President Lula opened COP30 with his boldest call yet for climate action and a clean-energy future. In his address, the Brazilian President declared that the world must “accelerate the energy transition” and “get rid of fossil fuels.” What drew the loudest applause from climate and energy experts in Belém, however, were his calls for COP30 to deliver tangible roadmaps to “overcome dependence on fossil fuels,” “reverse deforestation,” and secure equitable climate finance in a “fair and planned manner.”
Yet the day after, Lula’s promotion of so-called “sustainable fuels” cast a shadow of concern. A Roadmap away from oil, gas and coal will only succeed if negotiators and the Brazilian presidency resist the dangerous distractions of biofuels and other false solutions and stay focused on the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
The rationale for a roadmap
The case for a global roadmap could not be clearer. The latest round of national climate targets falls dramatically short of the Paris Agreement’s ambition. If the race to decarbonisation at the pace required to limit warming to 1.5°C were a 42-kilometre marathon, by 2035 we should have already covered half the distance. Instead, current pledges take us barely two kilometres forward.
As Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) miss the mark, they must become the floor, not the ceiling, of global ambition. A roadmap – if not hijacked as a Trojan horse for false solutions like “sustainable fuels” – could help accelerate the phase out of fossil fuels, the source of nearly three quarters of global emissions. Clearly, a roadmap on its own will not solve these challenges, but it can be a critical step further.
What a roadmap could entail and what’s the process for it?
A full roadmap may not be finalized at COP30, but the mandate to begin accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels could well emerge in Belém – whether through a declaration, the UAE Dialogue, a new agenda item, or an omnibus decision.
To give such an outcome real weight, it should be formally anchored under the CMA and Paris Agreement, not left as an optional declaration. This would transform it into a stronger, coordinated Mutirão, a collective effort embedded within a broader ministerial dialogue on the transition away from fossil fuels.
Such a process should explore transition scenarios and produce global pathways aligned with International Energy Agency (IEA) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) benchmarks, providing structured guidance ahead of the next Global Stocktake, with milestones for 2035 and 2040 and links to long term strategies.
It could also involve developing country-tailored roadmaps that identify enabling conditions, barriers, cooperation mechanisms, and international support needs, consistent with national capacities and equity. Such a process should include a political segment, bringing together ministers and high-level representatives to assess progress and report to COP31 with concrete recommendations for adoption.
-
Climate-hit nations hail loss and damage fund’s debut call for proposals
Developing countries say the launch of the fund’s operations at COP30 is a long-awaited step towards justice, but activists warn it lacks the resources to meet colossal needs -
Carbon market supporters risk cheating the nature they wish to protect
Efforts to dilute Article 6 rules risk turning the new UN carbon market mechanism into a false climate solution that harms both nature and global climate action
Lula’s ‘Sustainable Fuels’ Mirage
On the second day of the Leaders Summit, President Lula, leader of the world’s second-largest biofuels producer, after the United States again spoke of a roadmap to ‘end dependency on fossil fuels’. But this time, he tried to slip in a twist: positioning “sustainable fuels” as a third pillar of the energy transition, alongside renewables and efficiency, and even launching a pledge to quadruple their production. It’s hard not to suspect that Brazil envisions the roadmap as a vehicle to advance its biofuels agenda.
That would be a serious mistake. Ironically, this proposal came alongside Lula’s call for a roadmap to halt deforestation. Yet, biofuels remain a leading driver of forest loss. If both roadmaps emerge from COP30, they must be interlinked to ensure one doesn’t undermine the other. Emission savings from biofuels are wildly overstated; some studies even find they emit more than the fossil fuels they replace. And let’s be honest: it’s impossible to imagine a world that quadruples “sustainable fuels” without devastating consequences for food security.
The pledge to quadruple so-called “sustainable fuels” rests on more shaky ground than one might realize: It conveniently draws from a recent IEA study “prepared in support of Brazil’s COP30 Presidency”. But this study refers to the IEA scenario of an “accelerated case”, which assumes existing policies are implemented, not that these policies align with net-zero pathways or the goals of the Paris Agreement. In fact, this pledge risks slowing down electrification across multiple sectors, contradicting what the IEA itself identifies as essential for a credible net-zero pathway.
Not another COP-out: We must rewrite the rules of the UN climate talks
If COP30 succeeds in establishing a roadmap – and it should – as part of the broader response to the global climate ambition gap, it must not be hijacked by Brazil’s biofuels agenda. Other countries should push back – or at the very least, insist on strong safeguards.
The lack of support speaks for itself: beyond Brazil, only 18 others have backed the pledge, hardly a groundswell compared to the 133 nations that endorsed the tripling renewables target at COP28. What’s more, countries such as Japan and Italy appear to be backing this pledge not to advance decarbonization, but to justify extending the life of combustion-engine vehicles and even coal plants through co-firing under the guise of biofuels.
Brazil’s biofuels push is not a breakthrough. It’s a dangerous distraction. A roadmap for a fast, fair and funded energy transition is urgently needed but it must be science-aligned, electrification-focused, and firmly aimed at phasing out fossil fuels, not replacing one problem with another.
The post “Sustainable fuels” pose high risks to Lula’s promised roadmap away from fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.
“Sustainable fuels” pose high risks to Lula’s promised roadmap away from fossil fuels
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously revealed, the same industry and NGO groups that sought an exemption from the “buffer pool”, along with some corporate buyers, criticised the use of a study backed by the UN carbon market’s experts that recommended the new risk assessment approach.
The groups pushed for more flexible rules that would have allowed natural risk values drawn from other sources, including national databases, or from the project developers themselves.
While the Supervisory Body rejected this approach, it gave project developers and countries the option to propose alternative values that would first need to be vetted by the mechanism’s expert panel and then approved by the regulator.
A carbon market expert told Climate Home News that, while it is too early to say how this provision will be used, they expect requests will have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence, lowering the risk of unfounded claims.
Policy discounts questioned
To guard against human-caused risks, projects will need to apply a flat 20% value set by the Supervisory Body, at the bottom of the 20-45% range recommended by its technical experts ahead of last week’s meeting.
That value can be further reduced by up to two-thirds if the host country has an emission-reduction plan covering forests, a long-term climate strategy and a framework for the UN’s REDD+ forest protection scheme.
Injy Johnstone, senior research fellow at the Munich-based Max Planck Institute, said that, while these are important governance measures, their existence does not necessarily demonstrate that the underlying risk of forest carbon loss has been reduced.
“It is important to distinguish between evidence of actual risk reduction and assumptions about the effectiveness of policy commitments,” she added.
Moving target
A UN source told Climate Home News that, under the approved formula, improved cookstove projects must set aside at least 9% of credits linked to saved wood if they operate in the lowest-risk areas and the host country can claim all available discounts. The share of credits rises significantly in regions with high natural risk values, such as Guyana, Sri Lanka and Timor Leste, or that do not have REDD+ programmes.
These factors could change in the future as the Supervisory Body asked its technical experts to recommend revisiting the risk values “should credible new evidence arise”.
Climate change is likely to make forest destruction events, such as wildfires or hurricanes, more frequent and more severe in certain regions. Meanwhile, national policies on forest protection can shift significantly depending on government changes.
Johnstone said the UN carbon market needs periodic reassessment to respond to new evidence showing that previously assumed levels of risk were too low.
“The integrity of credits is not guaranteed simply because a reversal risk tool exists,” she added. “The real test will be whether the mechanism provides equivalent atmospheric protection over time, rather than simply introducing another layer of accounting requirements”.
The post UN carbon market forces cookstove projects to protect against forest loss appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN carbon market forces cookstove projects to protect against forest loss
Next week, diplomats from around the world will descend on Yerevan, Armenia, to negotiate a series of decisions under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Between 19 and 30 October, 196 parties will gather to hammer out the precise wording of the dozens of legal texts that make up the decisions under the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD.
This year’s summit is particularly significant, as it marks the halfway point between the agreement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the deadline for achieving its targets.
The CBD has found that countries are currently not on track to meet 22 out of the framework’s 23 targets.
During the fortnight, delegates will also be negotiating decisions relating to the two supplemental protocols to the CBD: the Cartagena Protocol, which covers biosafety; and the Nagoya Protocol, which covers access and benefit-sharing for the use of genetic resources.
(The Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols, which are each governed by a “meeting of the parties”, or “MOP”, have fewer parties than the CBD as a whole, with 173 and 141, respectively.)
Carbon Brief is tracking the progress of countries towards consensus on dozens of negotiating texts using the interactive table below.
The tracker includes texts from the COP, as well as the MOPs for the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols. It also includes draft decisions from the most recent subsidiary body meetings, as these form the starting point for the negotiations in Yerevan.
The CBD has three subsidiary bodies: the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice (SBSTTA), the subsidiary body on implementation (SBI) and the subsidiary body on article 8(j) and other provisions (SB8J).
SB8J focuses on issues related to the Indigenous peoples and local communities. It was established at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, in 2024.
The first two columns of the interactive tracker list the topic of each agenda item and the relevant body, with subsequent columns including dates, page counts and links to the original documents.
The table is searchable and can be sorted using the arrows in the header.
Areas of disagreement in UN draft texts are denoted by square brackets. Counting the brackets in a particular iteration of a text therefore gives a sense of how far parties are from reaching consensus.
The bracket column is colour-coded, with dark green indicating a low number of brackets and red indicating a high number of brackets remaining.
Texts can also present parties with choices using “options” or alternatives (“alt”), which are counted together in the sixth column of the table.
The key discussions in Yerevan will centre around two agenda items in particular. The first is the global review, which will assess progress towards the GBF and make recommendations for accelerating action.
The second is finance, which can be separated into two parts: resource mobilisation and the financial mechanism. On resource mobilisation, biodiverse global south countries are likely to push for an increased amount of international finance for conservation.
Disagreement over the creation of the financial mechanism led to the suspension of COP16 in Cali in October 2024, as parties failed to find agreement on the mobilisation of finance before the end of the summit.
Global south countries want the establishment of a separate financial mechanism under the control of the CBD; global north countries largely prefer to maintain the existing mechanism, which sits under the Global Environment Facility.
At the resumed session of COP16 in Rome in early 2025, countries agreed on a roadmap that would lead to the establishment of a permanent mechanism.
