Bonn agenda finally adopted after tough fight
Anyone would think there’s no climate emergency. The mid-year UN climate talks in Bonn were meant to open on Monday morning, to advance negotiations on the road to COP30 in Brazil on issues such as how to measure adaptation, transitioning away from fossil fuels and climate finance. More than a day and a half later, they finally started for real.
A delayed opening plenary was abandoned on Monday night as countries rowed over the agenda. After much wrangling behind closed doors, it was restarted and ended early Tuesday evening with the adoption of items to be negotiated, to polite applause and a bigger sense of discontent than satisfaction, especially among developing countries.
The most contentious issue was developing countries’ request to include two agenda items on the implementation of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement – on finance provided by rich nations – and on climate change-related unilateral trade measures.
The European Union (EU) expressed its opposition from the beginning and later attempted to bring Articles 9.2 and 9.3 to the table, which refer to the possibility of other sources of finance, including voluntary contributions from other countries – always a red flag for China.
Developing countries appeared united in their requests for negotiations on climate finance and trade on the first two days of the Bonn talks. The results? They managed to get those issues onto the work agenda for the next eight days, but not quite as they had hoped.
On Article 9.1, the chairs of the talks at Bonn will hold “substantive consultations” and report back on their outcomes at COP30 in Belem.
And regarding the unilateral trade measures – code for carbon taxes on imports to the EU and some other developed countries – a footnote was added to the agenda saying the topic would be discussed under under relevant agenda items, including the Just Transition Work Programme.
“The past 30 hours have been hard and have not reflected the urgency that we face,” the UN climate chief Simon Stiell told the subdued end of the session.
The aftershocks of the bitter exchanges between countries rippled through the plenary hall as delegates took to the floor after the agenda was adopted.
Speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries (LMDC) – which had initially put forward the contentious agenda items – Bolivia’s Diego Pacheco blamed the delay on developed countries, accusing them of refusing to discuss “issues that impact developing countries” while shifting their financial responsibilities to the private sector. “This is unacceptable,” he added.
Echoing Pacheco’s words, India’s negotiator said he was “extremely disappointed” with rich countries’ “reluctance” to talk about their “financial obligations”.
“It is hard to remain silent when our positions and motivations are mischaracterised by our partners,” hit back a representative of the EU, which had most fiercely resisted the inclusion of the agenda items (some said in the absence of the US at the talks). “When we don’t agree, we work together to reach compromises that allow us to move forward,” he added.
With the agenda finally sorted, negotiators can now turn their full attention to equally thorny discussions on things like the transition away from fossil fuels and indicators to help countries adapt to a warming world.
“We need to demonstrate to the world that climate cooperation can deliver,” Stiell pleaded with delegates, “now more than ever”.


UN climate body’s work balloons – but not its funding
For that desperately needed climate action to be stepped up, Stiell warned in his planned welcome speech – not delivered but only posted on the UNFCCC website due to the delayed opening – that “the acceleration still needed will only be possible if our process is adequately resourced”.
He said in the written comments that governments had given the UNFCCC more work to do but not more money to do it with. The body has been cutting costs, he said, “but this approach is not sustainable”.
The UNFCCC has released a document showing which parts of its work are under-funded. Particularly cash-strapped activities include communications campaigns promoting the UNFCCC process’s achievements, facilitating civil society participation in the process and enhancing the capacity of young negotiators.
A note from Stiell says that funding constraints “hindered efforts to modernise digital platforms and conferencing systems, including cybersecurity infrastructure; and adversely affected the timely processing of applications for UNFCCC observer status and the implementation of the gender and [Action for Climate Empowerment] workstreams”
Another document shows how much things cost. About three-quarters of the UNFCCC’s costs are salaries and these are set under a UN-wide system – so hard to get down.
Smaller costs like a five-day workshop with 100 people can cost €0.68m euros ($0.79m) to put on while a five-day official trip costs €3,700 per person ($4,284).
The tight budget situation has also led to “significantly reduced interpretation services” at the Bonn talks, with negotiators told they would not have them available at Tuesday’s delayed plenary and would need to speak in English.
Brazil’s ‘act of sabotage’ on oil
As the Brazilian COP30 Presidency attempts to take forward discussions at UN climate talks on the transition away from fossil fuels, their government colleagues back home today auctioned off the rights to extract oil and gas in 172 areas of Brazil and its waters – 47 of them offshore near the mouth of the Amazon River.
In Rio de Janeiro, the auction unfolded live on camera. The national anthem was played and a room of men in suits from around the world sat down to begin the bidding. An introductory video showed a plant being watered with bare hands while a caption advertised incentives to reduce the greenhouse gases from oil production.
Patricia Baran, head of the national oil agency ANP, told the cameras that other countries are still announcing new oil and gas fields too and that the blocks auctioned off will include additional environmental and social protections.
The bidding started with the controversial Amazon blocks – and Brazil’s national oil company Petrobras, American firms ExxonMobil and Chevron, and China’s state-owned CNPC were the winners of those.
Brazilian climate campaigners in Bonn expressed sympathy with the COP30 Presidency – whose CEO Ana Toni spent decades in environmental NGOs like Greenpeace and Action Aid.


Stela Herschmann, a climate specialist at Observatório do Clima, told a press conference that the auction was “an act of sabotage” against the climate and against “the Brazilian diplomats that are here and doing their best in Bonn to rally the world towards an ambitious COP in November”.
A press statement from 350.org picked out two saboteurs: the president of national oil company Petrobras, Magda Chambriard, who last month copied Donald Trump’s “drill baby drill” slogan, and Brazil’s mines and energy minister, Alexandre Silveira, who has said Brazil “should not be ashamed of being oil producers”.
ClimaInfo research estimates that, when burned, the oil and gas from the blocks being auctioned off would release 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Observatório do Clima’s Claudio Angelo told Climate Home today that an oil spill from the 47 offshore blocks near Belém and the Amazon River would devastate coral reefs, mangroves and the coastlines of both Brazil and neighbouring French Guiana.
The Amazon region now holds nearly one-fifth of the world’s recently discovered oil and natural gas reserves, establishing itself as a new global frontier for the fossil fuel industry, a recent investigation by Climate Home’s partner InfoAmazonia found.
All this comes on the same day that the International Energy Agency released its oil report for 2025, suggesting that growth in oil supply will be twice as fast growth in oil demand during the rest of the decade. The IEA’s head Fatih Birol said “oil markets look set to be well-supplied”.
Angelo said this means there’s a risk that Brazil will make a loss on these oil and gas fields, especially if the world limits fossil fuel use to curb global warming.
Bonn or London – where’s the action at?
On the ground in Bonn, it feels like much of the climate energy is slipping away from the UNFCCC process. Just 7,731 people have registered to participate, a 10% drop on last year – and there definitely seem to be fewer journalists.
Many of the COP30 Presidency’s big-hitters will be skipping some or all of Bonn’s second week to go to London Climate Action Week, where they will be joined by Stiell’s boss – the head of the UN, Antonio Guterres. He will give a special address at E3G’s State of Climate Politics Forum next Tuesday.
One of Stiell’s predecessors, Christiana Figueres, wrote recently that the “potential for impact” is shifting from climate diplomacy to climate economics “and that shift is being staged not so much within COP venues, but at Climate Weeks in New York, London, and other cities around the world.” (London may eclipse NYC in importance this year, some are saying, as Trump’s policies threaten to scare the green crowd away.)
Nonetheless, Stiell asserted in his undelivered opening speech for the Bonn talks, “this process matters, deeply”, adding that it is “delivering real progress”.
He noted that “without UN-convened climate multilateralism”, the world would be headed for up to 5C of global warming, which has been cut to around 3C, adding: “it’s a measure of how far we’ve come, and how far to go.”
“These sessions are where we move from concept to clarity – across sectors, systems, and societies. You are laying down the tracks that further deliver implementation,” he said in words that were never heard by negotiators.
The post Bonn Bulletin: Slow start to climate talks fails to reflect urgency appeared first on Climate Home News.
Bonn Bulletin: Slow start to climate talks fails to reflect urgency
Climate Change
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
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
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
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
Climate Change
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
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
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
