- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Back in 2021, the CEO of BlackRock – which manages $10 trillion of assets – took to a stage in Riyadh to predict that the next 1,000 billion-dollar startups would not be media companies or search engines but businesses developing “green hydrogen, green agriculture, green steel and green cement”.
Fast forward four years, and Larry Fink has changed his tune, telling an audience of oil and gas executives in Houston last week: “Everyone talks about the opportunity with hydrogen. Well, we can have green hydrogen and blue hydrogen, but is anybody willing to pay the cost?”
Other speakers at the “CERAWeek by S&P Global” conference in Texas were similarly down on the prospects for clean hydrogen, a gas that can replace fossil fuels in sectors that are hard to otherwise clean up, like shipping, aviation, chemicals, steel and cement.
The CEO of oil company Saudi Aramco, Amin Nasser, pointed to the high cost of green hydrogen compared to fossil fuels as a demonstration of “the fiction that critical transition technologies are genuinely competitive and being rapidly deployed”.
“Many were aiming for $1 per kilogram [for green hydrogen] by 2030. Yet production costs alone currently range wildly from almost $4 per kilogram to $12,” he said, comparing International Energy Agency (IEA) figures on the cost today with the Biden administration’s targeted cost for 2030.

Even sellers of clean hydrogen accepted that mood has shifted down a gear. David Burns, vice-president of global clean energy at industrial gases multinational Linde, said there’s now “more a sense of realism, a more kind of pragmatic approach to what’s going to work”. But, he added, viable projects which “meet the willingness to pay for customers in different sectors” are still moving forward.
Green hydrogen costs more
According to the IEA, producing green hydrogen – which is made with renewable energy – is between 1.5 and 6 times more expensive than the traditional, most common and polluting way of making it, with unabated fossil fuels.
But this could change, the IEA says. The price of fossil gas could rise or carbon pricing could make fossil fuel-based hydrogen more expensive. Or large-scale deployment of green hydrogen could bring the cost per kilo down from the $4-$12 Aramco’s Nasser cited to $2-$9 by 2030. It could go even lower in parts of China, the IEA says, where abundant solar meets cheaper electrolysers – the equipment that turns water into hydrogen.
Carbon colonialism? Malaysia and Indonesia plan storage hubs for Asian emissions
“The future cost evolution will depend on numerous factors, such as technology development, and particularly on the level and pace of deployment,” the IEA said in its latest global hydrogen review.
But as BlackRock’s Fink noted, high prices are proving a barrier to deployment. Companies like BP and Ørsted have cancelled or delayed green hydrogen production projects in recent months, citing unfavourable economics.
Governments boost hydrogen demand
Some governments have stepped in to try and increase demand. The European Union, for example, has set a mandate that synthetic fuels, including those based on green hydrogen, must make up 1.2% of all the plane fuel at its airports by 2030 and 35% by 2050.
The EU has similar measures for shipping, while a German government programme aims to cover the extra cost of buying clean hydrogen in industries like steel, cement, paper and glass, so that it is not a financial risk.
Canada’s new leader culls carbon tax seen as burden on voters
These policies have helped, the IEA says – but “the overall scale of these efforts remains inadequate for hydrogen to contribute to meeting climate goals”. In October, the Paris-based analysts revised their forecast for 2030 hydrogen demand down by about a fifth compared to the previous year.
Green hydrogen’s supply problems
Estimates of supplies of green hydrogen also look likely to have been overstated. Experts told Climate Home recently that a planned pipeline to bring hydrogen from North Africa to Europe will struggle to deliver the quantities the European Union is hoping for.
Adrian Odenweller, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), warned that the EU should “certainly not count on the delivery” of green hydrogen from Algeria and Tunisia any time soon.
“Green hydrogen production projects have a poor track record and often get delayed. I would expect this to be even worse for massive infrastructure projects such as pipelines that require international coordination,” he said.
The SoutH2 pipeline and production facilities face opposition from campaigners too. Shereen Talaat, director of MENAFem Movement, a North African feminist justice network, said in a statement by nearly 90 NGOs criticising the huge project that it “exploits African land, water, and labour to feed Europe’s energy needs, while women – especially in rural and frontline communities – bear the brunt of water scarcity, land dispossession, and energy poverty”.
EU backs North Africa hydrogen pipeline, but is it a green dream?
Green hydrogen projects require land to build facilities and water and renewable electricity to produce the hydrogen. Areas with a lot of sun – which helps produce green hydrogen cheaply – often don’t have much water. The IEA says that 40% of green hydrogen projects are in water-stressed areas like those around the Mediterranean, Mexico and Northern India.
To address this issue, many developers in dry countries like Saudi Arabia, Australia and Mauritania are developing desalination plants to supply their green hydrogen facilities with water so they do not take it away from locals.
For all its challenges, Wood Mackenzie analyst Hector Arreola believes clean hydrogen is the “most viable pathway to deep decarbonisation” in steel, cement, chemicals and heavy transport – and the only green solution for emissions of ammonia, methanol and refining.
“While hydrogen’s broader adoption may take longer to materialise due to current cost barriers, the path to cost reduction is well-established,” he said. “As technology scales, electrolyser efficiency improves, and renewable energy costs continue to fall, production costs are expected to decline – following a trajectory similar to that of solar and wind.”
The post Clean hydrogen hype fades as high costs dampen demand appeared first on Climate Home News.
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and


