Connect with us

Published

on

Climate negotiators in Bonn have been tasked with taking a “deep dive” into how a roadmap to boost climate finance for developing countries should look, so that it can be finalised at COP30 in Brazil – but a series of consultations last week revealed that governments have yet to align on its contents.

At the start of the mid-year talks, UN climate chief Simon Stiell advised governments that the roadmap for mobilising $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 should not be “just a report, but a how-to guide with clear next steps on dramatically scaling up climate finance and investment”.

That will mean reconciling widely divergent views among countries about what sources of finance the roadmap should draw on – and what form the money should come in. Some delegates in Bonn have also complained that the process for compiling the roadmap is unclear.  

The “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T” was launched as part of the new climate finance goal (the NCQG) agreed at COP29, with a commitment for donors to raise $300 million annually – largely from the public purse – at its core. 

Brazil: Let’s deliver on our old climate promises before making new ones

Sandra Guzmán, director general of the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), told Climate Home the roadmap “emerged as a way to reduce the gap” between the $300 billion developed countries have committed to mobilise by 2035 and the far higher amount developing countries were asking for, of $1 trillion-$1.3 trillion. 

“It was also a kind of exit plan to prevent the NCQG discussion from moving to Belém,” she noted.

The two COP presidency teams charged with drafting the roadmap – Azerbaijan and Brazil – last week listened to the needs and concerns of governments in Bonn in the first formal consultations on the roadmap since COP29 in Baku.

Differing needs and expectations

One main unresolved rift is that developing countries wanted the $1.3 trillion to consist of public money from rich nations – but according to the text agreed in Baku, all sources of finance are possible with no percentage distribution between them specified, Guzmán said.

Rebecca Thissen, global advocacy lead at Climate Action Network International, told Climate Home the broad scope of proposals on the roadmap from countries in Bonn shows “it’s clear we don’t have a common understanding of what it is and what we´re going to do with it.”

In general, developing countries have requested that the $1.3 trillion should consist of new money that is not re-labelled from other budgets, with public grant money as the bulk of it, excluding loans and other forms of debt.

India, for its part, has said that global tax levies and approaches to raise money from specific sectors should be excluded, even though a recent survey by Greenpeace and Oxfam shows that 80% of respondents in India agreed that oil, gas, coal corporations should be taxed for the environmental damage they have caused.

Climate activists call on rich countries to contribute their fair share of climate finance for the Global South, at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, November 2024 (Photo: Megan Rowling/Climate Home)

Climate activists call on rich countries to contribute their fair share of climate finance for the Global South, at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, November 2024 (Photo: Megan Rowling/Climate Home)

During last week’s discussions, a delegate from the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), said: “The engagement of private sector and philanthropic institutions must complement and not replace the obligations of developed countries.”

In contrast, the European Union’s representative argued: “We should really focus on scaling up private finance and catalysing investments that drive climate action.” They also called on other countries to join the pool of donors mobilising money – referring indirectly to China and Gulf nations.

From the 116 submissions on the roadmap received ahead of the Bonn talks, only 20 were from governments, with the rest from civil society including NGOs, research organisations and business. 

At a consultation for these non-government groups, Avinash Persaud, special adviser on climate change to the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, presented a plan to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal. Under it, multilateral banks would buy existing private-sector loans to renewable energy projects in poor countries, with commercial lenders then using the proceeds for more clean energy investment. 

Guzmán said the private sector should play a bigger role but it is still unclear how the roadmap would avoid perpetuating the existing model of largely debt-based climate finance, nor who would benefit – as countries like Brazil and Tuvalu do not have the same needs.

Whose roadmap?

The two COP presidencies are tasked with preparing the roadmap, whose form is still being decided but needs to present ideas for how the $1.3 trillion can be raised.

COP30 CEO Ana Toni told Climate Home it will include recommendations on how to move forward. “It will be what the two COP Presidents – considering what they listened to – feel is needed to mobilise $1.3 trillion,” Toni said in an interview in Bonn.

A first draft of the report is expected to be presented for comment in September, with the final version published in October.

Toni added that she expects many of the recommendations to be for “players” outside the UN climate process. For example, “the reform of the multilateral banks is not something that we can do within the [UN climate] convention, but if it’s mentioned in the report, it will be an important message for those actors,” she said.

How ‘sophisticated’ climate misinformation gets to the heart of power

In Bonn, some officials said it was unclear how the consultations on the roadmap outside the UN climate process would be brought together with those happening inside. In particular, they pointed to a “circle of finance ministers” convened by Brazil to contribute to the roadmap, saying there was confusion about its role.

Toni said the circle is not part of “the official track of the roadmap”. “It’s our [Brazil’s] initiative led by finance minister Fernando Haddad to hear from finance ministers what they feel should be a roadmap to mobilise $1.3 trillion,” she explained.

There have also been concerns about inclusivity. The circle originally covered 24 countries and has since been expanded to 32 members, including the European Union, Canada, the UK and China. One of the selection criteria is to involve countries that have hosted COPs since the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Toni clarified this to Climate Home, saying that any country that wants to participate would be welcome, adding “it’s not a closed shop”. During the Bonn talks, the Marshall Islands and Tanzania asked to join the circle.

Toni said the finance ministers’ circle – due to meet again at a development finance conference in Spain next week – would produce a report that will feed into the roadmap. Civil society consultations have so far been limited to webinars.

Life beyond COP30

Thissen of CAN International said it would be good to connect the climate finance conversation with the wider international finance architecture – but without “forgetting what you have to move forward here, at the COPs”. 

She added that developing countries remain concerned there is ambiguity over whether rich nations will be held responsible for ensuring the NCQG finance goal is delivered, which is why they want formal UN discussions to be launched on that specifically.

Another big question for the roadmap at COP30 in Belém is how it will be treated as part of the UN climate process going forward. Countries could formally “note” or “welcome” the final document – as they have done with key climate science reports – or they could include it in the negotiations as a new agenda item or under other discussions such as on long-term finance. 

“If the [roadmap] doesn’t include elements that have a scope beyond COP30, it will be an absolutely wasted year,” Guzmán said, warning against a report that fails to meet neither immediate nor future needs. “That’s the greatest risk: to have a document that could die at COP30.”

The post UN expects climate finance roadmap to offer “clear next steps” appeared first on Climate Home News.

UN expects climate finance roadmap to offer “clear next steps”

Continue Reading

Climate Change

A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won

Published

on

The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.

From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.

A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Published

on

SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million. 

ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.

Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.

“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”

The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]

ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]

Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.

“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”

Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.

-ENDS-

Images available in Greenpeace Media Library

Notes:

[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.

[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee

[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.

[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.

Media contact:

Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Published

on

The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.

In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com