, livelihoods and traditional ecological practices.

The precautionary principle provides a basis for preventing projects that threaten ecosystems even in the absence of full scientific certainty about potential harm, allowing affected communities to more effectively contest environmental devastation and the rights violations that go along with it.

The court’s support for the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities further legitimises calls for wealthier, historically high-emitting states to provide Indigenous peoples and minorities with the means to adapt to climate impacts, protect their territories and rights and participate meaningfully in climate governance.

All these principles can be invoked to argue that just climate action must be designed and implemented in accordance with human rights, redress past harms, provide access to loss and damage mechanisms, and provide financial and technical support for restoring ecosystems, cultural heritage and community resilience.

Alongside international human rights agreements, these principles offer a reinforced legal framework to advocate for free, prior, and informed consent, meaningful participation in climate policy-making and inclusion of traditional knowledge.

It’s time for change

Despite its strong pronouncements on climate justice, the ICJ’s opinion is not binding: states are under no formal obligation to comply. It also lacks depth in addressing the intersectional impacts of climate change – such as on people with disabilities.

Nevertheless, it reinforces the legal foundations for state accountability. Its real impact now lies in the hands of legal practitioners, advocates, impacted communities and human rights defenders.

In October, the case of the Muddusjärvi Reindeer Herders’ Cooperative against Finland will be heard. The collective is part of the Indigenous Inari Sámi community, numbering just 800. Like many Indigenous peoples, their lifestyle, their livelihoods, their very existence are inextricably entwined with their ancestral land.

Top Latin American court upholds right to “healthy climate”, urges fossil fuel control

Climate change, dispossession and logging have harmed their habitat and severely endangered their traditional reindeer-herding practices. Their case sets out how Finland’s failure to prevent and mitigate this desolation is a violation of their human rights.

It’s very likely that the ICJ’s opinion will be used by their lawyers to reinforce Finland’s responsibilities towards the Inari Sámi and their right to reparations.

A victory for the Muddusjärvi Cooperative would give renewed hope to minorities and Indigenous peoples worldwide. The ICJ has affirmed what Indigenous peoples have long known. It’s time for states to listen.

The post Can the ICJ opinion bring climate justice for Indigenous peoples? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Begum explained that she works as an office cleaner on a low salary and had already spent 50,000 taka (around $400) on medical treatment, even while she herself was struggling to overcome a 10-day fever. “I spent all my savings and now I’m empty,” she told Climate Home.

Across Bangladesh, soaring temperatures and persistent humidity are wreaking havoc on people’s health – and their finances. As the country grapples with unprecedented heatwaves, doctors, meteorologists and residents alike are sounding the alarm about the growing toll on lives and livelihoods.

Employers need plans to protect workers from rising heat stress, UN says

Dr. Nihar Ranjan Das, a specialist at Alliance Hospital, confirmed the troubling trend. “Due to the intense heat, people are losing excessive amounts of water through sweating, which causes dehydration, leading to diarrhoea and other illnesses,” he said. 

Heat also exacerbates the spread of viral diseases like influenza and pneumonia, he added, noting that eight out of every 10 patients he sees are suffering from heat-related ailments. “The cost of treatment is rising, placing heavy burdens especially on the middle class,” he added.

Dr. Shayla Afroze of the Bangladesh Shishu Hospital reported that during April this year, more than 21,700 children were treated in the outpatient department alone, averaging 130 new admissions daily. “Children sweat more in heat and get dehydrated faster,” she said.

Heatstroke, a potentially fatal condition where body temperature rises above 104°F (40C), is also becoming more common. And the heat has intensified the spread of dengue fever, a mosquito-borne disease that thrives in warm, humid conditions. 

Dr. Touhid Uddin Ahmed, former chief scientific officer of the Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research, explained that intermittent rainfall combined with persistent muggy heat creates ideal breeding conditions for the Aedes mosquito which carries dengue.

According to the government’s Health Emergency Operation Center, so far this year more than 30,500 cases of dengue have been reported across the country, leading to 118 deaths.

Yet while families are spending more on medical costs due to extreme heat, it has also had a ripple effect on home costs, transport and even education, as more water and energy are used to cool buildings and vehicles. 

Heatwaves get hotter and longer   

Weather and climate experts attribute the increasingly high temperatures being experienced over longer periods in Bangladesh largely to climate change.

“This year’s summer temperatures exceeded 40C – far beyond what we are used to,” said Muhammad Abul Kalam Mallik of the Bangladesh Meteorological Department. In 2024, a prolonged heatwave lasting 26 consecutive days broke a 76-year record, he noted.

An international study, conducted by World Weather Attribution, Climate Central and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, found that Bangladesh experienced 44 extra days of extreme heat from May 2024-May 2025 due to human-caused climate change, enduring a total of 94 days of unusually high temperatures in that period. 

According to the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Dhaka ranks among the world’s cities experiencing the most significant increases in temperature. Over the past 30 years, extreme heat days – with temperatures of 35C or higher – have almost doubled.

Comment: To help people prepare for extreme heat, we must communicate better

Fans and aircon fuel power bills

The Bangladeshi capital’s residents told Climate Home they are having to spend more on daily measures to cope with high temperatures and humidity.

“Extreme heat leads to increased electricity consumption,” said Tanvir Ahmed, a 30-year-old resident of Dhanmondi, an upscale neighbourhood of Dhaka. “We run fans and air conditioners longer, and our bills skyrocket. During power outages, we rely on generators or Instant Power Supplies (IPS), which add more costs.”

Others are forced to spend large sums on appliances such as refrigerators, fans and air conditioners, further straining budgets.

Transport expenses have also risen. Kamrul Islam of Dhaka’s Uttara neighbourhood explained, “I used to take non-AC trains to visit family in Chattogram for about $2.45. Now I prefer air-conditioned buses or compartments, which cost $3-$4 more per ticket. Travelling has become so expensive that I visit home less frequently.”

Monowar Hossain, a private school teacher from Moghbazar in Dhaka, said he also now prefers AC buses from Dhaka to Dinajpur. “It takes less time and avoids the fatigue that comes with long journeys in the heat, but the extra cost is my burden.”

In cities like Dhaka and beyond in tourist destinations like Cox’s Bazar, meanwhile, travellers are opting for air-conditioned hotels, and demand for rooms with cooling has surged sharply, prompting new construction of resorts and chalets with fewer non-AC options.

Poor communities suffer the most

But not everyone can afford to adapt their habits to a warming world. Anna Walnycki, a principal researcher at IIED focusing on climate action for equitable cities, emphasised the disproportionate impact of extreme heat on low-income communities. 

“People in informal settlements struggle the most – with poor housing, limited water access, and inadequate electricity – to keep cool,” she said. “Without urgent policy action to build resilience and manage heat risks, the situation will worsen.”

Walnycki said Bangladesh’s escalating heatwaves are a clear sign of the deepening impacts of climate change. The rising temperature extremes not only endanger health but also increase living costs, pushing many into deeper poverty, she added.

“The government and policymakers must develop comprehensive strategies to help communities adapt,” Walnycki urged. “This includes improving infrastructure in vulnerable areas, ensuring reliable power, and public health measures to reduce heat-related illnesses.”

The post Bangladesh heatwaves hit health hard, making life a costly business  appeared first on Climate Home News.

The intersection of climate science and climate policy is where researchers come to communicate their latest findings about the urgent crisis we are facing, and politicians come for insights to inform their decisions on how to tackle it. This exchange makes all kinds of sense, yet navigating this space has never been particularly easy.

We know this from personal experience. One of us, Dr Svante Bodin, brought his background in meteorology to work on diplomacy while at the Swedish Ministry of the Environment, including the UN climate negotiations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The other, Professor Örjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University, regularly consults for governments across the globe on climate change in the Arctic and on the nexus of air pollution and climate change.

We have both built our careers at the forefronts of climate policy and climate science, wondering why the two domains, with so much to gain from closer coordination, always seemed to be at arm’s length.

Now, we find ourselves puzzling over the same thing as the IPCC struggles to adopt a timeline for its next assessment report. These cornerstone reports take some five to seven years to produce, and this one could be delivered in 2028, in time for a Global Stocktake under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – a check-in on how the world is doing on climate action.

The problem is that the IPCC hasn’t been able to agree on this deadline.

Special report on 1.5C hits the spot

This lack of alignment goes against the original intent, because the IPCC was established in 1988 expressly to provide the scientific basis for a global response to climate change. And, at the time, it did so spectacularly: its First Assessment Report (FAR), delivered in just two years, set the stage for the UNFCCC itself, opened for signatures at the Rio summit in 1992.

The only other time when the two international bodies truly aligned was when diplomats asked researchers for a special report on global warming of 1.5°C. The report, delivered in 2018 in response to this unique request, ended up being arguably the single most relevant and impactful output of the panel, both for the climate negotiations and for wider audiences. 

So, how did we end up here, with science assessments not tuned to policy needs and imperfect timing – and what is there to do? In our Comment for Nature Climate Change, we call for a new approach to how the UNFCCC and the IPCC interact, one that can help both bodies rise to the challenge of the deep and rapid decarbonization the world needs to secure a livable future for all.

Missed opportunities for collaboration

The IPCC was conceived as a separate body in part to preserve the integrity of science and keep it safely away from the influence of politics. This ‘separation of research and state’ has largely been uncontested since. 

We argue that it has led to many missed opportunities for effective collaboration and may have hobbled the panel in its ability to inform and facilitate effective climate policy-making. 

Countries fail again to decide timing of key IPCC climate science reports

Other international agreements chose to keep their science closer, such as the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, the most prominent and successful global environmental treaty. It has a scientific assessment panel, which acts as a true in-house advisory body rather than a negotiating working group. 

The remarkably successful United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (UNECE CLRTAP) even has built-in monitoring and assessment bodies, such as the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme.

Closer co-operation is possible

We argue that better alignment between the UNFCCC and the IPCC is possible even while keeping the existing legal structures intact. 

First, the UN climate negotiators can and should keep pulling the lever that brought them the 1.5°C special report. If the UNFCCC does regular reviews of its policy priorities and needs for scientific input, and communicates them to the IPCC, the latter can be sure its flagship assessments and any special reports are truly policy-relevant, timely and impactful.

Second, the two bodies need to get closer. The UNFCCC, as a major stakeholder, should be invited into the scoping process for the assessment reports, and the IPCC, staying firmly outside the UN forum, should inform a permanent platform or mechanism within the convention that would help it translate policy-relevant science into policy.

Comment: The IPCC must produce its flagship report in time for the next UN global stocktake

Such closer co-operation is feasible, above all, if countries – which are parties to both international bodies – start viewing their IPCC and UNFCCC-related policies as interconnected and acting like it. This would help avoid a repeat of the case of the 1.5°C report, which the UNFCCC commissioned – and then failed to agree to “welcome” in its formal decisions.  

It took two years to produce the First Assessment Report by the IPCC in 1990. Climate science has come a long way since then, of course, but it is lamentable that, unless the IPCC reaches agreement at an upcoming meeting in Peru in October, we will be looking at two years of failure to align on the most basic element of the science-policy interface. 

Clearly, we have no more time to lose while stuck in this unfortunate gap between the two disconnected bodies of the climate arena.

The post Like many dysfunctional relationships, the UNFCCC and the IPCC need to talk more appeared first on Climate Home News.

With nearly 200 signatories, the Paris Agreement remains the most comprehensive multilateral effort to mitigate the causes and address the effects of climate change. In November, at COP30, signatories will review their nationally determined contribution (NDC) climate plans for the third time.

Territorial emissions remain the core of countries’ commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries decided that in the 1992 Rio Convention, based on jurisdiction over activities in their territory. However, the approach has a blind spot, which is that around 25% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are embedded in international trade.

G20 economies account for about 80% of these emissions. For Europe, the issue is particularly acute – the emissions imported by the EU are almost 40% of its overall GHG footprint, a conservative estimate that does not include emissions from deforestation.

Global dialogue on emissions in trade

That this issue has only recently entered the UNFCCC COP discussions reflects both its complexity and its growing significance in the context of global decarbonisation. A handful of UNFCCC members have begun acknowledging the importance of embedded GHG emissions in trade.

Illustrating this momentum, the last U.S. NDC even committed to “develop a new trade framework, built on accurate data on the emissions intensity of traded goods, that incentivizes reductions in industrial emissions across borders and supports the competitiveness of clean manufacturing.”

However, the debate has become largely tied to the concept of carbon leakage, usually for emission-intensive, trade-exposed, and politically sensitive industries, and to so-called “unilateral measures” to address this. Parties need to take a closer look at emissions embedded in trade, recognising the co-dependency that arises when one’s imports and consumption drive another’s production emissions.

Embedded emissions in the NDCs

Concretely, while embedded emissions—those associated with the production of traded goods—are not explicitly required under NDCs, countries could take several relevant steps. Parties are free to bring into their NDC any point of relevance related to their climate action, and this can include the evolution of their carbon footprint, including imported and exported emissions.

First, setting clear peaking or net-zero timelines within NDCs signals the expected emissions trajectory of a country, including those associated with its industrial base and traded goods. These announcements help trading partners and investors align expectations on the carbon intensity of supply chains.

Second, including economy-wide and sectoral targets allows countries to focus action where embedded emissions are most significant, such as heavy industry or energy-intensive supply chains. Sectoral targets offer policy clarity for industries, encourage early adopters of cleaner manufacturing processes, reduce the risk of greenwashing, and enable early decarbonisation and realignment of investment strategies in line with global climate goals.

Third, addressing the emissions intensity of traded products within NDCs can help reduce embedded emissions. Countries can include targets or strategies to lower the emissions associated with key imports and exports. This would mean setting standards for low-carbon production, promoting green exports, or incentivising cleaner supply chains. These must be tailored to diverse national contexts because pathways will vary.

A closer look at their carbon footprint could guide countries in their effort on climate finance. It could help bilateral conversations on dedicated support, regulatory or financial, to reduce embedded emissions. It could also lead to a multi-party effort, whenever several countries are sourcing the same carbon-intensive products from the same partners.

Fourth, targeting sequestration alongside mitigation can balance embedded emissions. By strengthening commitments to natural carbon sinks—through reforestation, soil carbon, or blue carbon initiatives—countries can offset the footprint of embedded emissions, especially in traded commodities where residual emissions are likely to remain despite aggressive mitigation efforts.

Finally, countries can include support measures for carbon accounting and traceability systems in their NDC implementation plans. Building such infrastructure helps industries track and reduce embedded emissions while enabling compliance with evolving global standards.

Moving together, aligning market signals

As mechanisms such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) gain prominence, there remain concerns about their unilateral origins, as well as around traceability, emissions classification, and trade fairness. For developing countries, where carbon accounting infrastructure is still evolving, companies may struggle to meet complex CBAM reporting requirements—especially within upstream and multi-tiered supply chains. These risks must be addressed through international support, capacity-building, and interoperable data frameworks.

At the same time, trade-related climate measures can play a positive role if designed well: supporting diversification of supply chains, enabling tariff reductions for mitigation technologies, and unlocking investments through linkages between carbon markets. In practice these opportunities remain limited. Ensuring procedural equity is equally important. Response measure assessments, notification systems to foster multilateral transparency, and differentiated obligations—such as exemptions or phased timelines for low-middle and low-income countries—can prevent unintended harms and support a just transition.

Moving forward, the global community must embed equity, flexibility, and development priorities at the core of trade-related climate action. Institutional coordination will be needed at a time when multilateral institutions are also being challenged. There is a real risk that emissions in trade will add another source of multilateral tension, unless there is a deliberate effort to design pathways toward a fairer, inclusive and more sustainable global economy. Doing so could in turn serve as another lever for more finance for net-zero production

The post Countries must deal with imported emissions in a fair and flexible way appeared first on Climate Home News.

The solar panels imported from July 2024-June 2025 could provide 15 gigawatts (GW) of electricity to the continent – long left out of the global solar boom – up from 9 GW during the year before. Ember called this the “first evidence of a take-off in solar in Africa”.

The growth was led by countries that have suffered widespread power cuts like South Africa, Nigeria and Zambia, where solar panels are increasingly appealing to businesses and households seeking reliable power without having to use expensive diesel generators.

South Africa has suffered black-outs caused by old and unreliable coal-fired power plants and transmission systems, while drought has reduced the amount of hydropower available to Zambia.

But the sharpest growth was in exports to Algeria, which went from barely importing any solar panels to importing 1.2 GW in this period. Report author Dave Jones told Climate Home that large solar farms are being built in the North African nation.

Jones, who is director of Ember’s global insights programme, said “the take-off of solar in Africa is a pivotal moment”, adding that solar is the world’s cheapest electricity source and has “vast potential to transform the African continent”.

The analysis adds that imports of solar panels help to reduce total energy-related imports, as African countries then have to buy in less oil and diesel from other countries. The savings from avoiding diesel can repay the cost of a solar panel within six months in Nigeria, and even sooner in other countries, it says.

Fast but flawed data

Despite the boom, the analysis points out that solar import growth is not as fast as in other parts of the world. It notes that Pakistan imported more solar panels in this time than the whole African continent despite having one-sixth of the population.

The report’s authors warn that the data only shows exports of solar panels to Africa rather than how many of them are installed in Africa. Sometimes, panels may be re-exported to neighbouring countries, reshipped outside of the continent to avoid tariffs or taxes, or remain in storage for long periods. Data on the amount of solar power installed in Africa in this period will not be published for about a year, Jones said.

Muhammad Mustafa Amjad, programme director at Renewables First, said tracking these additions is what makes the difference between “a messy shift and an organised, accelerated one”, adding that “bottom-up energy transitions fueled by cheap solar are no longer a choice – they’re our future”.

He added that not monitoring the situation means losing time and opportunities. “Africa’s transition will happen regardless, but with timely data it can be more equitable, planned and inclusive,” he added.

The data only shows exports of solar panels from China. But, as China produces 80% of the world’s solar panels, it gives a good indication of total solar panel imports and installations.

Some African countries are looking to reduce their reliance for solar panels on China. Nigeria, for example, has been positioning itself to become a solar manufacturing hub in Africa. Earlier this year, it announced plans to ban solar equipment imports to boost local manufacturing. 

Morocco recently doubled its manufacturing to 1 GW per year, while South Africa has similar capacity. There are much smaller manufacturing lines in some countries including Egypt and Nigeria, the report added.

The post Boom in solar panel imports boosts hopes for clean energy take-off in Africa appeared first on Climate Home News.

The decision to collaborate came about a month after a lake that had formed on top of a glacier in China’s high mountains burst 35 kilometres upstream from the Rasuwagadhi border-point with Nepal. It sent water coursing down the Bhotekoshi River, devastating areas on both sides.  

According to local officials, 11 people died in the July 8 disaster and 18 remain missing in Nepal, while 11 were swept away in China. The flash flood caused infrastructure losses worth around $100 million, including roads and houses, and has disrupted cross-border trade.

Before this latest disaster, the issue of sharing climate-related data between the two countries was mostly limited to discussions among Nepal’s Department of Hydrology and Meteorology and a few experts. 

A year ago, after two lakes burst in Nepal, Climate Home News interviewed the head of that department, Jagadishwor Karmacharya, who warned that the Chinese government’s failure to provide information about the state of its glacial lakes was endangering mountain-dwellers in neighbouring Nepal.

Now, July’s flood has elevated the matter to a higher political level. Nepal’s federal government has decided to collaborate with China to ensure early warning and preparedness for future incidents as the planet warms. 

Climate change is speeding up glacial melt around the world and boosting the threat from glacial lake outburst floods, known as GLOFs. 

Cross-border danger 

After visiting Rasuwaghadhi, officials with Nepal’s National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority (NDRRMA) instructed all relevant agencies to carry out a detailed study of the causes of the sudden flood and to maintain continuous coordination with China to increase warning of, and protection from, future GLOFs. 

Politicians have also formally demanded the establishment of an information-sharing mechanism between Nepal, China and India.

“In the Himalayan region, many glacial lakes are in dangerous conditions. If they burst, the impact can even reach India,” Bishwa Prakash Sharma, a member of parliament and general secretary of the Nepali Congress, told the House of Representatives on the day of the latest GLOF. 

“Collaboration among the three countries is necessary. Starting an information-sharing system at the district level is good, but it is not enough,” he added.  

On August 1 in Nyalam County, Tibet, Chinese government and police officers agreed to provide information on glacial lakes and the risk of flooding to their counterparts in Nepal’s Sindhupalchok District.

According to district police superintendent Rameshwor Karki, who attended the meeting, Nepali officials expressed serious concerns to their Chinese counterparts about the significant human casualties and economic losses suffered due to repeated GLOFs. 

In response, the Chinese local authorities agreed to share information with their Nepali counterparts in the neighbouring district. 

“In the Nyalam County of Tibet, there are more glacial lakes; their catchment area is in Nepal, and in case they outburst, it will impact Nepal,” Karki said. “So we demanded that…they install an early warning system and provide information to us based on early warning in WeChat and phone calls.” 

Rapid changes underway in Himalayas

A UN-backed report from 2020 identified 47 potentially dangerous glacial lakes within the Koshi, Gandaki and Karnali river basins of Nepal, the Tibet Autonomous Region of China and India. Of these, 25 were in Chinese territory, 21 in Nepal, and one on the India border. 

However, the glacial lakes that have caused recent outburst floods in Nepal, China, and India were not included on the list, suggesting that the risks are growing rapidly. In just the past three months, three glacial lakes have experienced GLOFs in Nepal.

According to researchers, in the case of July’s GLOF, ponds formed by water melting on top of the Supra glacier starting growing from March, and then began expanding rapidly in June. 

They coalesced into a single huge lake measuring 638,000 square metres before bursting out into the valley below on July 8, draining a third of the lake area in just 24 hours.  

Mohan Bahadur Chand, a Himalayan glaciologist and assistant professor at Kathmandu University, said the entire Himalayan region is experiencing the impacts of climate change. “There is a need for proper monitoring. If we can ensure effective monitoring, we can save human lives,” he told Climate Home News.

Madhav Sapkota, a member of parliament for Sindhupalchok District, told Climate Home News that Nepal should raise this issue during high-level talks between the leaders of Nepal, China and India at the end of August in China.

Sapkota said the process of establishing an early warning system in the Bhotekoshi areas had been raised with the Chinese embassy in Kathmandu. “We are looking for cooperation with China,” he said, “This automatic station will provide the message of floods in Nepal, but the plan is in its initial phase.” 

Ranjan Kumar Dahal, an engineering geologist and associate professor at Nepal’s Tribhuvan University, said access to Himalayan glacial lakes needs to be studied, alongside the installation of automatic stations – including on Chinese territory – which can provide the data needed to calculate risks and help provide timely warnings.

“We depend on satellite pictures – it is not enough,” he said. “Where is the risk? What is the size of the glacier? What is the dam? What happened to the snow line? Equipment must be installed so that it can be heard from the ground.”

Early warning saves lives

Within Nepal, early warning systems have proven to be effective in saving lives during floods. International aid agency Practical Action first introduced an early warning system on the East Rapti River in 2001. 

“At that time, there were no mobile phones or advanced technology to share messages,” recalled Gehendra Gurung, former head of Practical Action’s programme in Nepal. “Because floods occurred every year in the Rapti, we provided hand phones to people upstream. When it rained, they would call downstream communities, and warnings were then relayed through loudspeakers.”

With advanced technology, the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology can now provide rainfall and flood forecasts up to three days before they are due to happen. “We need similar information on transboundary rivers as well,” Gurung told Climate Home News. 

After floods and failed harvests, Korean farmers sue state power utility for damages

When the Bhotekoshi River flooded in July, early warning helped save many lives, limiting the death toll, according to Arjun Paudel, Rasuwa’s chief district officer.

“I was informed one hour before the flood entered the Nepal side through the border security, and immediately issued a notice and deployed a security force,” he said. “If we had not received any information, human casualties would have been about 200.” 

He added that had there been an early warning system near the glacial lake, it would likely have been possible to avoid all deaths.

In early July, the UN’s Green Climate Fund approved a grant of around $36 million to help Nepal reduce the growing threat from GLOFs driven by climate change, through a project to protect communities, infrastructure and ecosystems, and reduce human and economic losses. 

The post Nepal and China agree to cooperate on glacial lake flooding, as warming hikes threat appeared first on Climate Home News.

Blazes sweeping through the continent  – with major hotspots in Spain and Portugal – have so far released 38.37 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the atmosphere, more than the annual CO2 emissions of Sweden, according to data from the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS).

That’s more than double the average historical CO2 emissions recorded during the same months over the last 20 years. 

The Iberian countries have suffered their worst fire season on record, with blazes killing at least seven people, displacing thousands more and destroying homes and crops in August, as the peninsula sweltered through heatwaves. 

Mark Parrington, a senior scientist at the EU’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), told Climate Home that the fires ravaging Spain and Portugal this month have caused “extreme emissions”. 

In Spain alone, fire-related emissions this year are now four times higher than the average annual total, Parrington added. 

‘Feedback loop’ between climate change and fires

Forests act as important carbon sinks, but when they burn, they release back into the atmosphere the carbon stored in the trunks, branches and leaves of their trees as well as in the soil. 

“In fighting climate change, every effort counts – and of course, increasing emissions from forest fires is not good news,” said Paolo Laj, head of the Global Atmosphere Watch team at the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 

Scientists have warned of the emergence of a ‘feedback loop’ between climate change and fires. Rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produce hotter and drier conditions that make it easier for fires to develop and spread. Worsening fires release vast quantities of stored carbon into the atmosphere, further accelerating global warming. 

Globally, forest fires account for a relatively small share of emissions when compared with the use of fossil fuels and other human activities. 

But their impact has been growing rapidly in recent years. In both 2023 and 2024, fires surged across the world – from tropical rainforests in South America to boreal forests in Canada and Russia – releasing more greenhouse gases than the annual emissions of India, according to analysis from the World Resources Institute (WRI).

WMO’s Laj said the share of global CO2 emissions caused by fires will likely continue to increase with the growing frequency and intensity of fires. 

Risk for national emissions targets

Surging blazes also risk threatening forests’ role in helping countries to meet their climate targets.

Many countries are relying on land carbon sequestration – including through forests – to hit their 2030 and 2035 emissions-reduction goals, instead of taking more action elsewhere, for example by cutting the use of planet-heating fossil fuels. 

The Australian government, for example, has faced criticism for repeatedly revising upwards projections of how much carbon its land sector could remove from the atmosphere while expanding its oil and gas production. 

Similarly, COP30 host nation Brazil has been accused of obfuscating the role of forest sinks through opaque accounting used in its latest nationally determined contribution (NDC).

The EU has yet to publish a new climate plan with an emissions-reduction target for 2035. But, when Brussels last updated its NDC in 2023, it raised its reliance on land carbon sinks to meet its 2030 goal.

Bill Hare, CEO of think-tank Climate Analytics, said governments need to adopt a more realistic view of how much the land sector, including forests, can contribute to their climate targets as rising fires threaten their carbon sequestration potential. 

“Will the EU get the sink that they planned for? I doubt it,” he told Climate Home News, adding that Brussels might require more action from other sectors to compensate for the weakening of its forests.

Accounting for wildfire emissions

Currently, countries generally exclude emissions from wildfires in their national greenhouse gas inventories submitted to the UN climate body.

That’s because they focus on human-made emissions and, under guidelines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, wildfires are regarded as natural disturbances unless they result in permanent land use changes, such as turning forest into farmland.

But Hare said countries should start accounting for forest fires in a more systematic way when setting climate targets. 

“Twenty-five years ago, you could say wildfires were random and forests would regrow. Unfortunately, what we see now is that fires are becoming more frequent, along with drought and heat, and forests are not recovering,” he said. “This is not an act of God.”

The post EU’s record wildfire emissions highlight threat to forest carbon sinks appeared first on Climate Home News.

The robotics engineer, now a professor at Columbia University, was referring to the advent of 3D printing – a technology he claimed would “transform every single aspect of our lives”.

That revolution had already been brewing for some time given that the first commercial 3D printer – the SLA-1 – was released in the late 1980s by American firm 3D Systems. 

But it was improvements in the speed, materials and accuracy of the technology that led experts to believe 3D printing would revolutionise the global economy.

Today, it is used in multiple sectors, from automobiles to fashion, housing to healthcare – and in ways many people do not realise. In the future, its efficiency and low cost offer promise to help bring the world’s rapacious use of resources down to levels in line with protecting the climate and nature. 

Engine parts, car dashboards and prosthetics are all 3D printed. New homes, manufacturing tools and custom shoes have followed suit. The possibilities are endless: complex applications such as building human tissue or satellites in space have already been developed.

As a result the industry is now valued at $20 billion-$25 billion, with high growth estimates putting it at over $100 billion within the next 10 years. In the past year alone, the industry grew by around 9%, according to consultants Wohlers Associates. 

The potential for using 3D printing to reduce waste and improve the efficiency of manufacturing processes has also caught the attention of those working on sustainability, as it opens up new possibilities for businesses seeking to reduce their environmental impact. 

The question is whether the industry can live up to its promise and deliver large-scale, affordable environmental solutions.

Built by machines

The extraordinary range of uses for 3D printing is testament to the flexibility of the technology and the ingenuity of its developers. The ability to create freely and on location are hugely attractive options to designers and engineers.

3D printing – also called additive manufacturing – works by first creating a 3D model using computer-aided design (CAD). This model is translated into code the printer can read, and the printer then deposits materials in layers to create the final object.

This process cuts out many of the complicated – and human – elements of manufacturing or construction. Building a house in the conventional manner, for example, can take months, requiring many people from different trades and a multi-layered supply chain.

By contrast, one of the world’s first 3D-printed homes – the TECLA House – was built out of local clay in Italy in around 200 hours and using 60 cubic metres of raw material. Its construction required 350 12-millimetre layers. The house was produced in 2021 as a prototype for future buildings that would need to respond to the climate crisis. 

Is electrification a no-brainer in the race to net-zero?

In a statement on its launch, Massimo Moretti, founder of WASP, the 3D company behind the project, commented: “TECLA shows that a beautiful, healthy and sustainable home can be built by a machine using on-site materials.”

By using only what is needed in exactly the right place, additive manufacturing greatly reduces waste. Some industry sources claim the difference can be up to 90% less material waste than with traditional methods. The end product can also be designed to be lighter which reduces material use and energy consumption.

Circular by design

The TECLA House, and similar buildings such as the Amsterdam Canal House, are sleek examples of what can be achieved with the latest 3D printing technology.

However, they beg the wider question of whether such projects can be made at scale and within budget, while meeting commercial needs. Affordability and custom-made are words that are rarely used in the same sentence.

Signify, a global lighting company, has been tackling this challenge by turning its attention to how 3D printing can support sustainable, mass-made custom lighting solutions.

Signify began experimenting with 3D printers around 2015, primarily for prototyping moulds, fixtures and early product concepts, explained Bart Maeyens, Signify’s global leader for 3D printing.

“The turning point came when researchers were challenged to explore 3D mass production and succeeded to develop polycarbonate-based formulations able to produce durable end-use parts – not just prototypes – which enabled full-scale production of luminaires,” he added.

Neglecting ‘Scope 3’ emissions could sink corporate climate action

The following year the company launched myCreation, an offshoot that produces on-demand 3D-printed lighting from recycled materials. By 2020, Signify had installed 500 3D printers in hubs around the world, allowing the company to customise lighting at scale.

Signify myCreation offers 3D printing as a sustainability-focused product intended to serve the circular economy. All printed parts are produced with at least 65% recycled materials, while bio-circular and industrial recycled plastics are also used, according to Maeyens.

“We produce on-demand with short production lead times which eradicates obsolete stocks and decimates carbon footprint in production transportation. Rejected parts are recycled in-house, leading to zero waste in production,” he said.

Compared to conventional methods, Signify’s 3D-printed lighting decreases carbon emissions by up to 76% and its products contain up to 40% fewer components, Maeyens noted.

Businesses are responding positively to these possibilities. Food giant McDonald’s and British retailer Marks & Spencer have both signed up to use the 3D-printed products in their stores. 

The El Dorado International Airport in Colombia installed 9,000 3D-printed lights which, along with retrofitting existing points with LEDs, reportedly reduced the airport’s electricity needs by 65%. A similar project at Madrid Barajas Airport saw a 50% drop in electricity needs. 

The quiet revolution

Professor Lipson, when asked by Climate Home about his predictions a decade and a half ago, feels validated.

“3D printers have become so ubiquitous that they exist in every high school in the world, many kids have them at home – and nobody is counting,” he said.

Lipson sees the technology as part of a wider revolution in digital manufacturing, working alongside generative AI, to change how the global industry operates.

How off-grid solar is beating the odds to transform lives in rural Africa

“3D printing allows you to go from a digital blueprint to a physical object quickly, accurately, with little investment in tooling or skill,” he explained. ”That’s the direction manufacturing is moving in many areas that involve complex products.” The result could mean jobs and factories that businesses set up or outsourced overseas to cut costs could be reshored, he added.

The 3D printing age is unfolding without the fanfare of AI, or sky-high levels of investment. This quiet revolution has been embraced behind factory doors where engineers have grasped its enormous potential.

3D printed renewables and batteries

The potential is clear when it comes to cutting environmental impact: lighter-weight products, efficient use of materials, local production and high recycling rates.

There are already examples of 3D-printed solar power cells that can produce renewable electricity without needing to mine and transport heavy materials such as gold or copper over long distances. Wind turbine components, such as blade moulds, are being printed to cut out wasteful alternatives. These flexible and lightweight blades could potentially capture more of the wind’s energy.

And energy storage – a key enabler of the energy transition – is advancing by printing batteries onsite that can increase energy density and improve efficiency. They could also help put an end to environmentally damaging supply chains often associated with battery production.     

These are just a handful of examples where clean tech is taking advantage of the 3D printing revolution. Green industry experts are hoping the next step is to expand the use of these techniques so that the benefits become widespread.

Adam Wentworth is a freelance writer based in Brighton, UK.

The post Does the future of green manufacturing lie in 3D printing? appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a joint declaration issued at the Amazon Summit held in Bogotá this week, the eight countries that make up the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) pledged to support the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) as an “innovative mechanism” to mobilise finance for climate and nature protection.

The TFFF was proposed by Brazil in 2023 as a global investment fund that would allocate a share of its returns to rainforest conservation initiatives around the world. The fund will be backed by an initial, one-time $25-billion contribution from donor nations, along with $100 billion in private funds.

The declaration from Amazon nations also invites “potential investor countries” to “announce substantial contributions” intended to guarantee the fund’s quick activation. Those that have expressed interest so far include Britain, Norway and the UAE.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva told the summit in Colombia: “We need this to be the most serious COP of all, one that doesn’t end in empty speeches and promises”. “We’re fed up with promises,” he added. “I want to see who’s going to put up the money to keep the forest standing.”

“The proposal that we arrive united at COP30 in Belem is fundamental,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro in a speech alongside other South American leaders, including Bolivian president Luis Arce, Ecuador’s vice-president María José Pinto and Venezuelan vice-president Gabriela Jiménez.

The Amazon summit in Bogotá follows a meeting two years ago in the COP30 host city of Belém where ACTO leaders issued a declaration in support of Brazil’s COP30 presidency and laid the groundwork for co-operation around the world’s largest rainforest.

Amazon declaration omits fossil fuels

Despite calls from Indigenous groups and civil society for ACTO leaders to halt oil and gas developments in the Amazon Basin, fossil fuels were not explicitly mentioned in the Bogotá declaration. Leaders did, however, pledge to “advance toward a just, equitable and orderly energy transition”.

Alex Rafalowicz, executive director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said “the Amazonian presidents missed the opportunity to recognise that oil and gas extraction is one of the greatest threats to the Amazon.”

COP30 host Brazil is one of the countries that has major plans to explore for oil and gas in the Amazon region, despite significant opposition from environmental and Indigenous groups. Its neighbour Guyana has rapidly ascended to become a major oil producer in a partnership with fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil.

Campaigners at the Amazon summit in Bogotá said Venezuela, Ecuador and Perú explicitly opposed any mentions of fossil fuels in the final ACTO text.

“Amazonian presidents are not listening to the voices of the Indigenous peoples who have protected the forest since ancient times. They ignore the fact that we are experiencing a climate crisis,” said Juan Bay, president of the Waorani People in Ecuador.

Bay was one of the leaders of a referendum campaign in 2023 that forced Ecuador to agree to stop drilling of oil and gas blocks in the Yasuní National Park. But the government has failed to meet this obligation.

One victory for Indigenous people at the Bogotá summit was the creation of a new advisory body, called the Amazonian Indigenous Peoples Mechanism (MAPI, in Spanish). Each country will be represented by a government and an Indigenous delegate, advising on issues like deforestation and species trafficking.

TFFF: a “promising” solution?

In the lead-up to COP30, Brazil has been drumming up support for the TFFF from donor and rainforest countries, as well as investors. The fund will be officially launched in Belém, as one of the main initiatives led by the Brazilian COP presidency.

In a new concept note for the TFFF issued this week, Brazil laid out the technical details of how the investments would be structured. Among its provisions, the new fund will only pay rainforest nations that can prove results in reducing deforestation and forest carbon emissions.

The mechanism consists of two platforms: the Tropical Forest Investment Fund (TFIF) will aim to generate enough returns to pay investors back and use surplus cash to support forest initiatives, while the TFFF will oversee and set the rules for the payments to rainforest nations, also in Africa and Southeast Asia.

According to the concept note, the fund will borrow money from investors at interest rates of around 5% and then invest in higher-yielding emerging market bonds paying around 8% interest. This would allow the fund to pay an estimated $4 per hectare to rainforest nations – an expected $2.8 billion in total disbursements per year with the remainder going to repay sponsors’ capital.

Countries in the BRICS bloc of emerging economies – among them, crucially, China – have pledged support for the new fund. In a June declaration, the group’s leaders said the TFFF was a “promising blended finance instrument” that could “generate a predictable and long-term funding stream to finance the conservation of standing forests”.

“Epic” effort needed to hit 2050 nuclear power target, experts say

Emerging market risk not factored in?

But some critics say the fund is not the “elegant” solution it promises to be. Researchers Max Alexander Matthey, founder of the non-profit Climate Impact Auctions, and Aidan Hollis, economics professor at the University of Calgary, called it a “risky gamble” with taxpayer money in an op-ed published this week.

Matthey and Hollis argue that emerging market bonds carry more risk, and pointed to defaults in Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador and Sri Lanka as examples of where things could go wrong.

“For the strategy to work, market yields on emerging market bonds would have to be structurally too high. But they’re not – they reflect real, systemic risks: defaults, volatility and instability,” the researchers write. “As long as nothing goes wrong, it looks like a win-win. But a single sovereign default could topple the entire structure.”

The latest TFFF concept note rules out investments in polluting industries such as coal, oil and gas, something that was praised by campaign group Global Witness. But the nonprofit called on governments to reinforce their participation in the fund with strong laws to stop banks and other financial actors more generally funneling trillions into businesses “responsible for forest destruction policies”.

“National governments must act now with binding rules, or it’s like bailing out a sinking ship without fixing the hole,” said Ashley Thomson, senior policy advisor with Global Witness.

The post Amazon nations pledge support for Brazil’s COP30 rainforest fund appeared first on Climate Home News.

A meeting of the COP bureau – which has 11 members from different countries and advises on COP organisation – took place on Friday after being postponed twice. It followed an emergency session of the committee at the end of July, where African and Pacific delegations raised concerns to the COP30 presidency about the cost and conditions of accommodation in the city on the edge of the rainforest.

Aiming to get the pulse of the logistics woes, the UN climate change secretariat at the start of August circulated a survey to all countries. Nearly three-quarters responded, with the overwhelming majority indicating they had not yet booked their accommodation because of exorbitant costs and minimum stays on the official COP30 platform, according to the survey data seen by Climate Home News.

It showed that 129 delegations still had not made reservations – most of them developing countries. In the case of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), that included 90% of respondents, rising to 94% for small island states.

When asked about the main reason for not booking, 87% said it was due to “prices significantly higher” than their available resources, with 57% also citing minimum booking periods required by the official platform.

After the survey, UN climate chief Simon Stiell laid out a series of recommendations to the Brazilian presidency, including offering better financial incentives to bring down the cost of lodgings, especially for the world’s poorest nations, Climate Home has learned.

In response to the COP bureau’s initial questions, the presidency issued a Q&A document in mid-August in which it made clear that the summit will take place in the Amazon city of Belém as planned, despite growing calls to move it to a bigger city in Brazil. It also outlined the arrangements it was putting in place to ease worries about the number of affordable beds, transport and security for COP delegates.

Its core position has not changed since, though it has made adjustments to some criteria such as shortening the minimum booking period.

Taskforce set up to help LDCs and SIDs

On August 22, after the COP bureau meeting, the COP30 presidency issued a statement saying that Brazil’s federal government, in coordination with the state government of Pará, had reaffirmed that “all the logistical, infrastructure and security conditions are ensured for the realisation of the COP30”.

It added that Belém has the capacity to accommodate delegates for COP30, with a total offer of 53,000 beds, a number higher than the estimated 50,000 participants in the event.

Pará’s governor Helder Barbalho said the state was mobilising a working group “to curb abusive lodging practices”. “We knew the logistical challenge of holding COP30 in the Amazon, but this choice is symbolic and strategic: it demonstrates to the world the central role of Brazil in preserving the forest and leading the climate agenda,” he added in the statement.

COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago said that the federal government was also establishing a taskforce of various ministries that will help delegations, starting with least-developed countries and small island states, to get the accommodation they need.

“In order for this COP to be remembered as the most inclusive COP, we must ensure the participation of all UNFCCC member countries. After securing the accommodation for these two groups, the taskforce will support the other delegations,” he said.

Panama says conditions ‘exclude participation’

These efforts, however, were not enough to ease the concerns of some COP bureau members.

In an indignant post on LinkedIn, its vice president, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez of Panama, said he wanted to know how the bureau could formally ask the COP30 presidency to change the host city. “Because we cannot host a COP under conditions that exclude participation and violate the core principles of multilateralism,” he wrote.

He noted that more than 70% percent of delegations have not yet booked their accommodation, adding: “That single number says it all: the current arrangements are impossible.”

On Friday, Brazilian newspaper Globo reported that only 47 out of 196 countries have booked rooms and confirmed their presence at COP30, with only 80 days left until the start of the event.

Calls for a higher daily allowance for delegates

The COP30 presidency said in its statement on Friday that it supports a request by countries in the COP bureau that the UN should raise the daily subsistence allowance (DSA), a payment given by the UN to subsidise the costs of participants from some developing countries to attend COP talks.

For Belém, Brazil said this was now set at US$144, but could be adjusted higher in line with values for other Brazilian cities such as Rio de Janeiro (US$229), São Paulo (US$234) or Paraty (US$435).

The current DSA for Belém is significantly lower than nearly all of the cheapest rooms available on the official accommodation booking platform.

But raising that allowance could be tricky, as it would involve the International Civil Service Commission, which sets the rates – and might not fully resolve the issue given the wide price gap.

Brazil pushed back against suggestions it could subsidise rooms for delegations other than the poorest and island countries. “Expanding subsidies for delegations from countries with income similar to or higher than in Brazil would not be justified for Brazilian society. The focus remains the inclusion of countries with lower income,” Friday’s statement said.

Climate Home understands there is a significant risk that countries will have to send fewer representatives to Belém than they would judge necessary to properly participate in the negotiations.

China, for example, is expected to halve the size of its delegation in Brazil compared to last year’s COP29 in Azerbaijan, Brazilian newspaper Folha reported on Friday.

This story was edited to add data about the UN climate change survey seen by Climate Home.

The post COP bureau meeting ends in stalemate as Brazil insists Belém logistics can work appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a report released on Friday, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said climate change is increasing the temperature of workplaces – especially outdoors – and creating conditions that threaten workers’ health and national economies.

Extreme heat is causing a rise in heat stroke, dehydration and long-term kidney and cardiovascular damage – especially for manual labourers in physically demanding sectors like agriculture, construction and fisheries, the report found.

Record-hot 2024 shows world must adapt to extremes, says EU climate service

“The workers keeping our societies running are paying the highest price,” said Rüdiger Krech, director of climate change and environment at the WHO.

For every degree above 20C, workers’ productivity is lowered by 2-3%, which can negatively affect individual incomes and national economies, the report said. 

According to the International Labour Organization, more than 2.4 billion workers are exposed to excessive heat globally, resulting in more than 22.85 million occupational injuries each year.

“Protection of workers from extreme heat is not just a health imperative but an economic necessity,” WMO’s Deputy Secretary-General Ko Barrett said in a statement.

“Occupational heat stress has become a global societal challenge, which is no longer confined to countries located close to the Equator – as highlighted by the recent heatwave in Europe,” he added.

Climate change-driven heatwaves hit Delhi’s Red Fort market traders

In mid-July, Spain’s environment ministry said high temperatures in the previous two months caused 1,180 deaths in the country, a sharp jump from the same period last year. Among them was a 51-year-old female street cleaner in Barcelona who died after working a Saturday shift in the middle of a heatwave.

Her death caused the Mediterranean city to tighten its heat protection protocols for cleaning contractors, which will now kick in at a lower temperature threshold of 34C instead of 37C. The measures include hourly water breaks and routes planned to keep workers in the shade as much as possible when the sun is high. At 40C, employees will only work using vehicles during the hottest hours, news agencies reported.

Tools on hand to stop ‘silent killer’

The WHO’s Krech told journalists that the UN agencies want the private and public sectors “to co-create tailored plans in your community, enterprise, environment, in your city, in your hospitals, that are practical, affordable, environmentally sustainable – and of course, effective, and that can be implemented at scale”.

The WMO’s senior director of services, Johan Stander, referred to earlier reports that the past decade was the hottest on record, adding that weather and climate science is available to help businesses and governments improve workplace safety.

The new report recommends actions and practices that he said should be implemented for everybody.

They include ensuring workers drink enough liquids and have access to toilets, washrooms, air-conditioning or outdoor cooling spots, as well as employee training to identify the effects of heat stress.

“Extreme heat is called the silent killer but with today’s science, data and technologies, silence is no longer an excuse,” Stander added.

Age of “climate whiplash” puts residents of Africa’s fast-growing cities in danger

Workers paying for climate crisis

In the report, which draws on five decades of research and evidence, governments, employers and health authorities are also advised to design heat-health policies and alerts to help more vulnerable groups such as older people who are less physically fit and people with chronic underlying health conditions.

The report adds that heat-health advisories should not only address weather conditions but also workplace clothing and the type, intensity and duration of work.

“This new guidance offers practical, evidence-based solutions to protect lives, reduce inequality, and build more resilient workforces in a warming world,” said Jeremy Farrar, WHO assistant director-general for health promotion, disease prevention and care.

Rebecca Newsom, political lead for Greenpeace International’s “stop drilling, start paying” campaign, said: “Governments can no longer watch idly as workers’ health and income are degraded due to a climate crisis they hardly contributed to.”

The WHO/WMO report offers solutions to meet the challenge, she added. But, she argued, “it is polluters – not ordinary people – who should be financing action through bold taxes on fossil fuel company profits.”

The post Employers need plans to protect workers from rising heat stress, UN says appeared first on Climate Home News.

On Friday, the ADB confirmed it had approved a $410-million financial package for the Reko Diq copper-gold mine, which will be operated by Canadian mining giant Barrick Mining Corporation.

The mine is located in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, which forms part of a wider region of the same name with a distinctive cultural identity straddling Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Balochistan is Pakistan’s largest and poorest province, despite its vast natural resources including copper – a key ingredient in virtually all clean energy technology that is pivotal for the global shift towards electrification.

Campaigners sue Chilean government over copper mining pollution

Local groups in Balochistan have led a decades-long struggle against the Pakistan government for greater autonomy for the Baloch people.

Militant insurgencies have escalated in recent years and the Pakistan government has responded with a violent crackdown and counter-terrorism measures which UN experts say violate human rights. Earlier this year, they condemned the enforced disappearance of thousands of people and alleged widespread torture, extrajudicial killings and indiscriminate violence by security forces, especially against peaceful protesters and Baloch human rights defenders.

Strategy to support ‘responsible’ minerals value chains

The ADB said the mine will contribute to the clean energy transition by helping to meet rising copper demand and will spur economic development in the region by creating thousands of jobs.

It is the first mining project the Philippines-based bank has supported since launching a strategy to develop “responsible and sustainable critical minerals-to-manufacturing value chains” in Asia-Pacific.

The ADB funding for the mine comes on top of $700m in loans approved by the International Financial Corporation (IFC), the World Bank’s private arm, earlier this year.

Before the ADB decision, a coalition of civil society groups called on international financiers in an open letter to reconsider support for the project, citing “excessive” security, human rights and environmental risks.

“In a highly militarised region, where critical voices are routinely silenced, investing in such a large-scale, controversial project is a recipe for disaster,” said Tala Batangan, Asia regional coordinator for the Coalition for Human Rights in Development.

In a lengthy response published on its website, mining company Barrick rejected the accusations. It said the company is “committed to responsible mining and sharing the benefits of its operations with local stakeholders and partners, based on open and transparent engagement and the highest environmental and social safeguards”.

An ADB spokesperson said: “We recognise that mining is a complex sector. We listen closely to all concerns raised by our stakeholder groups including civil society organisations, and we will respond to their correspondence in due course.”

The Reko Diq copper and gold mine

Located in a sparsely populated, arid area, the Reko Diq copper-gold mine is owned 50% by Barrick and 50% by the Pakistan government and the government of Balochistan.

Production is expected to start by the end of 2028. The $6.6-billion mine is due to produce 200,000 tonnes of copper and 250,000 ounces of gold per year in its first phase. The second phase will double production.

“Epic” effort needed to hit 2050 nuclear power target, experts say

Barrick says the mine has proven reserves that would last for at least 37 years.

A consortium of lenders is helping finance the project. Barrick said it is in talks with export credit agencies in the US, Canada, Germany, Sweden and Finland.

Booming copper demand is on track to outstrip supply, and the International Energy Agency is warning of a significant shortfall within the next decade.

Campaigners call inclusion plan ‘highly problematic’

Campaigners, however, argue that the mine risks exacerbating the insecurity of human rights defenders.

In the letter signed by 36 international groups and sent to the ADB and the IFC this week, they urged lenders to pause funding for the project until security and rights concerns have been addressed.

“While we understand that copper is considered to be a critical mineral for the energy transition, extraction projects must also respect human and environmental rights,” they wrote. The letter cites recommendations from a UN Secretary-General panel on energy transition minerals that “human rights must be at the core of all mineral value chains” and that the sector must promote peace and security.

The project, they say, “does not meet these standards”.

Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?

Specifically, campaigners say it is “impossible” to ensure meaningful engagement with local communities given the “atmosphere of fear and repression” in the region. Earlier this year, members of a human rights group were detained in what UN experts say “may amount to reprisals for their interaction with United Nations mechanisms”.

Local groups in Pakistan have been afraid of opposing the mine over similar fears, one campaigner told Climate Home News.

“When people are too afraid to even speak out or raise questions, consultations can’t be considered meaningful,” said Batangan.

The letter adds that the company’s plan to work with the Balochistan government to ensure the Baloch people and other marginalised groups are represented in the project’s decision-making process is “highly problematic” given the ongoing conflict with state security agencies.

Campaigners argue that the ADB and IFC’s commitments to invest sensitively in fragile contexts and prevent harms to local communities cannot be upheld in the current context.

Barrick cites ‘overwhelming’ local support

In its response to the campaigners’ letter, Barrick rejected allegations that lenders will not be able to uphold their environmental and social safeguards for the project and accused some of the signatories of being “anti-mining and anti-development”.

The company recognised the “broader security concerns in the region” and said the project’s impact assessment had been carried out to international best practice, as well as undergoing additional due diligence by lenders.

It described accusations that meaningful consultations would not be possible as ignoring “the extensive engagement undertaken and the efforts to ensure such engagement is open, culturally appropriate, and includes appropriate safeguards”. Local communities, it added, “overwhelming support the project”.

The IFC said all its projects must comply with comprehensive environmental and social requirements, adding it is “committed to engaging in constructive dialogue with civil society organisations on matters related to its investments”.

The post Asian Development Bank backs Pakistan copper mine despite human rights fears appeared first on Climate Home News.

Underpinning the project supplying 25% of the UAE’s electricity, the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) built four APR-1400 units – large, uranium-based reactors that employ conventional technology to power electricity plants. The deal marked the first time Korean nuclear technology was exported.  

After KEPCO’s success in the UAE, the company managed to beat French competitors in the Czech Republic, where one of its subsidiaries was commissioned to build another set of two APR-1400 reactors, scheduled for construction in 2029. 

With the Nuclear Energy Agency saying the world needs to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 to help achieve net zero emissions by mid-century, Asian countries are leading the global race to build new reactors, as Western technology falls behind.  

Korean, Chinese and Russian companies have emerged as attractive partners for developing countries, in part because of their expertise – from design to operation of nuclear power plants – and because they can provide loans, said Jeong Ik Lee, professor of nuclear engineering at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST).  

Despite some opposition from campaign groups and politicians, more countries are turning to nuclear as a low-emissions option to complement renewables, said a 2025 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). It has heralded a “new era of growth” for nuclear power over the coming decades. 

In 2023, at the COP28 climate talks in Dubai, the UAE launched a coalition of governments seeking to triple the world’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which has gathered 31 backers so far – many of them developing countries that have never had a nuclear power industry. 

China enters race for nuclear influence 

Although absent from the COP28 nuclear pledge, China and Russia have emerged as dominant forces in the market. Of the 52 reactors that began construction since 2017, 25 are of Chinese design and 23 of Russian design, IEA data shows. 

In the last 15 years, China alone added about as much nuclear energy capacity as the rest of the world combined, according to data from Global Energy Monitor. Korea ranks second by a significant margin. 

Becoming a nuclear technology exporter could put China in a strategic position – and the US and Europe at “massive risk”, said Jacopo Buongiorno, nuclear engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).  

“When building nuclear, you’re almost entering a marriage. It’s a 60 year-long project. It establishes a relationship between the two countries that then can be leveraged for geopolitical reasons,” Buongiorno said. “It’s a very critical piece of infrastructure.” 

Despite China’s massive nuclear build-out at home, the economic giant is in the early stages as a technology exporter, Buongiorno said. Still, China’s big ambitions mean it is only a matter of time before Chinese reactors take the lead overseas, he told Climate Home. 

“I would be shocked if we didn’t see soon more global projects led by China. They are building reactors like there is no tomorrow at home. The industry has capabilities that would be shameful not to use also in the international scene,” Buongiorno said. 

A key part of China’s plan to grow overseas is deploying its Hualong One reactor, which was developed by state-owned nuclear corporations CGN and CNNC. Two of these reactors were completed in Pakistan in 2022. Another is in the planning stages for Argentina by 2028. The reactor has also passed European Union (EU) and UK safety tests.  

Russia’s grip on emerging markets 

From the perspective of developing countries, many nations have been drawn to nuclear’s emissions-free and stable power, said Buongiorno. But the huge construction costs make partners like Russia – which also provides financing for the projects – more attractive than Western partners, he added. 

The country, already a mature nuclear nation, has vast experience positioning the Soviet-era VVER reactor in foreign markets, having built many of them across Eastern Europe in places like Belarus, Slovakia and Bulgaria. 

But as more developing countries turn to nuclear power, Russia has started building a new wave of VVER reactors in emerging economies without a nuclear industry, including Iran, Turkey and Bangladesh. 

“The entity that exports nuclear power (ROSATOM) is not a company, it’s a branch of the government,” said Lee from KAIST. “They have more financial flexibility with how to finance large projects. In certain areas it’s very difficult to compete with Russia.” 

Egypt, for example, has started construction of VVER reactors at the El Daaba nuclear power plant, thanks to a $25bn loan from ROSATOM that will cover about 85% of the construction costs. The plant is expected to generate half of Egypt’s electricity. 

Western powers fall behind 

Meanwhile, former nuclear leaders US, Japan and Europe have stopped building new projects in the last decade – leaving them with an aging fleet of reactors and a widening skills shortage, experts warned.  

“They have a gap in their construction history. This is very critical because the local supply chain is damaged. Know-how of managing these large projects also disappears. That’s why costs increase,” Lee said. 

While China has averaged up to seven years for developing new projects since 2017, the US and EU can take almost double – up to 12 years, IEA data shows. For example, the US’s last nuclear reactors – Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia – came online seven years late and $17bn over budget. 

Meanwhile, the recent artificial intelligence boom in North America and Europe has renewed interest in small modular reactors known as SMRs, which could potentially supply the huge electricity demand expected from data centres, the IEA nuclear report says. 

In what could be a game changer for nuclear, SMR investments have started pouring in. At least 16 new nuclear-powered data centres have been announced in the US, between 2023 and 2024 – with buyers Google, Meta and Microsoft actively supporting their development. Governments in the US, Japan and EU have also shown support. 

But so far, despite major announcements, few of the projects have actually been built. At a global level, only two SMRs are currently operational: one in Russia and another in China. 

Nuclear power projects have also faced concerns from locals. In Japan’s Hokkaido region, where the country is planning its first reactor since the Fukushima incident, Ainu Indigenous people and other residents have fiercely rejected the projects over fears of contamination from nuclear waste. 

Pressure to lift financial barriers

Aside from setting a new target, the COP28 nuclear pledge also put pressure on the World Bank to resume financing of nuclear energy projects. This year, the bank finally ended a longstanding ban on backing nuclear power. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is now considering following suit.

Given that finance is a major obstacle for developing countries, funding from the World Bank and the ADB could help de-risk projects in the Global South, said Victor Ibarra, senior manager of nuclear energy at the think-tank Clean Air Task Force. 

“(Multilateral banks’) involvement could open the door for countries like Vietnam or the Philippines to move forward with projects that have stalled in the past due to access to adequate financing,” said Ibarra. 

It could also lower over-reliance on Russia and China, allowing developing countries to “naturally have a broader set of partners to choose from”, he added. 

Yet the shift by development banks has not gone unnoticed, as green groups have pushed back, arguing that nuclear could become a costly alternative to renewable energy deployment in the Global South. 

Lidy Nacpil, a campaigner with the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development, described the ADB’s potential return to nuclear financing as a “dangerous distraction and totally unacceptable”. 

The Nuclear/Coal-Free Bataan Movement, a grassroots group in the Philippines’ Bataan province, said in a statement that “reviving nuclear financing will only deepen debt, displace communities, and expose generations to irreversible harm”. 

Nuclear comeback? Japan’s plans to restart reactors hit resistance over radioactive waste

In a note issued by the ADB last week, draft amendments to its energy policy recognise the role of nuclear power in reducing emissions and say the bank is ready to support countries in strengthening institutional capacity and infrastructure needed to allow for “state-of-the art nuclear power investments”. This is not a final version, it emphasises, as the energy policy review is ongoing until September.

The bank’s current policy rules out financing for nuclear power due to the risks of pollution, weapons proliferation and the “very high investment costs” relative to the bank’s resources. The proposed new policy highlights the role of SMRs in addressing these challenges, as new reactors “offer flexible and scalable solutions”, it says.

Looking further ahead, the IEA expects China and other emerging economies to grow nuclear power much faster than industrialised nations in the coming years. By 2050, more than half of the world’s nuclear fleet is projected to be in these countries.  

“If the target is tripling capacity worldwide, developing countries will have to play a big role,” said Buongiorno of MIT. “Nuclear newcomers will have to enter this business. These countries will need to have a piece of that pie.” 

The post Emerging economies turn to Asian reactors for new wave of nuclear power   appeared first on Climate Home News.

In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) mandated the global community to negotiate a treaty to end plastic pollution. From August 5-14, 184 countries gathered in Geneva for the sixth round of talks, known as INC-5.2. Hopes were high for progress, but negotiations didn’t succeed.

The divide between the group of more than 100 ambitious countries on one side and the oil- and gas-producing nations, including the United States, on the other proved too wide to bridge.

Why the talks failed

The UNEA mandate is ambitious by design: it calls for “ending plastic pollution” through action across the entire plastics life cycle, promoting sustainable production and consumption, and strengthening international cooperation.

The failure of the INC-5.2 plastic talks was mainly down to the following three reasons:

1. It’s the economy, stupid: As one delegate from an oil-producing country put it, the UNEA resolution was negotiated by environment ministries, but the current talks are driven by energy ministries.

The shift in perspective was clear: the treaty is considered an economic treaty. This has led to a rejection of targets and measures for sustainable production and consumption of plastic, or restrictions on problematic plastic products. This stance directly opposed the 96 countries that had recently called for urgent measures to curb unsustainable production and consumption.

2. No global measures, please: 86 countries submitted a plan for tackling problematic plastics through a mix of global and national measures. Yet the US – having shifted its position before the talks – rejected global measures.

Negotiators tried to find flexibility, including proposals to regulate only the most problematic or hazardous products (such as children’s plastic toys containing toxic chemicals) and to allow countries to opt out, meaning they wouldn’t have to implement those restrictions on their territory. Still, resistance remained absolute, making it clear that the US position was political, not technical.

3. Flexibility over time – but only on solid foundations: All delegations agreed that consensus should be the norm, but 120 countries also supported a safety valve: if consensus proved impossible, decisions should be made by vote, without any single state holding veto power.

High thresholds were proposed – such as a three-quarters majority – to prevent abuse. But Brazil, Russia, India and China in particular rejected this option and insisted on consensus only for decision-making. Without the safeguard of voting as a last resort, many feared the treaty would be locked in paralysis without the possibility of strengthening over time.

While poor coordination among the INC-5.2 talks chair, bureau and secretariat didn’t help, it wasn’t the core issue. In the end, the breakdown came down to fundamentals: a large coalition of countries demanding effective measures versus a powerful minority, led by the Gulf states and the US, not being able to agree to such measures.

What next for the negotiations?

Plastic pollution remains a global challenge, and solutions will require cooperation. But the question now is not simply when to meet again – it’s how to avoid repeated failure. A few possible paths lie ahead:

1. More of the same: Negotiations could continue, but without a shift in positions, success seems unlikely. Narrowing the scope – by leaving out production issues – or lowering ambition could secure agreement, but at the cost of a weak treaty. Such an outcome would fall short of the UNEA’s vision.

The structural elements of the agreement would, for example, be weaker than those of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and its impact could therefore be limited. Another possibility is that ambitious states push through a treaty by vote – a scenario floated in Geneva, though still vague.

2. A coalition of the willing: If consensus is impossible, a smaller group of like-minded states could move ahead with their own agreement. Others could join later. This would allow progress, while respecting that not all countries can engage in such a treaty at this stage.

3. Building on existing agreements: The Basel Convention – often seen as a treaty on transboundary movements of waste – also covers waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and links to health and the environment.

A new protocol under Basel could incorporate many or even all of the measures under discussion at the plastics talks. Since protocols require ratification, each country could decide whether to take on the obligations, and again the door would be left open for those countries that want to join at a later stage.

China’s emissions fall but growing coal-to-chemicals sector raises concern

INC-5.2 showed us how difficult it will be to achieve a truly global plastics treaty. But doing nothing is not an option. Plastic pollution continues to grow, and the world needs effective, cooperative solutions.

Whether through renewed global talks, a coalition of ambitious states, or existing frameworks like the Basel Convention, the next phase must be about moving beyond deadlock and providing an effective treaty to protect the environment and human health by substantially reducing plastic pollution.

The post Why we couldn’t agree on a plastics treaty in Geneva – and what might happen next appeared first on Climate Home News.

Record installations of solar power helped extend a slight decline in China’s overall carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the first half of 2025, but the country’s ballooning coal-to-chemicals industry bucked the positive trend, according to analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) for Carbon Brief.

It was the only major sector to see a growth in emissions – with 20% more coal being used as fuel and raw material compared to the same period last year. In contrast with the rest of the world, China increasingly relies on its abundant reserves of coal to produce synthetic fuels and petrochemical products.

Coal-to-chemicals expansion

Planned expansion of the coal-to-chemicals sector could add an extra 2% to China’s overall emissions by 2029 and complicate the country’s plans of peaking emissions by the end of the decade, CREA’s research showed.

CREA’s lead analyst Lauri Myllyvirta said that, if realised, China’s coal-to-chemicals growth ambition “certainly makes it harder to reach China’s 2030 climate commitments, to which the country is badly off track as it is”.

Currently, China – which alone accounts for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions – has a goal of peaking CO2 emissions “before 2030” and reaching carbon neutrality by 2060.

Since 2020, the country has also had a pledge to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP – a measure known as carbon intensity – by more than 65% below 2005 levels by 2030.

Coal diversion amid solar boom

The country’s record-breaking rollout of renewables has helped drive down emissions in the power sector. Developers rushed to install 212 gigawatts (GW) of new solar capacity in the first half of 2025 ahead of a policy change on tariffs paid to new wind and solar generators.

In May alone, the equivalent of 100 solar panels per second were added, according to CREA’s analysis.

But, despite its green progress, China still consumes more coal than every other country in the world combined. The majority of it continues to be burned as fuel in power stations and steel furnaces, but growing amounts of coal are being converted into a wide range of chemicals, including ammonia-based fertilisers and olefins, the building blocks for many plastic products and adhesives.

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

According to CREA’s Myllyvirta, the current boom in coal-to-chemicals stems from “the heightened geopolitical risk perception” during US President Donald Trump’s first term, which prompted China to reduce its reliance on oil and gas imports.

Beijing is also promoting the sector to prop up coal demand in remote top-producing regions like Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang, he added.

Impact on climate plans

As coal-based chemicals production is far more carbon-intensive than its oil and gas-based equivalent, China’s strategy is having a sizeable climate impact. The industry added around 3% to China’s total CO2 emissions from 2020 to 2024, making it one of the sectors responsible for the growth in overall CO2 emissions over that period and for the expected shortfall against key climate targets, CREA’s analysis said.

China’s chemical industry association expects the sector to expand for another decade – until 2035 – even under China’s CO2 peaking target, with some estimates seeing a 40% increase in capacity in the next four years.

But Myllyvirta cautioned that the industry had previously made over-enthusiastic predictions and uncertainty remains over the sector’s development.

While reducing reliance on oil and gas imports is a continuing priority, rapid progress with electrification could have a bigger impact and undermine support for the coal-to-chemicals sector, he said.

“I’m sure investments in coal-to-chemicals will continue, but their scale will be calibrated in the upcoming five-year plan,” he added, referring to the document that guides China’s economic development.

Xi commits China to full climate plan but emissions-cutting ambition still unclear

Like four out of every five countries, China has yet to publish its latest climate plan under the Paris Agreement – known as a “nationally determined contribution” or NDC – with an emissions reduction target for 2035. President Xi Jinping vowed earlier this year that Beijing would produce a comprehensive climate action blueprint, covering for the first time all economic sectors.

But CREA’s Myllyvirta warned that, at home, China has stopped short of applying energy consumption control policies on coal that is converted into chemicals – and could introduce similar exemptions once it puts CO2 emissions controls in place. “It’s important to scrutinise the [new] NDC for whether it leaves the door open to this,” he added.

The post China’s emissions fall but growing coal-to-chemicals sector raises concern appeared first on Climate Home News.

The nuclear declaration, launched on the margins of the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, was signed by 25 nations at different stages of nuclear power development, including the US, South Korea and Japan. Turkey, Kenya and Nigeria were among six other countries that joined the initiative at COP29 last year.

Nuclear power provides a stable source of low-emissions energy known as “baseload”, which can complement renewables at times of lower solar and wind power output.

According to an analysis from the Nuclear Energy Agency, increasing nuclear power capacity three times from 2020 levels to an average of 1,160 gigawatts (GW) offers “a realistic and practical path” to help the world meet its goals to limit global warming to 1.5C and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Nuclear comeback? Japan’s plans to restart reactors hit resistance over radioactive waste

While the COP28 nuclear goal set in late 2023 was always seen as ambitious, faltering multilateralism and dwindling development aid over the last two years are raising further questions about whether it is achievable – particularly in poorer nations unable to access sufficient affordable financing.

Can it be done?

Meeting the 2050 target is still “theoretically possible” but would need a supply chain scale-up of “epic” proportions, said Jacopo Buongiorno, nuclear science and engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).  

“It would require all countries that make nuclear reactors to be 100% committed, including China, the US, Canada, South Korea, India, Russia – everybody pushing on all cylinders. It’s massive investments and massive commitments, so it’s really, really difficult,” Buongiorno told Climate Home News.

Atte Harjanne, a lawmaker from Finland, one of the 20 countries to endorse the declaration, acknowledged it is a challenging goal, but said it could help spur climate and energy security targets. 

“We need ambitious goals, and we need ambitious action and this is an example of that, so I would rather focus on enabling the work instead of thinking of whether it can be done,” he said.  

Short on time and uranium

A shortage of time is one of the biggest challenges to achieving the nuclear capacity target because new nuclear power projects can take more than a decade to go from construction to operation due to their complexity and stringent safety regulations.

In the US, for example, the last reactors to come online – Vogtle Units 3 & 4 – began construction in 2009 at an initial estimated cost of $14 billion. They eventually came online with a $30-billion price tag in 2023 and 2024, almost a decade behind schedule, due to significant construction delays and cost overruns, according to the US Energy Information Administration. 

Campaigners sue Chilean government over copper mining pollution

Asian countries generally bring new reactors online more quickly, according to a 2025 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

But ramping up the global supply chain to build reactors at such short notice will be almost impossible, said Jan Haverkamp, a senior expert on nuclear energy and energy policy at Greenpeace Netherlands.

Haverkamp called the COP28 pledge “pie-in-the-sky”, though he acknowledged that it had “made a lot of people sit up and think ‘we can do that’.”

Limited supplies of uranium – the main source of fuel in nuclear reactors – could be another constraint on boosting atomic energy rapidly. A handful of countries including Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia hold two-thirds of the global supply of uranium.

Nuclear power’s comeback

Even if it faces an uphill struggle, the COP28 target has added impetus to renewed global interest in the climate benefits of nuclear power – long the target of protests by environmentalists and a source of safety concerns.

While countries might not achieve all the goals in the declaration, having the pledge “is a step forward in acknowledging the need to transition away from fossil fuels”, said Heba El-komey, a nuclear energy analyst at Nigeria-based Nuclear Aware Africa.

Governments’ interest in nuclear power is at its highest level since the oil crisis in the 1970s, according to the IEA report.

Adding to the global fleet of about 420 nuclear reactors, 63 reactors are currently under construction – half of them in China, according to the IEA report. And more than 60 reactors have had their lifetime extended globally in the last five years.

The IEA projects a record high in nuclear electricity generation in 2025 as Japan restarts production, maintenance works are completed in France, and new reactors begin commercial operations. 

Banks, governments change tack

Germany, which phased out more than 30 reactors in the last decade over safety concerns, has shifted its position since the election of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union party, who said he would not object to treating nuclear as a clean source of energy. 

Nuclear power has so far survived the US government’s axing of most funding for clean energy projects. Last May, President Donald Trump issued an executive order aiming to reinvigorate the country’s nuclear energy industry and directed a speed-up in nuclear reactor licensing and deployment. 

Comment: Governments are avoiding renewable energy goals – and it matters

In line with the nuclear capacity tripling pledge, Trump wants to accelerate deployment of new nuclear reactor technologies and expand US capacity from about 100 GW in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050.

Major financial institutions have also backed the COP28 nuclear declaration in recent months, including the World Bank, which in June lifted a long-standing ban on financing for new nuclear reactors. Last year, a group of major banks – including Barclays, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs – also pledged support for the declaration. 

For David Yellen, director of climate policy innovation at the Clean Air Task Force, an international nonprofit, such shifts indicate that “conditions for nuclear to succeed over the next few years” are stronger than ever.

If governments can come to November’s COP30 climate talks working together with multilateral development banks to lower financing costs in the Global South, that would be “more transformational to the future of nuclear than perhaps anything else we can do in the next couple of years”, he added.

“Nuclear newcomers” 

Numerous African countries – including Egypt, Ghana and Nigeria – and other Global South nations have announced their intentions to venture into nuclear energy.

Ghana, for example, has completed the site selection process for its first nuclear power plant, which has been successfully reviewed by a team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

And with support from Russia, Egypt is also building its first nuclear power plant after decades of reliance on natural gas for power generation.

Harjanne, the Finnish lawmaker, said Finland was tapping its own experience to support other countries “with expertise, especially in safety regulation and waste management, but also in construction”. 

Hungary’s bet on EV battery boom hits bumps in the road 

Not all environmental campaigners think that such initiatives should be part of the continent’s clean energy transition, however.

In a 2025 report, a group of grassroots African NGOs said building nuclear reactors was “too slow, too harmful, too expensive and too difficult to combine with renewables”. They also voiced concern about the handling of radioactive waste, a byproduct of nuclear energy production.

“Nuclear power is the costliest means possible of reducing carbon and methane emissions and worse, it detracts from investment in clean energy sources,” they wrote, calling instead for a “wholehearted commitment” to renewables.

The post “Epic” effort needed to hit 2050 nuclear power target, experts say appeared first on Climate Home News.

To that end, André Corrêa do Lago, a veteran Brazilian diplomat who will lead talks at the UN climate summit in the Amazon city of Belém in November, said he was “determined to provide all conditions for frank, open, and creative dialogue”.

That will include a series of consultations, starting in the coming weeks with an online session for all countries, he noted in an open letter – the sixth he has issued so far.

Corrêa do Lago said he hoped to collect initial views on “the form and content” of a global response to the latest round of national climate plans, which are due to be submitted by the end of September, as well as a summary report the UN climate change body plans to publish in October.

This UN “synthesis report” will assess cumulative efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and 2035, according to the targets set out by governments in their plans known as “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs.

The last such report, issued in 2024, said that current national plans combined – if fully implemented – would see emissions of 51.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030, a level only 2.6% lower than in 2019.

That falls far short of the 43% reduction by the end of this decade that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is needed to have a good chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial times, now seen as the primary goal of the Paris Agreement.

By 2035, net global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by 60% compared to 2019 levels. The 2025 synthesis report will be the first to review targets for 2035.

“Collective responsibility” to respond

While the COP30 president did not go into details about how countries differ in their ideas on how the world should respond to the upcoming synthesis report’s findings, some are expected to want to downplay its importance and the urgent need to step up climate action.

Experts have said the report is likely to show that planned efforts are way off track to limit global warming to 1.5C on a long-term basis, even as 2024 was the first full calendar year to register average temperatures above that key threshold.

Leaders should put the Amazon at the heart of a new green economy

“If the image shown by our integrated NDCs turns out disappointing, it is our collective responsibility to convert it into a picture that will ensure a livable planet, protect all economies, and improve living standards and life opportunities for all peoples, for all generations,” stated the COP30 president’s letter.

Corrêa do Lago hinted also that some countries do not believe COP30 is the place to formally address any shortfall in ambition because that is not on the agenda and there is a dedicated process called the “Global Stocktake” (GST) every five years.

How to implement the Global Stocktake

In 2023, the first GST resulted in what was hailed as a historic global commitment to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems – but little has since been done to put that pledge into practice.

Deep divisions have stalled discussions in the official “dialogue” on implementing the GST. Most developed countries, small island states and the AILAC group of Latin American nations want to use that forum to take stock of “collective progress” towards meeting the GST goals. But others, including the Like-Minded Developing Countries – which counts China and Saudi Arabia among its members – and India, have pushed back.

In his latest missive, Corrêa do Lago noted that, as many countries have pointed out, “we do not seek to prejudge the second GST or undertake an intermediate assessment. Rather, we will be seeking to enhance implementation.”

In a statement, Observatório do Clima, a network of more than 50 Brazilian organisations working on climate issues, said the focus on the NDCs in the letter “is a strategic move, as their adequacy will be a key determinant of whether Belém is considered a success or failure”.

But, so far, only around one-fifth of countries have submitted their latest NDC, with high-emitters – including the European Union, China and India – yet to do so.

Opportunity to unveil NDCs at UN chief’s event

Observatório do Clima said climate ambition must be “greatly increased” to ensure a 60% global emissions cut by 2035. But, it warned, “the chances of this happening are slim”, especially as the world’s second-largest emitter, the US, is quitting the Paris Agreement and “actively opposing its objectives”.

Belém “must deliver a political response to the insufficiency of countries’ targets”, it said, adding that some countries are resisting this approach. Some, like China, view any evaluation of progress before the next five-year GST review as interference in domestic affairs, it added.

The COP30 president’s letter noted that a high-level event to be organised by the UN Secretary-General on September 24, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, will provide a “major platform” for countries that have not yet done so to unveil their new 2035 emissions reduction targets. These, he said, are governments’ “ultimate show of support for COP30, to the multilateral climate regime, and to a more prosperous future”.

Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of Observatório do Clima, said: “The letter reflects the kind of leadership negotiation COP30 needs.”

The post COP30 president prepares for clash of views on how to respond to NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

From the cloud-crowned canopy of the Andes to the flowing arteries of the Amazon River, the Amazon biome is more than a rainforest. It is a cornerstone of planetary stability. It sustains the livelihoods and spiritual lives of over 400 Indigenous Peoples, regulates rainfall across South America, and stores more than 100 billion tons of carbon – equivalent to a decade of global emissions.

Today, this biome stands at a dangerous crossroads.

As leaders of Amazon nations prepare to gather for the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (OTCA) Heads of State Summit in Colombia this week, and the world turns its eyes to COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the moment is ripe for a renewed Amazonian compact – one that signals a decisive break from extractive models of the past and opens a path to prosperity rooted in nature, equity, and resilience.

A new paradigm is emerging

Despite geopolitical headwinds and a multilateral system under strain, countries across the Global South understand that the path to prosperity must include accelerated action on climate and nature, delivering jobs, food security, and economic renewal.

Developing and emerging economies have lost $525 billion over the past two decades due to extreme weather. By 2030, excessive heat is projected to reduce global working hours by 2.2% – a productivity loss equivalent to 80 million full-time jobs.

But the shift we are witnessing is not only about managing climate risks to protect economic development. It’s about understanding that building resilience delivers high returns – even when disaster doesn’t strike.

Brazil insists it will host COP30 in Belém, despite accommodation worries

According to the World Resources Institute, every $1 invested in adaptation can yield over $10 in benefits – in the form of protected lives and infrastructure, higher productivity and crop yields, and preserved ecosystems.

In Brazil alone, meeting national restoration targets could generate 2.5 million new jobs. In Colombia, forest protection is improving security in former conflict zones. In Kenya, nature-based solutions are helping farmers manage rising temperatures while restoring ecosystems.

This is the “new economy” that is already being built. But to fully unlock its potential, we need coordinated leadership – and we need it now.

The Amazon: a global priority and regional opportunity

The Amazon is reaching a tipping point. Parts of the forest are drying, degrading, and emitting more carbon than they absorb. Deforestation and fossil fuel expansion in this biome are not just local threats – they are destabilizing regional rainfall, agricultural productivity, and the health and safety of millions.

Amazonian countries can and must change this trajectory. The upcoming OTCA Summit is a critical moment to announce concrete steps that deliver the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement:

• Align the global push to phase out fossil fuels with regional ambition in the Amazon;
  
• Enforce zero illegal deforestation and halt land conversion, coupled with full recognition and protection of Indigenous and local community rights;
  
• Scale up restoration as well as sustainable and regenerative agriculture, delivering food security while turning degraded lands into engines of growth without expanding the agricultural frontier;
  
• Invest in clean energy and bioeconomy opportunities, to create dignified, green jobs for a generation hungry for opportunity.

These are not just social and environmental priorities, but a new and sustainable way to promote economic prosperity. This includes many innovative financial mechanisms that match the scale of the challenge like the Tropical Forest Forever Fund (TFFF), which is designed to ensure that protecting forests becomes a stable and lasting source of value for the countries and communities that safeguard them, channeling at least 20% of direct finance to Indigenous Peoples – the frontline stewards of nature.

Comment: Brazil’s new funding initiative can help bring rainforests back from the brink – if done right

These priorities are economic, social, and security imperatives that go well beyond the Amazon region. Over 55% of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature. We know that a climate disaster in one place can ripple across supply chains everywhere, driving up consumer prices and contributing to a cost-of-living crisis.

From Colombia to Belém: Make COP30 a turning point

The Amazon Summit in Colombia and COP30 in Brazil are opportunities to elevate to the global level what people on the ground have understood for years: Building resilience to climate change is about much more than protection; it’s essential for economic stability, national security and social justice. As such, in a climate-changing world, adaptation becomes the heartbeat of innovation and development.

Countries of the Amazon region have a unique opportunity to lead this global transition. By building on the spirit of cooperation at OTCA, and arriving at COP30 with unified, bold commitments, they can set the global pace – and define a model of prosperity that prioritizes people and planet through long-term prosperity, not short-term profits.

The science is clear. The economics are compelling. The moral case is overwhelming. It is time to declare the Amazon as the heart of the new economy and to protect it as if our future depends on it. Because it does.

The post Leaders should put the Amazon at the heart of a new green economy appeared first on Climate Home News.

It marks the first time the Chilean government has been taken to court over alleged environmental damage caused by the country’s mining activities and its impact on local people.

The lawsuit comes after Climate Home News first reported that a group of local doctors blamed mining pollution for soaring numbers of children being born with severe autism and neurodivergent conditions in the area.

‘The state doesn’t want to know’: Doctors raise alarm on children’s health crisis in Chile’s copper heartland

In the case, campaigners are seeking compensation for the residents of Calama, a city close to some of Chile’s biggest copper mines in the north of the country. They say they have been exposed to “continuous and cumulative” air pollution caused by state-owned company Codelco’s mining operations since 2009.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Codelco, Chile’s top copper producer, to clean up its mining operations in a case that could set a landmark legal precedent. The government has rejected the accusations in a formal submission.

Chile is the world’s largest producer of copper, a metal that is crucial to global electrification and the clean energy transition. Driven by the world’s adoption of clean energy technologies, copper demand is set to significantly outstrip supply within a decade, the International Energy Agency has warned.

Bearing the costs of pollution

In the Chilean lawsuit, the plaintiffs accuse the government of negligence for failing to take action to address Calama’s air pollution – despite having a legal duty to do so.

They say local people have been “left to bear the cost of breathing and living in a contaminated environment” for the sake of economic development and accuse Codelco of polluting and drying out the basin of the Loa River, which makes Calama an oasis in the arid Atacama desert.

The case was filed at the country’s First Environmental Court in the northern city of Antofagasta earlier this year. Mediation between the two parties is due to begin this month.

Hungary’s bet on EV battery boom hits bumps in the road

Andrea Vásquez, who heads The Loa River and Mother Earth Defense Coordinating Committee, which is among the plaintiffs, told Climate Home the case follows years of campaigners demanding that authorities tackle the pollution.

Over time, residents have become “worse off”, she said, adding: “There is more illness, more pollution.”

Studies have found that people in Calama and the city of Antofagasta, the regional capital, are exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution, mainly due to dust from nearby copper mines and the transport of copper concentrate, which contains high levels of heavy metals.

The region has the highest cancer mortality rate in the country and diagnoses of lung cancer are nearly three times the national average.

Sergio Chamorro, the lawyer representing the campaigners, told Climate Home the legal case has taken years to prepare, and has been filed without a large budget or a team of lawyers.

“In December, when [Climate Home] revealed our silent suffering and our fight, we felt we had finally been heard and had entered the national conversation thanks to international media coverage. That was the final push to file the lawsuit,” Chamorro said.

Governments are avoiding renewable energy goals – and it matters

“The first thing we want is for the law to be applied, which means the polluter pays – in this case Codelco,” the lawyer added.

“Then, we want all new [mining] permits to be completely halted. Finally, we want the state to do what it has never done: conduct health studies on the population to determine the extent of the impacts and provide appropriate compensation to those proven to have been harmed by the contamination.”

‘Zero risks do not exist’

In a formal response to the court, the Chilean government refuted accusations of environmental damage and argued that the plaintiffs were demanding a “zero-risk scenario incompatible with the nature of mining in the area”.

It has unsuccessfully asked the court to throw out the case four times, citing procedural issues and arguing that the court cannot dictate public policy.

Chile’s State Defense Council, the body responsible for legally defending the interests of the state, and the health and environment ministries declined to comment. A Codelco spokeswoman said the company does not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

Citing Climate Home’s reporting, two Chilean lawmakers previously called on the government to take urgent action to address the pollution. But the government never formally responded to their requests.

“I believe the state’s defence is a missed political opportunity to sit down with all parties and take responsibility,” Diego Bascuñán Loyola, an attorney for the Municipality of Calama, which is backing the lawsuit, told Climate Home. “It is a response that confirms the state’s policy of neglect, one that refuses to confront reality.”

Reforming an extractivist economic model

Bascuñán said that Chile’s extractive model needs to be fundamentally reformed to be compatible with public health and community well-being. “We cannot ignore the climate emergency. We have a noose around our neck [but] we are doing the same thing we have always done. Codelco, as a state-owned company, should be leading in environmentally responsible practices, but it is the worst offender.”

Codelco operates three massive open-pit copper mines around Calama, including Chuquicamata, the second deepest open-cast mine in the world. The company plans to expand its Ministro Hales mine just three kilometres from Calama’s city centre.

In 2009, the government declared Calama “saturated” with air pollution particles in breach of the country’s legal limit – a designation requiring Codelco to present a plan to address the pollution, which it did 13 years later.

But campaigners say that plan was never adequately implemented. In 2023, the environmental court in Antofagasta annulled the plan after it was found to be based on selective data that downplayed the severity of the problem.

In December 2024, Codelco told Climate Home that a new air pollution reduction plan was being developed with the environment ministry. But this has yet to materialise.

The post Campaigners sue Chilean government over copper mining pollution  appeared first on Climate Home News.

With discussions running into overtime on Thursday night, a last-ditch attempt by the talks’ chair, Ecuadorian diplomat Luis Vayas Valdivieso, to table a new draft proposal for a treaty fell flat. The text, still containing numerous options in brackets, does not include a dedicated section on plastic production, which nearly 100 countries have been calling for.

An opposing group of fossil fuel-producing nations – including Gulf states, Russia and the US – vehemently reject the inclusion in the treaty of any provisions aimed at reducing plastic production, which is set to triple by 2060. The talks, known as INC-5.2, were unable to find a way to bridge those divergent positions.

Several countries voiced disappointment with the process managed by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in a final plenary session which came to an abrupt end on Friday morning with no next steps agreed.

Valdivieso adjourned the 10-day meeting to be resumed “at a later date” yet to be decided after the United States and Kuwait asked him to cut short the last session – with the latter saying it had become “a health issue” as delegates were exhausted from the long hours.

Calls for a time-out

During the closing plenary, many countries signalled their unease with negotiations continuing under the same format that has yet to deliver a deal after two and a half years. The collapse of talks in Geneva came nine months after the failure of what was originally meant to be the final round of negotiations in December 2024.

On Friday, France’s Minister for Ecological Transition Agnès Pannier-Runacher said she was “disappointed and enraged” with the outcome of the talks, which she described as “so chaotic”. “Oil-producing countries and their allies have chosen to look the other way. We choose to act,” she added.

Swiss lead negotiator Felix Wertli said the process needed “a time-out” and countries should consider whether plastic pollution could best be tackled under existing UN conventions.

Comment: The global plastics treaty must move forward, with or without the US

UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen told journalists that everyone had came to Geneva to get a deal done, but it is clear “we are living in an era of political complexity”.

Claiming that “significant progress was made as red lines were clarified”, the exhausted UN official promised the work “will not stop because plastic pollution will not stop”.

But in the halls of the UN’s Palais des Nations, bleary-eyed observers expressed bitter disappointment with how the talks proceeded and called for a rethink.

New process needed?

David Azoulay, director of environmental health at the Center for International Environmental Law, said the negotiations in Geneva were “an abject failure”, as some countries had blocked “any attempt at advancing a viable treaty”. He called for “a restart, not a repeat performance” in future talks.

A diplomat from one developed country told Climate Home it would be fruitless to keep going when the position of petrostates remains deeply entrenched and the US appears dead set against the creation of any new global agreement.

But others appeared determined to power ahead with the existing process.

Speaking on behalf of small island developing states (SIDS), Palau’s Gwen Sisior said countries needed to “carve a path forward” to complete the negotiations. She also urged Valdivieso to look for “additional avenues for political engagement” so that a “true compromise” can be found at a future session.

Ghana’s Lydia Essuah, taking the floor for the African group of countries, said Africa demanded “a clear way forward” and another negotiating session to deliver a treaty reflecting “the high ambition that the world needs”.

The European Union’s environment commissioner Jessika Roswall described the latest text as “a step forward” and said the block would “continue to push for a stronger, binding agreement”.

The talks had teetered on the brink of collapse since Valdivieso put forward a first proposed text on Wednesday afternoon which was variously described as “repulsive”, “entirely unacceptable” and “wholly inadequate” by country representatives.

Frantic negotiations continued throughout Thursday and into the early hours of Friday, but countries could not reach an acceptable compromise. A push by civil society groups to hold a vote on a stronger pact, rather than the usual method of working by consensus, was not put to the test.

In a statement, INC chair Valdivieso said failing to clinch a deal “may bring sadness, even frustration”, but it should “spur us to regain our energy, renew our commitments and unite our aspirations”.

‘No deal better than a bad deal’

Some plastics campaigners said they preferred no concrete outcome to the adoption of a treaty that did not set a goal to reduce the plastic production that is feeding harmful pollution on land and in the oceans.

“No treaty is better than a bad treaty,” said Ana Rocha, global plastics policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “We stand with the ambitious majority who refused to back down and accept a treaty that disrespects the countries that are truly committed to this process and betrays our communities and our planet.”

Graham Forbes, global plastics campaign lead for Greenpeace USA, said the inability to reach a deal in Geneva “must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head on”.

“The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground,” he added. “We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.”

This story was updated after publication to add reactions from a range of countries and the INC-5.2 chair.

The post Plastics treaty talks collapse without a deal after “chaotic” negotiations appeared first on Climate Home News.

As negotiations neared the end of their final day at the UN headquarters in the Swiss city, government delegates were still waiting for the latest version of a draft treaty text being prepared by the chair of the talks after nearly all countries rejected a previous proposal tabled on Wednesday.

That text – which wholly excluded measures aimed at reducing plastic production – was variously described as “repulsive”, “entirely unacceptable” and “wholly inadequate” by country representatives in heated exchanges during a three hour-long plenary session on Wednesday.

Dozens of diplomats from the self-styled “high-ambition coalition” of around 75 countries and the European Union argued that the chair’s proposal failed to tackle the full lifecycle of plastics – including polymers primarily derived from fossil fuels – and was based on voluntary, rather than binding, measures.

Show courage to vote for a strong plastics treaty, campaigners urge countries

Campaign group Greenpeace described the text as a “gift to the petrochemical industry and a betrayal of humanity”.

But even many fossil fuel-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait – speaking on behalf of the self-styled “Like-Minded” group – voiced disappointment with the proposal on Wednesday. They complained that it failed the define the scope of the treaty, which they want to be clearly narrowed to downstream measures like waste management.

Weak deal would ‘fail the world’

Frantic consultations and bilateral meetings followed in the last 24 hours of the ten-day talks in a bid to break a long-standing deadlock and find a difficult compromise that could bring all countries on board after two and a half years of discussions.

In a message sent to country delegates on Thursday afternoon, Valdivieso said he trusted that “the revised proposal will bring us to the delivery of our collective mission”.

“I count on your resolute support and spirit of flexibility as we reach the summit together,” he added.

As a final plenary meeting kept getting delayed on Thursday evening, Juan Carlos Monterrey-Gomez, Panama’s special representative for climate change, hopped on a podium flanked by campaigners and spoke out behind a banner with the message “weak UN treaty fails the world”.

He urged delegates to “work harder” in the remaining hours as “this might be our last chance to get a global framework”.

Monterrey-Gomez reiterated that the treaty needs to tackle “unhinged plastic production” and send the same kind of signals as the Paris Agreement on climate change which “unlocked innovation” in renewables and electric mobility.

COP30 host Brazil drops support for plastic products ban in new global pact

Earlier in the day, French President Emmanuel Macron also called on countries to “adopt a text that is on par with the environmental and health emergency” caused by the plastics crisis. “What are we waiting for to act?” he asked in a message posted on LinkedIn.

Before restarting talks in Geneva nine days ago, countries had already failed to clinch an agreement at what was meant to be the final round of negotiations in Busan, South Korea, in December last year.

Since then, positions have remained broadly entrenched with the exception of the United States which has more closely aligned itself with fellow oil and gas-producing nations that are pushing for a light-touch treaty without any provisions to curb plastic production.

Rising tide of plastic

Plastic production is set to almost triple by 2060 without intervention, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Only 9% of plastic is recycled globally, with the majority ending up in landfills or leaking into oceans and rivers. As nearly all plastic is made from planet-heating oil, gas and coal, the sector’s trajectory will have a significant impact on global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the Paris Agreement climate goals.

Speaking to journalists on Thursday morning, Sivendra Michael, Fiji’s lead negotiator, said he refused to leave Geneva empty-handed after travelling for three days to reach the negotiations.

“I have complete faith and hope they are pushing beyond limit to try and find a compromise,” he added. “It is high time we make difficult decisions and deliver on a fair and balanced treaty for all.”

On Thursday evening, as the clock ticked down, it was unclear whether he would be returning home with the hoped-for deal or whether his arduous journey would have been in vain.

The post Clock runs down on global plastics pact with no deal in sight appeared first on Climate Home News.

Two years ago, the world stood on the cusp of a clean energy breakthrough. At the COP28 climate summit in December 2023, 133 countries pledged to triple global renewable capacity by 2030. This is the single biggest step we can take this decade to keep as close as possible to the 1.5C global warming limit.

New data from Ember shows that 2030 national renewable targets add up to just 2% more than they did just prior to the COP28 announcement. National targets add up to a doubling of global renewables capacity by 2030, not the tripling that countries signed up to. 

Outside the EU, just seven countries have updated their targets since COP28 – and some even lowered ambition by a small amount.

Yet hope is not lost. Record solar growth in 2024 has exceeded all expectations, positioning solar at the forefront of the clean energy revolution. If the boom continues, the world may still come close to tripling – but that would be in spite of government action, not because of it.

This paper shows how renewables targets not only help a faster roll-out, but also make renewable electricity cheaper and more secure.

Why renewables need targets

“Targets” mean different things to different people. At one extreme, it’s a “suggestion” of what to aim for, at the other extreme it’s a legally binding requirement. If renewable “targets” are to be useful, they should probably fall in the middle of the two extremes.

Targets for wind are particularly useful, especially offshore wind, due to the lengthy lead times. The Energy Transitions Council shows that lead times can reach 12 years for offshore wind in the UK and 10 years for onshore wind in Spain. It also highlights that the first solution to reducing lead times is for governments to implement a “strategic vision with medium term GW (gigawatt) targets”. 

Targets for solar can also be useful and can help preempt issues. Targets can provide clarity for setting auctions, land use rules, permitting rules for both rooftop and utility solar, market design rules (including how to incentivise batteries) and rules on grid-forming inverters to ensure security of supply. They can even inform trade policy.

If all the “tripling capacity” was with solar alone, it would not deliver as much generation – 1 megawatt of solar produces roughly half the generation of wind. And, of course, a mix of wind and solar would reduce integration costs, as they are often complementary.

Texas wind peaks in the morning and evening while solar peaks at midday, while in NW Europe wind peaks in winter and solar in summer. So relying on solar growth alone isn’t a smart strategy – and is another case for wind-specific targets.

Clear goals for grids are also critical, as planning can take a decade or more. Similarly, transmission lines can take five to ten years to plan and build. This is why at COP29, one year after the tripling pledge, a Global Energy Storage and Grids Pledge was developed, to support and enable the global tripling of renewables.

What governments are – and aren’t doing

Targets may seem symbolic, but in energy markets, signals are everything. Investors, developers, and manufacturers plan around national goals. A clear 2030 target tells solar and wind developers to expand, grid operators to prepare connections, and battery makers to scale up production.

Without that signal, money hesitates. In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act sparked a boom in renewables, but with no binding national target — and Trump’s new “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” rolling back incentives — the Repeat Project at Princeton University now forecasts cuts in expected solar and wind additions by 2030.

PR firm working for Shell wins COP30 media contract

The same pattern is visible elsewhere: South Africa’s outdated Integrated Resource Plan left developers ready to build but stuck in interconnection queues, worsening the country’s blackouts.

Japan’s unchanged 2030 target, reaffirmed in its 7th Strategic Energy Plan, signals to investors that the pace of renewables will remain slow despite abundant offshore wind potential. Meanwhile, Russia and Canada – both major power producers – have no credible 2030 renewables targets at all, leaving grids and supply chains directionless.

The cost of complacency

Every year of delay increases costs. Investments slow because supply chains can’t see guaranteed demand. Grids lag behind renewables, creating curtailment and lost revenue. Fossil fuels linger, forcing consumers to pay more for volatile gas and coal.

We’re in the “age of electricity”, according to the International Energy Agency, where the majority of overall energy demand growth is from electricity. And in 2025, 90% of the electricity demand growth will be met with solar and wind.

The pace of change is impressive – but rising electricity bills and Spain’s blackout are stark reminders that it must be delivered more affordably and more securely. Clear roadmaps make renewables cheaper and more secure. National targets are those roadmaps. The global pledge to triple renewables was a political triumph. But without government follow-through, the world is unlikely to reach this critical milestone.

The post Governments are avoiding renewable energy goals – and it matters appeared first on Climate Home News.

Then, two years ago, Chinese electric vehicle battery giant CATL started building a massive factory about a kilometre from her polytunnels – the result of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s push to make Hungary the EV battery hub of Europe by courting investment from major producers, mainly Chinese and Korean companies.

For Szemán, it was a devastating blow.

“This is our home – we had planned to live here all our lives,” she told Climate Home News, standing among her vegetable patches on land she now expects to sell if an effort to stop the battery plant fails.

She and other local residents have filed a lawsuit against the county government office of Hajdú-Bihar Vármegye, disputing the decision to grant an environmental permit for the CATL factory. They argue that the plant poses a risk of pollution and should not be allowed to operate so close to their homes. The local authority refutes these claims.

Mining for transition minerals can be responsible with joint push, experts say

In recent years, billions of dollars in investment have poured into Hungary with the promise to create thousands of jobs and support Europe’s green transition, but stagnating EV demand and strong environmental opposition to new “gigafactories” have dogged Orbán’s showcase economic strategy.

Many battery producers in Europe are delaying or shelving plans to expand due to uncertainties about profit levels going forward as battery prices fall, according to the International Energy Agency – and the downturn hasn’t spared manufacturers in Hungary.

Meanwhile, weakening of the country’s environmental regulatory powers has left protestors like Szemán worried that authorities are unable to prevent pollution or hold those that cause it accountable. Activists argue that decision-makers have prioritised battery investments at the expense of environmental protection.

As Europe races to boost its production of key green-transition minerals and EV batteries instead of relying so heavily on imports from China, the emergence of a large-scale battery industry in Hungary has turned into a political flashpoint.

Local officials from the ruling Fidesz party have slammed campaigners opposing battery factories as political agitators funded by foreign agents while protesters consider the industry’s proponents to be supporters of Orban’s increasingly authoritarian government.

Gigafactory takes shape

Surrounded by fields on the outskirts of Debrecen, the CATL lithium-ion battery factory is huge, stretching across more than 220 hectares – an area about the size of 300 football fields. CATL – short for Contemporary Amperex Technology Co Ltd – is the world’s largest manufacturer of EV batteries.

The $7.6-billion battery plant represents Hungary’s largest-ever foreign investment and is expected to become one of Europe’s top EV battery manufacturing facilities, supplying automakers including Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Stellantis and Volkswagen, which are all expanding EV production in the country.

Commercial production is due to start by the end of the year, aiming to turn out 100 gigawatt (GW) hours of batteries per year by 2030. That would make Hungary Europe’s second-largest EV battery manufacturer after Germany and one of the world’s leading producers based on current investment announcements.

“The goal of the investment is to establish an environmentally friendly, high-tech factory that provides attractive workplaces and supports Hungary and Europe’s transition to sustainability,” a CATL spokesperson told Climate Home, adding that the plant was being built “in full compliance with environmental regulations” .

“We place particular emphasis on safeguarding the ecosystem surrounding the facility – including the air, water, and soil – and remain committed to preventing any harm in every respect,” she said.

Next to CATL’s factory, two other companies are building plants to supply the battery industry: China’s Semcorp will produce lithium-ion battery separator films and South Korean’s EcoPro BM will make cathode materials.

Orbán’s economic reboot

For Orbán’s nationalist government, the battery industry is a key way to reboot the economy and create jobs. More than 40 plants involved in the battery manufacturing ecosystem are either currently operating, under construction or planned.

To attract investors, his administration has simplified rules for foreign investments and developed “incredibly generous” financial incentives and tax breaks, said Tamás Matura, associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest and founder of the Center for Central and Eastern European and Asian Studies.

Local media have estimated the state aid granted to battery companies at about 1.5 trillion Hungarian forints ($4.2 billion) – equivalent to around 2% of the country’s annual GDP.

Nigeria’s push to cash in on lithium rush gets off to a rocky start

Hungary is already an important hub for auto makers, including German car manufacturers, which lobbied Chinese companies to bring their battery production to the country, Matura added.

The strategy has attracted billions of euros in investment from leading Chinese and Korean battery giants, including CATL, BYD, the world’s largest EV producer, and Samsung SDI, which opened Hungary’s first EV battery factory in the town of Göd in 2017.

At the same time, successive governments have weakened local and national authorities’ environmental regulatory powers in favour of large infrastructure projects.

Following his return to government in 2010, Orbán closed the Environment and Water Ministry, handing the environment portfolio to the Agriculture Ministry, and regional environmental agencies were stripped of the authority to independently monitor factories and initiate inspections.

“State environmental protection is in a state of continuous decline,” said Simon Gergely, of Greenpeace Hungary, adding that “producing so many batteries for so many cars has a huge environmental impact”.

Neither the Agriculture Ministry nor the prime minister’s office responded to requests for comment for this article.

Europe’s appetite for EVs stalls

But fearful local residents and environmental challenges are not the only roadblocks facing the industry’s development.

Stagnating demand for electric vehicles in the European market saw Hungary’s battery production plummet last year, with production 51% lower in December 2024 compared to a year earlier.

At the end of 2024, Samsung SDI laid off hundreds of workers at its plant in Göd and was forced to temporarily shut down the factory, according to local news outlet Telex.

In its 2024 financial report uploaded on the government’s website, battery maker CATL said the second phase of its plant’s construction was “suspended” although it had the resources to restart it at any time.

Reuters reported last month that China’s BYD would delay mass production at its new EV factory in Hungary until 2026 and would run the plant below capacity for at least the first two years.

EVs powered by low-carbon electricity are regarded as the key technology to decarbonise road transport, which is responsible for more than 70% of all transport emissions, and are significantly less polluting than diesel and petrol cars across their lifecycle.

But some environmentalists question policy-makers’ emphasis on EVs to make transport greener, advocating for fewer individual cars on the roads and the promotion of alternatives such as better public transport, cycling and lightweight vehicles such as scooters.

Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?

“Of course, battery factories are necessary, as energy storage and electromobility play a key role in the green transition,” said Greenpeace’s Gergely. But, he added, “the current model – which simply aims to replace internal combustion engine cars with electric cars – is not sustainable.”

Scientists have also warned that more effort is needed to reduce the environmental and emission footprints of battery production, which is water and energy-hungry. It also involves chemicals that can have damaging effects on people and the environment if not adequately managed.

Solvent leaks face scrutiny

In the Hungarian village of Mikepércs, which lies five kilometres from the CATL factory in Debrecen, mother-of-three Éva Kozma said she worries most about the risk of pollution from N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP), a colourless liquid used as a solvent in the production of lithium-ion batteries that can be harmful to health.

NMP exposure has been found to impact the fetal development of unborn children and cause miscarriages. Studies also showed that NMP lingers in water and moist soils and can migrate to groundwater.

Although there are efforts to develop alternatives to NMP in battery production, these have yet to be widely adopted.

Kozma belongs to the Mikepércs Mothers for the Environment Association, a group that organises publicity campaigns in their fight against the CATL factory and monitors air quality around the site.

The spokesperson for the Chinese company said the Debrecen plant has “significantly reduced its emissions of NMP” and is “continuously working on implementing new solutions to further reduce emission levels”. All its plants have “advanced filtration and purification systems, along with robust technical safeguards to prevent leaks,” she added.

The office of Debrecen’s mayor Laszlo Papp, a member of Orbán’s right-wing Fidesz party, did not respond to a request for comment, but has previously said the plant will have to meet tough new environmental rules.

To address the sustainability concerns associated with Debrecen’s industrial development, the city has begun to monitor pollution, water use, noise and biodiversity protection and said it would make the data publicly available online.

Elsewhere in Hungary, a series of leaks involving the NMP solvent have become a focus of environmental opposition to battery plants.

Europe’s lithium rush leaves mineral-rich communities in the dark

In Göd, a town near the capital Budapest, Greenpeace has found NMP in wastewater spills near South Korean battery maker Samsung SDI’s factory on several occasions. The company also came under intense scrutiny for releasing large quantities of NMP into the air in 2021, according to emissions data obtained by a local investigative outlet.

Since 2018, Samsung SDI has been fined 56 times including for environmental lapses, according to data obtained through freedom of information requests by the Göd-Ért association, a local campaign group demanding stricter controls on the battery industry. None of those fines related to releasing NMP in the local environment.

Activists say such fines – capped at 5 million forints ($14,400) each – are not high enough to hold large, multinational companies accountable for any environmental damage their operations cause.

Samsung SDI did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but an industrial and environmental risk analysis it commissioned previously said emissions of NMP at the Göd plant did not exceed prescribed limits.

In its 2025 sustainability report, the company identified “environmental impact on local communities,” including “hazardous substance release” as a risk of the battery manufacturing process.

To address these risks, the company said it monitors and controls air and water pollutants discharged into the environment and applies standards that are more stringent than legally mandated ones. It also said it is developing “an innovative and eco-friendly” manufacturing technology that is expected to minimise the use of NMP solvent and energy consumption while enhancing battery performance.

Nonetheless, companies’ green commitments are doing little to reassure campaigners like Greenpeace’s Gergely without robust government enforcement. “In the absence of independent environmental authorities, there is no real control,” he said. “This not only causes damage to nature, but also poses a serious risk to society.”

Main image: Containers in front of CATL’s EV battery factory under construction outside Mikepercs (Photo: Norbert Farkas)

The post Hungary’s bet on EV battery boom hits bumps in the road  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Eleven diplomats from different regions told Climate Home that Brazil’s positions have become more aligned with major oil producers during the current round of negotiations on a new global plastics pact.

While the Latin American country has not backed plans to curb the soaring production of plastics that is feeding pollution, it previously supported a narrower proposal to ban certain problematic products, such as single-use plastics. It has now backtracked on this stance while linking initiatives such as on product design to the provision of funding.

Countries are negotiating this week a new global treaty to reduce pollution from plastics, with talks reaching a stalemate after oil-producing nations pushed back on any measures to control production in favour of recycling approaches. 

A draft text issued by the talks’ chair on Wednesday afternoon did not include a reference to curbing production – and was rejected by many countries that regard this as a red line.

Speaking at a plenary to discuss the draft proposal, lead Brazilian negotiator Maria Angélica Ikeda said her country wants a treaty that is “robust and significant” with “balanced” measures on production and consumption of plastics, adding it would need to include financial aid.

“We had previously said in INC sessions to all our colleagues that science tells us that we need to focus on plastics not only as waste but as products per se. Definitely a balanced approach is needed,” said Ikeda. It was not clear whether that includes any curbs on production. 

Juan Carlos Monterrey, Panama’s head of delegation, said before the plenary session that Brazil’s stance on a new global plastics pact in Geneva will influence expectations of the UN climate summit host. 

“What Brazil does here — the ambition it pushes — will be read across the world as a preview of what will be on the table at COP30 in Belém,” he said.

Nearly all plastic is made using plant-heating fossil fuels and, as production is projected to double or triple in the next 25 years, that spells trouble for efforts to limit global warming and stem the flood of plastic waste clogging up the Earth’s oceans and littering its land.

Unclear stance or low ambition?

At the end of last year in Korea, Brazil backed a ban on certain types of plastics proposed by Mexico and Switzerland, which was also supported by more than 100 nations. This has not been the case in Geneva. 

Here, Brazil is co-facilitating — alongside Germany — a contact group of negotiators on the most contentious articles of the deal, including issues such as measures to reduce the production of virgin plastic, chemical additives, and broader production-related measures.

In written statements, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry said it is seeking to facilitate polarised talks between those who believe plastic pollution should be addressed through waste management and those who argue for direct limits on plastic production. “In general, the latter focus excessively on the production phase,” the note emphasised.

Diplomats interviewed by Climate Home said the COP30 host nation has not been clear about its positions, sometimes expressing different opinions from one day to the next — creating confusion about the direction the country wants the negotiations to take.

A delegate from an African country told CHN that Brazil’s behaviour does not appear to signal its commitment to a strong deal to end plastic pollution, but rather to a reduced scope focused on waste management — a position similar to the stance of oil majors grouped in the Like-Minded Countries (LMC) bloc.

According to three LMC members, the South American country’s recent positions align with theirs. One noted that big oil-producing countries do not need to formally join the LMC to share their view, and added that this has been the case with Brazil.

Brazil calls for funds and voluntary action

The Brazilian delegation has submitted three proposals that do not include curbing production — including guidelines for the manufacturing of plastic products — and has conditioned all actions on the availability of funding. 

In a written statement sent to Climate Home, Brazil’s Foreign Ministry said there is “a clear lack of willingness by many developed countries to support developing nations”, both with financial assistance and technical support. 

“At most, [developed countries] seek to broadly restrict the countries that can receive any form of support,” the statement added.

Some diplomats told Climate Home this could be read as a delaying tactic. Other UN treaties such as the Paris Agreement allow for countries to propose conditional actions, depending on the available funding.

Brazil has also defended voluntary commitments — an approach that would make the agreement work through a set of general guidelines to be implemented at the national level. Oil producers in the LMC have also backed this approach.

“Maintaining environmental commitments in your rhetoric while defending voluntary measures in negotiations is totally contradictory,” said WWF-Brazil’s public policy manager, Michel Santos.

“Brazil can — and must — be a protagonist in this agreement, exercising real leadership and demanding a strong treaty, with concrete rules and proposals to tackle the plastics crisis.” 

The Foreign Ministry said it has sought to defend “those paths that can count on the support of all United Nations member states”.

After floods and failed harvests, Korean farmers sue state power utility for damages

Environment minister absent

Around 70 ministers arrived in Geneva on Tuesday on a mission to unlock the talks, but Brazil’s environment minister Marina Silva is not attending. As the Brazilian government grapples with tricky logistics for COP30 and a Congress-led bill to weaken environmental licensing rules, it is represented at the plastics talks by vice environment minister Adalberto Maluf.

The Brazilian government noted that Maluf has been involved in the plastics negotiations since the start. But a European negotiator lamented Silva’s absence, saying it pointed to a lack of ambitious leadership from Brazil. 

Silva met on Tuesday in Brasilia with her counterparts from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Indonesia, to coordinate COP30 rainforest cooperation initiatives such as the Tropical Forest Forever Fund (TFFF).

Aleksandar Rankovic, an observer at the plastics negotiations and director of the think-tank The Common Initiative, said Brazil was preserving its political capital in Geneva, so as to be able to bridge divisions. But that strategy will not be enough when the country presides over the COP30 climate conference, he added. 

“At COP30 I hope they will be more proactive and put their skills at the service of getting out of fossil fuels,” he said.

For chemical engineer Rafael Eudes, a member of the steering committee of the Zero Waste Brazil Alliance, the signal of leadership must begin in Geneva. “Since plastics are fossil fuels, the leadership role of oil-producing countries that manufacture plastics is essential,” he said, referring indirectly to Brazil. 

The post COP30 host Brazil drops support for plastic products ban in new global pact   appeared first on Climate Home News.

Officials from different governments elected to the 11-member COP bureau, which advises the COP presidency, asked in late July whether steps had been taken to identify an alternative location for COP30 if the accommodation crunch does not improve.

“There will be no alternate location, as COP30 will not be moved from Belém,” the COP30 Presidency replied in a document seen by Climate Home that responds to a range of questions on logistics from the COP bureau. This sentence was highlighted in bold for emphasis.

Another section of the document asks whether the COP’s annual gathering of countries’ political leaders might be moved to another city. The COP30 presidency replied simply: “No”.

Governments – especially from the Global South but also European countries – have expressed concern that the scarcity and high cost of rooms for the November summit would exclude many delegates, especially from poorer countries.

At an emergency meeting two weeks ago, the COP bureau asked the Brazilians to come up with solutions to the accommodation challenges. Bureau member Richard Muyungi – a Tanzanian diplomat who chairs the African group of negotiators at the climate talks – told Climate Home at the time that some delegates were questioning why Brazil does not move the COP to a bigger city.

The Brazilian presidency is due to present their response at the next bureau meeting, which was originally scheduled for August 11 and then moved to August 14 before being postponed again. It is now expected to be held on August 20, 21 or 22, sources told Climate Home.

The Q&A document suggests that the Brazilian government will not take any major measures to reduce accommodation prices other than those already announced, as it says this is a matter for the market.

The last two COP summits in Baku and Dubai were attended by 56,000 and 83,000 people respectively. The COP presidency said it expects over 50,000 people at COP30 and “53,000 beds are mapped in Belém and its metropolitan region”, without specifying whether double beds count as one bed or two.

These beds include roughly 22,000 on Airbnb, 15,000 in hotels, 10,000 in “holiday homes through real estate companies” and 6,000 aboard two cruise ships, it added.

After weeks of delay, the COP30 presidency launched a public accommodation platform on August 1, with the cheapest rooms going for around $300 a night. Climate Home identified one room in a love motel advertised at nearly 30 times its normal price.

Cheaper rooms for some countries

As previously announced, 72 governments – classified as Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States – have been offered 15 individual rooms each priced at $100-200 a night. All other governments will be offered ten rooms each for prices ranging from $200 to $600 a night.

These rooms “are not intended to accommodate” countries’ leaders, the COP30 presidency says in the new document, adding that separate arrangements will be made for them and their entourages later this month.

In response to the bureau’s fears about the safety of delegates who will stay on on two cruise ships being brought in to host them at a nearby port, and as they commute back to their rooms late at night, the Brazilian government said police and private security will patrol the area, while two warships and smaller security vessels will be stationed on the river.

If rooms booked through the official COP30 online platform are not available or differ from what is advertised, the Brazilians say “immediate measures will be taken to offer another room similar to the one advertised”.

Questioned about the capacity of the Amazon city’s airport, the COP30 presidency says Belém International Airport has long-distance flights to and from Lisbon in Portugal and Fort Lauderdale and Miami in the US state of Florida – as well as to major Brazilian cities and neighbouring Guyana and Suriname.

It adds that Brazilian law does not allow the government to interfere with airlines’ pricing, but efforts have been made to increase the number of flights to and from Belém during the COP and to spread out demand to avoid expensive peaks. The airport has been improved, the document says, with an upgraded air conditioning system, modernised signage and infrastructure and expanded terminals and taxiways.

Unlike previous COPs, the leaders’ summit will be held before the main COP negotiations and accompanying side events start. This move was designed partly to flatten the peak in demand for accommodation.

The post Brazil insists it will host COP30 in Belém, despite accommodation worries appeared first on Climate Home News.

Environmentalists and Indigenous groups held up signs urging countries to show courage, standing in front of the UN buildings in Geneva where negotiations are reaching the final stretch amid a continuing stalemate.

The demonstration, coordinated by the Break Free From Plastic movement of more than 13,000 organisations and individual supporters, coincided with the arrival of nearly 70 ministers at the talks.

“What we have seen here is that if you rely only on consensus, that means a single country or a handful of countries can block the entire process,” said Renée Sharp, director of plastics and petrochemical advocacy at the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “We need strong action – we need a strong treaty,” she added.

Breaking the impasse

With only two days left until the negotiations are due to end, discussions have yet to settle on what the first global plastics pact should tackle.

A coalition of nearly 100 countries has pushed for the treaty to include binding provisions aimed at cutting plastic production to “sustainable levels” as part of a wide-ranging package of solutions.

But an ill-defined group of fossil-fuel producing nations, calling themselves the “like-minded” countries and vocally led by Gulf states, Russia and India, wants to limit the scope of the pact to management of plastic waste and largely voluntary measures.

Wong SiPeng, an advocate with C4 Center, an anti-corruption watchdog in Malaysia, said it would be impossible to make consensus work with two polar-opposite camps that do not want to budge.

“The clearest way to make a decision would be to vote and get us out of this gridlock,” she told Climate Home on the sidelines of Tuesday’s action. “This is not going anywhere – countries need to be brave enough to call for it.”

Voting battle

The issue of how governments should reach an agreement has haunted the UN plastics talks since their inception. The draft rules of procedure governing the negotiations offer the possibility of voting if efforts to reach consensus fail.

But the second round of talks in May 2023 descended into a procedural scuffle when countries, including Saudi Arabia, India and Iran, refused to move into substantive discussions unless that provision was ‘bracketed’ – meaning no agreement had been reached.

The row was eventually resolved with a compromise: an ‘interpretative statement’ noting that the rules of procedure would be applied provisionally and there were different understandings of the rule on voting.

In a panel discussion with Climate Home on Monday, David Azoulay, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said fossil fuel-producing countries had since “laid a number of procedural traps to make it [voting] potentially politically costly and complicated”.

Looking for the right moment

A call for a vote would almost certainly provoke a strong reaction from the members of the “like-minded” group, which have regularly restated in their public speeches that all decisions must be made on consensus. At a plenary last Saturday, Kuwait – speaking on behalf of that group – said that “any attempt to move forward without consensus risks producing an instrument that is neither legitimate nor implementable”.

But for CIEL’s Azoulay, associating multilateralism exclusively with consensus decision-making is “complete and utter nonsense”. He pointed out that voting takes place regularly at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Using that tool “is not weakening multilateralism, it is saving it,” he added.

Comment: The global plastics treaty must move forward, with or without the US

No country has so far openly signalled its intention to call for a vote at the plastics talks, despite the option being informally debated in the corridors of the UN headquarters in Geneva.

Laurianne Trimoulla, a project manager at the Switzerland-based Gallifrey Foundation, said a vote would need to take place “under the right circumstances when all conditions are perfectly aligned”.

“If countries call for a vote and it is not the right moment, it weakens the act of voting,” she added.

NRDC’s Sharp said some countries are hesitant to move beyond decisions approved by consensus because they do not want to give the impression that multilateralism has no future.

“But the reality is that human health and environmental health are on the line – and we can’t have countries hiding behind consensus to not take the action that’s needed,” she added.

The post Show courage to vote for a strong plastics treaty, campaigners urge countries appeared first on Climate Home News.

The farmers are seeking compensation from the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) for the economic and emotional damages they have suffered from extreme weather driven by climate change.

On Tuesday, they held a press conference in Gwanghwamun Square in central Seoul, displaying placards with slogans such as “The Last Fruit Shop”, “a pear-less nation” and “soft peaches, firm peaches – in the future, NO peaches”.

Rice farmer Seong-yeol Hwang told journalists: “I’ve poured my heart into growing rice but this year’s heavy rains flooded my fields.”

“Why is it always powerless farmers like us who suffer, while KEPCO and its subsidiaries – who are fuelling the climate crisis – take no responsibility and neglect the urgent need to address climate change?” he asked.

Apple farmer Yong-un Ma added that his fruit are blooming earlier in April each year. “If a sudden cold snap hits, the flowers freeze or grow into deformed fruit. We’ve had poor harvests because of this, and in 2023, apple prices skyrocketed nationwide due to widespread crop failure,” he explained.

The farmers’ lead lawyer Yeny Kim said that, according to government projections, crops like apples and peaches will no longer be cultivable in her clients’ home regions. “The plaintiffs continue to farm under deep uncertainty, enduring reduced yields, lower quality, and additional costs for climate adaptation,” she said.

Economic and emotional damage

The farmers are demanding five million Korean won ($3,597) each from KEPCO for economic damages, a figure that is expected to increase as the case develops.

They are also seeking a symbolic payment of 2,035 won ($1.46) for emotional damages, with the 2,035 figure chosen as a reference to the year 2035 when the farmers think the government needs to phase out coal, five years ahead of its existing target.

KEPCO and its subsidiaries were responsible for about a quarter of South Korea’s emissions between 2011 and 2022, according to analysis by the NGO Solutions For Our Climate, making it the country’s single largest corporate contributor to the country’s climate-heating pollution.

The analysis also found that KEPCO accounted for roughly 0.39% of the world’s emissions during this period, with lawyer Kim arguing that it should bear responsibility for at least this percentage of global climate damages.

Between 2000 and 2025, only China, India and Indonesia opened more coal-fired power capacity than South Korea, according to Global Energy Monitor data, with KEPCO now operating more coal power capacity than all but 11 other companies worldwide. KEPCO also operates nuclear and gas-fired power stations and produces a much smaller amount of electricity from renewables.

Rising wave of climate lawsuits

This South Korean case builds on a rising wave of climate-related cases around the world. In one groundbreaking lawsuit, a Peruvian farmer sued German utility RWE, alleging its coal emissions contributed to worsening glacier melt and flood risk in his Andean home region.

While a German court ruled in May that the risk of flooding to this farmer’s house was not significant enough to take the case further, it recognised that companies could be pursued for the global effects of their greenhouse gas emissions.

The International Court of Justice has also recently advised that governments have a duty to prevent climate pollution, and can be sued if they do not fulfill it, including for reparation and compensation.

Referencing this case at the press conference in Seoul, Kim said KEPCO is a state-owned enterprise “with both the capacity and mandate to act” and argued it had “failed to fulfill [its] public and legal duties” to respond to climate change.

In August 2024, South Korea’s Constitutional Court ruled that the government’s climate law was unconstitutional for failing to protect future generations.

Solutions For Our Climate, which is supporting the case, said the farmers hope their lawsuit will not only bring redress for current damages but also shift the legal landscape in favour of stronger climate governance and corporate accountability.

Speaking in Seoul, Hwang said he used to believe that natural disasters were beyond human control but, having learned they are being driven by the climate crisis, he “couldn’t help but feel outraged”.

“We are filing this lawsuit to demand that these power companies – which continue to recklessly emit greenhouse gases without taking any responsibility – compensate the farmers who are suffering the consequences,” he said.

“If someone has to start this fight, I’ll begin it myself,” he added. “I’ll keep walking forward to hold them accountable to the end.”

The post After floods and failed harvests, Korean farmers sue state power utility for damages appeared first on Climate Home News.

Speaking at a webinar hosted by Climate Home News, Juan Carlos Monterrey-Gomez, Panama’s special representative for climate change, said his country would reject a treaty that only deals with waste management – an option aggressively pursued by a group of fossil fuel-producing nations.

“That’s not the mandate, that’s not what we’ve been working towards and that’s not what we need,” said Monterrey-Gomez. “The worst outcome here for Panama is not disagreement…it is an agreement so weak that it would change nothing. We’re not negotiating the minimum political option.”

The Central American nation is among a group of nearly 100 countries that called for the UN plastics treaty to reduce plastic production to “sustainable levels” from the expected trajectory of tripling by 2060.

The mandate underpinning the negotiations – currently in the middle of what’s meant to be their final session in Geneva – states that the pact should address the “full lifecycle” of plastics, considering all stages of a plastic item’s existence.

“The lifecycle starts with the production of the polymers that are the raw materials for all the plastic products that we use,” said Monterrey-Gomez. Nearly all plastic polymers are derived from fossil fuels.

But, for a group of countries, including Gulf nations, Russia, India and the US, the treaty should only deal with downstream measures such as recycling and waste management.

Fossil fuel influence in Geneva

The long-standing deadlock over whether to reduce production of plastics is the result of the petrochemical industry’s influence over the talks, the Panamanian negotiator said.

“Unhinged plastic production is the petrochemical industry’s plan B – they know the world is moving away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy,” he added. “They have infiltrated these negotiations, they are trying to safeguard their interests, their profit to the detriment of everybody else.”

234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the Geneva talks – more than the combined delegations of all 27 EU member states plus the European Union itself, according to an analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)

The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), an industry trade body, said in a statement that their delegates are “here to listen to governments so we can understand the unique challenges they face” and bring solutions and technical expertise “that can help end plastic pollution”.

Plastic producers negotiating in “good faith”

As more than 70 ministers are scheduled to arrive in Geneva on Tuesday in a last-ditch attempt to inject political momentum into the talks and land an agreement, negotiations remain locked in closed-door discussions looking for potential solutions.

Monterrey-Gomez praised countries outside of the self-styled ‘high ambition coalition’ – such as China, Indonesia and South Africa – for acting “in good faith” and coming forward with ideas that “guide us towards where we need to be”.

He explained that China made a proposal to address the leakage of plastic pollution caused at the manufacturing stage of plastic products.

Meanwhile, Indonesia supported a proposal originally submitted by Japan that would see countries “cooperate to promote sustainable consumption and production of plastics throughout their life cycle”. South Africa put forward a text stating that a future conference of the parties (COP) should “manage” the consumption and production of plastics.

Monterrey-Gomez said those countries “have advanced their positions” in Geneva because they can “clearly see the economic case” for tackling plastic pollution. “It’s in their interest to have a level playing field and a global standard so that we can all enact a new wave of prosperity that doesn’t include plastics,” he added.

CIEL’s Azoulay said, while no international issue has simply been solved with a treaty, there needs to be a global framework that lays the ground rules and the basic principles that can be bolstered over time.

But he warned that a “bad treaty” would not only set us back but also “fossilise” the status quo and stand in the way of collective action, as some countries could use the existence of a global plastics pact to block initiatives elsewhere.

“Countries that are suffering the most from this will say ‘we’re not going to accept it’,” added Azoulay. “We’ve been hearing consistently from small delegations like PSIDS [Pacific Small Island Developing States] to bigger ones like the EU that there are red lines – a treaty that crosses those red lines is not a treaty that is going to be accepted”.

The post Deadlock in UN plastics talks raises fears of watered-down deal appeared first on Climate Home News.