Chuck Baclagon is the Asia regional finance campaigner for 350.org.
Our continent is on fire. Not figuratively – literally. From record-breaking heatwaves across Central Asia to parched lands and collapsing harvests in Southeast and South Asia, the climate crisis is not some distant threat. It’s already here, carving deep scars across our communities. And if we’re honest, it’s not a disaster of nature – it’s a disaster of decisions.
That’s why this year’s Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual General Meeting – taking place in Milan this week – matters. As the region’s second-biggest source of development finance, the ADB holds enormous sway over how Asia and the Pacific will transition away from fossil fuels – or whether they will at all.
To its credit, the ADB has formally excluded direct investments in coal – a long-overdue response to years of sustained pressure from communities and advocates. But in practice, this shift amounts to a half-measure that leaves the door open to continued fossil fuel dependency.
While the ADB distances itself from coal, it quietly endorses fossil gas as a transitional fuel, with its current energy policy allowing for gas financing under certain conditions. From 2016 to 2020, over 96% of the bank’s fossil fuel financing – amounting to $4.7 billion – went to gas projects. Independent monitoring services like Energy Policy Tracker confirm ongoing support for oil and gas.
Swapping coal for gas
This shift isn’t abstract – it’s unfolding in real places, with real consequences. In the Philippines, the ADB’s Energy Transition Mechanism may be retiring coal plants, but it has done nothing to stop the surge of LNG terminals and gas-fired power stations threatening the fragile Verde Island Passage. Entire coastal communities now face displacement and destruction of their livelihoods.
In Bangladesh, cancelled coal projects are simply being replaced by gas infrastructure on Maheshkhali Island, uprooting islanders and deepening the country’s debt burden. In Indonesia, the bank boasts of early coal retirement, while backing fossil gas expansion. Projects like the Tangguh LNG development in Papua violate Indigenous lands and endanger ecosystems.
At energy security talks, US pushes gas and derides renewables
This is not a transition. Rather, cloaking fossil gas in deceptive language like “transition” or “bridge” fuel is clever word-play to justify continued harm. You don’t build a bridge to a burning house. Fossil gas is mostly methane – a greenhouse gas that traps more than 80 times the heat of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Investing in gas today locks countries into climate chaos tomorrow.
The science is unequivocal. To keep global warming below 1.5°C, global carbon emissions must fall by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. That means coal, oil and gas must stay in the ground: with no exceptions, no new excuses. But a real energy transition is not just about meeting Paris Agreement targets. It’s about changing development pathways so that our communities can thrive, not merely endure, in a world shaped by climate change.
Invest in decentralised renewables
The ADB has a critical role to play. Its investments can either entrench fossil fuel dependence – or help communities build truly just and low-carbon energy systems. To do that, the ADB must stop backing ‘false’ solutions – not just fossil gas, but also mega-dams, nuclear power, and waste-to-energy incinerators that do more harm than good, especially to communities exposed to their risks. It should instead invest in decentralised, renewable, and community-led energy: solar microgrids, wind cooperatives, battery storage, and local infrastructure that puts power into the hands of the people.
Trump’s first 100 days: US walks away from global climate action
For this, transparency is key. The ADB must adopt open, accountable investment frameworks that disclose where its money is going, who it’s benefiting, and what social and ecological costs come with it. People have the right to know how their futures are being financed, and whether those futures are being sacrificed for someone else’s return on investment.
It’s also time to stop asking frontline communities to take on more debt for a crisis they didn’t cause. When financing adaptation, energy access, and loss and damage in the most climate-vulnerable places, the ADB must shift from loans to grants. Anything less is a continuation of climate injustice.
Community ownership is key
We need to rethink how the energy transition in Asia is being shaped and led. Communities are not simply “stakeholders” but key decision-makers with the insight and agency to guide solutions that work for them. Strong community ownership isn’t a bonus feature of a successful transition; it’s the foundation.
This May, the ADB has a choice: continue propping up fossil fuels under the guise of a ‘transition’ – or start investing in the real work of transformation. The clock may be running down, but we still have choices that can reshape the arc of what comes next.
The future is not something that just happens to us: it’s something we build, piece by piece, decision by decision. At this crossroads, the ADB has a chance to listen – to the science, to the communities, to the moment – and choose a path that leads not just away from crisis, but toward possibility.
The post Asia’s fossil-free future demands real transformation – not a false transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
Asia’s fossil-free future demands real transformation – not a false transition
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines
With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.
At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.
The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.
In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action.