- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
A type of electric car battery based on iron and phosphorus that poses less of a threat to tropical forests is rapidly replacing batteries reliant on cobalt and nickel, recent data shows.
According to a report on energy transition minerals from the International Energy Agency (IEA) this month, in 2020, lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries made up less than a tenth of the electric car market, but by 2024 this had risen to nearly half, driving down the market share of lithium nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) batteries.
The IEA said this shift – which it predicts will continue – had led its experts to revise down their estimates for cobalt and nickel demand. Both minerals are mainly mined in rainforest countries: cobalt in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and nickel in Indonesia.
Perrine Fournier, a campaigner at forests and rights NGO Fern, told Climate Home that the transition to LFP batteries is “good news for the world’s forests, since they rely on materials such as iron which don’t generally sit under tropical forests”.
Researchers at the French think-tank négaWatt and the Vienna University of Economics and Business found in a recent report commissioned by Fern that if all new electric vehicles used LFP batteries, deforestation would drop by 43% by 2050 compared with business as usual.
Cobalt and nickel mines have attracted criticism from environmental and social justice campaigners, as well as from climate-sceptic opponents of electric cars. Many cobalt miners in the DRC endure harsh working conditions while nickel mines in Indonesia have taken over and destroyed forests on Indigenous land.
Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone
Lars Christian Bacher, CEO of Norwegian LFP producer Morrow Batteries, told Climate Home on a recent trip to Oslo that the lack of cobalt in LFP manufacturing was an advantage from an environmental point of view “or even some other issues related to child labour and others that we’ve read about”.
But, while LFP batteries may be preferable from the perspective of the environment and human rights, the IEA warned that their supply chain is even more dominated by China than traditional NMC batteries – a growing concern for Western politicians. In particular, the IEA’s head of critical minerals analysis Tae-Yoon Kim warned that manganese sulphate and phosphoric acid are “potential choke-points”.
He pointed out that China produces 95% and 75% respectively of these materials and called on governments to “pay great attention to the emerging bottlenecks in this new battery supply chain”. In January, China’s Ministry of Commerce proposed export restrictions on technology used to manufacture LFP batteries. China produces 98% of LFP cathodes.
LFP batteries began to boom initially because of high nickel and cobalt prices, the IEA said – and their market share is now growing because they are 30% cheaper. They have also become more energy dense, meaning the same size battery can take an electric car further on one charge. Chinese companies BYD and CATL say that their newest batteries can take a car 400-520 km on a five-minute charge.
Speaking to reporters in Oslo, Bacher said another reason Morrow had chosen to produce LFP batteries at its factory in the Norwegian forests is that they are “extremely safe”. He said customers had tested the batteries by trying to stick nails through them and set fire to them, without success.
In contrast, lithium-ion batteries – which are different to LFP batteries – have been described by experts like the British Safety Council as a “growing safety risk” due to battery fires, which grow quickly in intensity as gases are released, feeding the flames.
Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?
Other types of battery – including sodium-ion batteries and types of lithium-ion batteries rich in manganese – are “also gaining traction”, the IEA’s report said.
Unlike the others, sodium-ion batteries do not contain lithium – but a recent study in Nature Energy found that it will be “challenging” for sodium-ion to compete with lithium batteries on cost until at least the 2030s.
Urvi Mehta, who researches batteries for Lux Research, told an industry briefing that because of its energy density advantage – allowing for longer driving ranges – over sodium, “lithium is here to stay”.
The post Cobalt and nickel-free electric car batteries boom in “good news” for rainforests appeared first on Climate Home News.
Cobalt and nickel-free electric car batteries boom in “good news” for rainforests
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.