- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Civil servants from New Zealand’s foreign and trade ministry have advised politicians that reversing a ban on offshore oil and gas exploration could harm the country’s international reputation and relationships, anger Pacific nations and risk lawsuits over climate change.
In 2018, the country’s then centre-left prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, effectively banned fresh efforts to look for fossil fuels offshore. But the new right-wing government led by Christopher Luxon – a former CEO of Air New Zealand – introduced legislation to reverse the ban last week, allowing just four working days for consultation and aiming to pass it by the end of this year.
In official advice, which the government accidentally published despite attempting to keep secret, the ministry warned that the move “risks being seen as running counter to the Pacific regional and global consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels”.
It goes on to cite the global agreement made at the COP28 UN climate summit last December calling on governments “to contribute” to “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”.
Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance
Saudi Arabia’s energy minister has downplayed the significance of this COP28 decision by calling it an “à la carte menu” of “choices”. But New Zealand-based Oil Change International campaigner David Tong said the advice from New Zealand’s civil servants shows the importance of the deal struck in Dubai.
“It provides an unambiguous example of experienced climate diplomats warning political decision-makers that domestic decisions to backslide on moves away from fossil fuels will lead to diplomatic backlash,” he told Climate Home.
The document, called a “regulatory impact statement”, was overseen by a business ministry official but features input from other departments. The section featuring the foreign and trade ministry’s advice was supposed to be redacted but the government accidentally tabled an unredacted version to parliament.
Pacific anger
A previously redacted section suggests that, in particular, the potential reaction of New Zealand’s “Pacific Island partners” to a reopening of oil and gas exploration is important for the government. It points out that the COP28 agreement “drew heavily” from the outcome of the 2023 Pacific Island Forum leaders meeting.
Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, told Climate Home that the previous New Zealand government’s decision to ban new offshore gas exploration was “courageous” and “strongly supported by the Pacific”.
Colombia adds nature to the mix with its $40-billion energy transition plan
She added that “any moves to restart offshore exploration would be out of line with the commitment we made in Dubai”. “We would have to question if New Zealand were truly committed to the safety and security of the Marshall Islands and all our brothers and sisters in the Pacific,” she added, referring to the threat faced by small island states of rising sea levels from global warming caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.
Pacific nations have also criticised the Australian government’s recent decision to approve the expansion of three coal mines. Tuvalu’s climate minister Maina Talia recently told the Guardian newspaper that this was “immoral and unacceptable”.
Australia is hoping to co-host the COP31 climate summit in 2026 with at least one Pacific nation – but Turkiye also wants to host that summit.
Legal risks
In a section marked “legally privileged”, the statement highlighted two legal risks that would stem from reversing the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration.
It noted foreign and trade ministry officials’ assessment that such a move “could be perceived” as New Zealand not intending to meet its official United Nations climate plan, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution.
“This gives rise to international legal risk,” the document says, adding that “there have been attempts globally to take novel cases against States under international law, for breach of their climate change obligations”. “While these legal risks are low at this time, as is the risk of challenge, this is an active area of international litigation,” it continued.
Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”
Governments are increasingly being sued – in both national and international courts – over their perceived lack of climate action.
In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland had breached its citizens’ human rights by not doing enough to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a conclusion the Swiss government disputes.
In response to a campaign led by the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, the International Court of Justice is preparing an advisory opinion on states’ legal obligations on climate change and human rights, and the consequences of causing harm.
In September 2022, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia’s failure to protect Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders from rising seas and extreme weather, because of its inadequate action on climate change, violated their human rights.
Nikki Reisch, director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s climate and energy programme, told Climate Home that lifting New Zealand’s fossil fuel exploration ban would be “ripe for legal challenge”.
“It’s likely to be challenged as contrary to the state’s climate obligations – both domestic and international – as well as its duties under human rights and constitutional laws to protect the right to life and other rights,” she said.
Trade deals
The foreign ministry also advised that lifting the ban on fossil fuel exploration would “likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand’s free trade agreements (FTA) not to reduce environmental protections for the purposes of encouraging trade or investment”.
New Zealand’s agreements with the European Union (EU) and the UK contain these kind of provisions. But the officials advised that the “risk of legal challenge” on this was “likely to be low”.
The civil servants’ advice was published on May 15, 2024. Tong said the risk of lawsuits had increased since then.
The EU has proposed Dan Jørgensen – a former Danish climate minister and convenor of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance – as its new energy commissioner, Tong noted. “He is likely to take a dim view of New Zealand forcing the Alliance to kick the country out,” he said.
Tong added that the UK’s new left-wing Labour government, which came into power in July, has pledged to end new offshore oil exploration. “Failure to implement the COP28 outcomes could spark trade risks under existing free trade agreements,” he said.
(Reporting by Joe Lo, editing by Megan Rowling)
The post Civil servants warn fossil fuel exploration could harm New Zealand’s climate reputation appeared first on Climate Home News.
Civil servants warn fossil fuel exploration could harm New Zealand’s climate reputation
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded