California’s utility regulator said it would eliminate ratepayer-funded incentives for gas appliances in new construction, but created an exception that allows rebates for them in wildfire rebuilds.

By Hilary Beaumont

After January wildfires destroyed more than 18,000 buildings in Los Angeles, a growing movement of residents who lost their homes want to rebuild all-electric, recognizing that burning gas in household appliances contributes to the climate-driven increase in the destructiveness of wildfires. An attribution study found that climate change made the January fires 35 percent more likely.

LA Wildfire Survivors Want to Rebuild All-Electric, but a Utility Is Using Customer Funds to Incentivize Gas Appliances

With the International Court of Justice’s landmark advisory opinion on climate change hot off the press this July, hopes were high it could be used as a diplomatic lever for stronger climate action at COP30 in Brazil. But it proved a difficult tool to wield in a tense atmosphere.

The advisory opinion (AO) from the world’s top court – which determined that all states have obligations to protect the climate system from significant harm – has already been woven into new climate litigation and existing legal cases, and judges are starting to reference it in their rulings.

The Mexican community of El Bosque in Tabasco even managed to use it as leverage in recent negotiations with the central government over its latest national climate plan (NDC).

Yet, while some countries wanted the ICJ’s non-binding conclusions to feature in the main political decision approved at November’s climate COP in the Amazon city of Belém, the lack of a coordinated strategic push meant that did not happen, legal experts said.

Monaco, Mexico, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) all called for the ICJ’s decision – and two other climate advisory opinions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea – to be recognised during various COP30 presidency consultations.

But Jennifer Bansard, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin team leader, told journalists at COP30 that these requests were “at very generic levels” and did not go into the courts’ actionable findings.

“Deep, deep, deep red line”

The closest the ICJ advisory opinion came to being mentioned in a formal text was during a review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM). This is key as experts believe the decision has particularly significant implications for the new loss and damage fund.

During these discussions, the Independent Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Nations (AILAC) said the AO provides “an informed legal foundation” for advancing work on loss and damage. They pointed to “the need for comprehensive assessment and health protection” for vulnerable groups and “forms of reparation” This was supported by Vanuatu, which led the diplomatic work resulting in the ICJ opinion.

But Saudi Arabia, representing the Arab Group, responded that the ICJ’s final outcome is “non-binding” and “does not represent parties’ views” even though it participated in the process. Negotiations, it added, are a “party-driven process based on consensus, and not litigation”.

According to a source in the room, the Arab Group described the inclusion of the ICJ AO anywhere in the WIM document as a “deep, deep, deep red line”. “If you insist on discussing it, we might as well just suspend this session to not waste each other’s time,” said Saudi Arabia’s negotiator. The AO is not mentioned in the final agreed WIM text.

“We are still here” – COP30 tests resolve to keep fighting climate crisis

Harjeet Singh, founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation and strategic advisor to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said the group was particularly concerned about the ICJ’s reference to the status of a state as developed or developing as “not static”.

“They feared that formally recognising the opinion would open the door to limitless legal liability for fossil fuel production,” he explained.

Left out of the COP30 cover decision

In addition, the AO’s recognition of a “just and fast transition in line with best available science” was mentioned by Fiji, for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), at an inaugural meeting on the Just Transition Work Programme. AILAC, Egypt and the UK also raised it during just transition negotiations, while Malawi used it to try to frame transition finance as a legal necessity.

Some states had expected the cover decision to recognise the AO in some form, but text drawn up by Brazil’s COP presidency did not include relevant wording.

The lack of references came despite the fact that the UN asked the ICJ for the advisory opinion unanimously and 96 countries spoke at the hearings.

Data visualisation developed by law professor Margaret Young and designers Dan Parker and Stanislav Roudavski.

Singh said the COP30 battle lines were drawn so sharply on the ICJ opinion because it validates the claims of vulnerable countries for climate justice, while historical and large polluters wanted “to avoid acknowledging any legal framework that implies liability”.

But, he added, while pushing back strongly against it, developed countries “neither championed nor explicitly opposed it in open plenary to avoid negative optics”.

The ICJ’s recognition that COP decisions may have legal effects could also make negotiators more wary of what they agree to.

In the closing COP30 plenary, Palau for AOSIS noted the ICJ’s clear assertion of 1.5C as the legal temperature limit. Yet the final Mutirao decision explicitly reiterates the Paris Agreement’s language of “pursuing efforts” to reach that level, while retaining the original goal of “well below 2°C”.

No coordinated push to champion the AO

Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for the Solomon Islands, argued the COP30 decision “undermined” the ICJ’s conclusions. But barring a few nations like Saudi Arabia, he saw the overall outcome as a “failure of capacity and coordination, rather than a principled opposition to using the AO”.

Insiders said government negotiating teams remain too separate from their legal teams, and the former were not properly briefed on how the AO could be used in practice.

The leadership expected from climate-vulnerable countries, particularly the island nations that had advocated for the AO in the first place, also seems to have been absent. A briefing by Ed King and Lindsey Smith, who work on international climate strategy for the Global Strategic Communications Council, described AOSIS’s showing at COP30 in particular as “insipid”.

EU alliance with climate-vulnerable nations frays over finance trade-off

Ralph Regenvanu, minister of climate change of Vanuatu and a key architect of the AO campaign, mentioned it several times in public, including at Cambodia’s announcement that it would formally support a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. But his focus seemed to be on pursuing a new UN resolution recognising the ICJ’s findings.

Neither AOSIS nor Regenvanu responded to requests for comment.

Influencing the wider narrative

Nonetheless, Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa who has followed the climate talks for many years, believes the AO is “starting to influence the wider narrative around responsibility and liability”.

“Though it did not make the ‘waves’ in the formal text that many hoped for, it was clearly the ‘undercurrent’ beneath many streams of negotiation,” agreed Singh.

Nikki Reisch, climate and energy programme director at the Center for International Environmental Law, an organisation that supports the youth activists who sparked the AO process, said the opinion also supports “the need to reform the UNFCCC to make it fit for purpose”. That includes preventing fossil fuel industry influence and allowing majority voting so that a handful of countries cannot block climate action.

Eyes on Colombia fossil fuel transition conference

In 2026, the opinion may start to play a stronger role on the global stage, including at an international conference on a just transition away from fossil fuels co-hosted by Colombia and The Netherlands next April.

The Fossil Fuel Treaty initiative says that gathering will align with the AO, “which confirmed that states have a legal obligation to protect the climate, including by addressing fossil fuel production, licensing and subsidies”.

Colombia seeks to speed up a “just” fossil fuel phase-out with first global conference

Experts, meanwhile, expect more domestic lawsuits underpinned by the advisory opinion aimed at pushing countries to raise their ambition on cutting emissions and say inter-state litigation cannot be ruled out.

“COP30 in Belém is by no means the last word on the ICJ AO or the climate duties it confirms,” Reisch said.

A version of this article was originally published in The Wave.

The post Why the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change took a backseat at COP30   appeared first on Climate Home News.

Why the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change took a backseat at COP30  

After holding stable for two years, China’s carbon emissions may climb back up as the construction of new fossil fuel power plants accelerates and recent policy changes cloud the outlook for clean energy, a new report warned.

The world’s biggest carbon polluter is expected to keep total emissions flat in 2025 despite rising energy demand – a sign that clean power may, for the first time, fully offset the growth in electricity consumption, the analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) showed.

But the Finland-based research group cautioned that a “concerning” policy environment for the next few years increased the risk of an emissions rebound. It added that China was also set to miss its key target for cutting carbon intensity – CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product – this year, meaning steeper reductions will be needed to hit its headline 2030 climate goal of slashing carbon intensity by 65%.

Belinda Schäpe, China policy analyst at CREA, said it was unclear how strongly committed China remained to its targets, despite leaders’ assertions that the government always makes good on its climate promises.

“All of this uncertainty raises a lot of questions around where emissions are going,” Schäpe told Climate Home News. “At the moment, it’s very finely balanced. They are just about flat but could well go up or down again based on the decisions that the government will make.”

New pricing model for renewables

Record solar energy installations and strong growth in wind power capacity have increased the share of non-fossil fuel electricity this year, with emissions from the power sector set to decline for the first time since 2016, the report said. But that progress has been partially countered by the rapidly growing use of coal for the production of plastics and other chemical products, meaning overall emissions are expected to remain stable.

At the same time, experts have warned that China’s new pricing system for solar and wind projects risks slowing the clean energy boom. Under the new policy introduced last June, developers of new solar and wind power plants need to secure contracts with provincial authorities through competitive auctions, instead of being guaranteed a fixed price.

Schäpe said prices had been “very, very low” in some of the auctions so far. “Of course, that’s great for consumers, but it’s really bad for project developers because they don’t want to go ahead and invest in new projects facing the risk of no returns,” she said.

Earlier this year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) cut its forecast for China’s 2025-2030 renewables growth by 5% due to the changes in the pricing model. The watchdog’s head Fatih Birol said the profitability of renewables projects – especially solar and wind – was expected to decline between 10% and 15% with the new policy.

Coal power boom continues

Coal power plants, on the other hand, are protected from this market-based system, relying instead on long-term power purchase agreements that lock in prices, Schäpe said, describing it as “unfair competition”.

China’s rapidly expanding coal power fleet is adding to the concerns. In 2025, the country has added the largest amount of coal-fired capacity since 2015, while progress on retiring older plants remains very slow, CREA’s report highlighted.

This runs contrary to a pledge made by President Xi Jinping in 2021 to “strictly control” new coal power projects. That commitment was omitted from Beijing’s updated national climate plan (NDC) submitted in late October ahead of COP30.

In its new NDC, China set an absolute emission reduction target for the first time, committing to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by between 7% and 10% by 2035 from unspecified “peak levels”.

Focus on next five-year plan

Schäpe said that the absence of a base year could create an incentive to raise emissions and “storm the peak” – pushing them as high as possible to make future reduction targets easier to meet.

She said this put the focus on China’s 2030 carbon intensity target, adding that if Beijing was still serious about meeting it, emissions would need to peak “around now”.

China targeted an 18% reduction between 2021 and 2025, but it is projected to achieve about 12% by the end of this year, CREA’s report said. If that is confirmed, China will then need to significantly ramp up efforts to cut carbon intensity in the next five years to achieve its headline climate commitment for 2030.

Analysts expect China’s new five-year plan – the blueprint for its economic development – to provide more clarity on the country’s energy policies next year.

“We will see how the government is going to balance these two opposing forces: the outgoing coal industry interests and the new cleantech sectors that are meant to become the driver of future growth,” Schäpe said.

The post China risks emissions rebound amid policy shifts, experts warn appeared first on Climate Home News.

China risks emissions rebound amid policy shifts, experts warn