- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Europe’s top polluting companies have ploughed three-quarters of their $2.1 trillion profits since 2010 into shareholder payouts rather than clean energy investments, according to Friends of the Earth.
Between 2010 and 2023, Shell paid out 97% of its profits to investors, and Total Energies dished out 86%, the green campaign group found in a study covering more than 800 energy-intensive companies. Meanwhile energy firms BP and Eni and mining giant Glencore showered more cash on their shareholders than they received in net profits.
This trend intensified in the years after the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, a period that coincided with a boom in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing.
These were also years in which dividends and equity buybacks for investors in energy-intensive companies almost doubled as a share of turnover, from 2.4% in 2010 to 4.4% in 2023. After 2015, shareholders siphoned off a cumulative $1.1 trillion from $1.4 trillion of profits.
At the same time, the companies’ rate of business investment fell from 18.4% in 2010 to 14.9% in 2023.
The world’s biggest climate finance coalition is in crisis. Is it worth saving?
The analysis casts doubt on an official perspective gaining ground in Brussels that Europe’s businesses are hampered by a lack of access to capital, including to invest in decarbonisation. Next week, the European Commission is expected to lean into this, announcing more deregulation and public handouts at the launch of its Clean Industrial Deal, after a push by many of the same energy-intensive companies that have spent the last decade profit-taking.
A leaked draft of the Clean Industrial Deal suggests that it will contain as-yet unspecified subsidies to help energy firms such as BP and Shell increase their renewable capacity, even as these companies recently culled such projects en masse.
Danger of corporate capture
“The Clean Industrial Deal narrative is built on false premises,” said Kim Claes, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth and one of the report’s authors. “Pouring public money into corporate coffers won’t drive the energy transition – it will only pad shareholder profits. While governments are forced to cut essential services like healthcare and education, private industries demand even more public funding, draining scarce resources.”
Japan disregarded widespread calls to raise its 2035 emissions goal
Claes pointed to a growing risk that the EU would follow the deregulation trend being set across the Atlantic by the new Trump administration. “The Clean Industrial Deal is echoing the same narrative,” he said.
“In times of austerity and shrinking public budgets, this could result in unconditional financial support for industries, which is highly concerning. Not only would this undermine environmental and social standards, but it would also deepen the divide between declining public service budgets and expanding subsidies for big industry. There is a real danger of corporate capture of the political sphere.”
Scaling down renewable plans
BP and Shell were both signatories to the Antwerp Declaration last February, a call by an alliance of energy-intensive companies for less administrative burden and more cash support, including public funds to de-risk investment in clean tech deployment.
Meanwhile, BP has announced that it is halting 18 potential hydrogen projects and selling wind and solar operations. It has signalled that it intends to make further cuts to its renewable energy investment later this month and increase oil and gas production. Last year, BP reportedly invested $9bn in fossil fuels compared to $1.3bn in renewables.
Ending poverty and gangs: How Zambia seeks to cash in on the global drive for EVs
As the Antwerp call went out, Shell had just watered down and scrapped its 2030 and 2035 climate targets, citing uncertainty about the low-carbon transition. It also sold its stakes in several offshore wind projects and moved to increase gas and oil extraction. The firm spends seven times more on fossil fuels than on renewables, according to NGO Global Witness.
“This is why conditionalities are crucial,” said Judith Kirton-Darling, the secretary general of Europe’s giant IndustriAll union. “Companies shouldn’t be able to socialise the costs of the clean energy transition and privatise profits. There will need to be public investment as Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta (two former Italian prime ministers) have set out, but not without strings attached.”
Both BP and Shell were contacted for comment. BP declined to comment and Shell did not respond in time for publication.
Ripe for green investment
Fossil fuel subsidies in Europe totalled €111 billion ($116bn) in 2023 as oil and gas firms including BP and Shell announced record profits on the back of high energy prices triggered by the war in Ukraine.
Payouts to their investors between 2010 and 2023 were made in a climate that should have favoured low-carbon investment, according to Friends of the Earth’s report.
It found that financial assets held in reserve by the 841 companies analysed – both cash and short-term investments – increased from 8% to 11% over the period, indicating that capital availability was not a problem. Interest rates on payments were also historically low at 1.6% in 2011 and 1.2% in 2023.
Debt levels also rose over that time as the European Central Bank provided ready access to capital that could have helped to finance a green transformation of the firms’ business models.
The post Big polluters funnel 75% of profits to shareholders, not clean energy appeared first on Climate Home News.
Big polluters funnel 75% of profits to shareholders, not clean energy
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science


