This year marks a decade since nations successfully negotiated the Paris Agreement, a landmark treaty that has been the guiding force for international climate politics ever since.
Yet, with another round of negotiations looming at COP30 in November, there has been growing discontent with the UN climate process.
Critics say the talks are not doing enough to accelerate emissions cuts, tackle fossil fuels or raise climate funds for developing countries, among other concerns.
Influential figures in climate politics and civil society groups say COPs are in need of an “urgent overhaul” and have launched various manifestos for change.
This has been recognised by the Brazilian COP30 presidency, which has acknowledged the “growing calls for change” and asked parties to “reflect on the future of the process itself”.
All of this comes amid concerns about a “crisis” of multilateralism, widespread conflict and escalating climate hazards.
Carbon Brief asked 16 leading experts about how they think the UN climate talks could be reformed, including Christiana Figueres, Todd Stern, Prof Navroz K Dubash, Bernice Lee, Paul Watkinson, Dr Joanna Depledge, Dr Jennifer Allan, Sandrine Dixson-Declève and Li Shuo.
The contributors’ answers are presented via the thematic sections below.
- Has the Paris Agreement been a success?
- How could the negotiations themselves be improved?
- Can UN climate talks drive faster emissions cuts?
- How could COPs ensure broader accountability?
- Do UN climate talks need majority voting?
- What should the role of the COP presidency be?
- Do fossil-fuel companies have too much influence?
- Are COPs too big?
- How could COP participation be improved?
- How can COPs drive change outside the UN process?
Has the Paris Agreement been a success?
Todd Stern, former US special envoy for climate change: Paris has performed well in some respects, including strengthening both its temperature and emission goals in light of evolving science. It also led to a first global stocktake that called for tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030 – and transitioning away from fossil fuels – in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Bernice Lee, distinguished fellow and senior advisor at Chatham House: It can be hard to remember that the process remains one of the most successful multilateral endeavours in recent history. It has delivered what few thought possible: agreement among nearly 200 countries on a global issue that cuts to the core of national sovereignty, economic models and domestic politics. That the COP process delivered the Paris Agreement – and more recently, an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels – is no small feat. It is also easy to forget that, prior to Paris, the world was on track for a catastrophic 4-5C of warming. Today’s pledges, while still inadequate, have bent that curve closer to 2.5-3C – still unsafe, but a meaningful shift…Rather than dwelling on the system’s imperfections, the question is whether it can evolve, realistically and politically. Dismantling the current system is unlikely to yield a stronger or more equitable one with the authority to override national decisions. The current process, after all, emerged from the ruins of earlier failures.
Kaveh Guilanpour, vice president for international strategies at the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions: In the aftermath of every COP, there are calls to reform the UNFCCC. But we should be aiming for an evolution, not a revolution, for three reasons. Firstly, a revolution would almost certainly not result in something stronger than we already have. It is hard to imagine that it would be possible to adopt the Paris Agreement in the current geopolitical and economic context. Secondly, the Paris Agreement is working, albeit not fast enough. Thirdly, and most importantly, the biggest barriers to the effective functioning of the UNFCCC and delivering on the Paris Agreement are deficiencies in the underlying politics. No amount of tweaking of the UNFCCC process can make up for that.
How could the negotiations themselves be improved?
Dr Monserrat Madariaga Gomez de Cuenca, environmental lawyer at Legal Response International: It is time to fully acknowledge that there is a crisis of trust in the UN climate process and take appropriate measures to limit it. Parties mistrust each other and stakeholders mistrust the limited results emerging from 30 years of climate talks.
Paul Watkinson, former EU climate negotiator: Whilst the negotiating process can be frustrating, it remains essential. I would focus on making the workload more manageable, for example by grouping items on agendas and organising work on a multiannual basis. The aim should be to give enough time to every item – rather than addressing everything together each time – and develop the understanding that not every item needs a negotiated outcome at each meeting.
Kaveh Guilanpour: [We should] embrace the role of multilateral negotiations at the core – and recognise that this is what attracts world leaders and non-parties to COPs – but work towards contextualising the negotiations in a wider ecosystem of climate action, to which they are clearly linked. Do not place all expectations only on the negotiated outcomes.
Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the UNFCCC: We could…streamline repetitive and overloaded agendas – and elevate the accountability of COP presidents through a public oath of office, potentially administered by the UNFCCC bureau, that reminds the COP presidency of its role.
Dr Joanna Depledge, research fellow at the University of Cambridge and former UNFCCC secretariat staff member: Overall, the negotiations have proved resistant to anything but very limited reform. Why so? The fact is that many of the perceived inefficiencies are not flaws as such, but inherent to a global process where all nations are sovereign and equal – and all want a say. They are also inherent to the very issue of climate change, which, because it is so multifaceted…inevitably spawns an ever-expanding agenda, while attracting ever more government and civil society participants. And process is politics: moves to restructure the negotiations inevitably come up against powerful forces who know how to maximise their influence in the existing system and far prefer the status quo.
Dr Monserrat Madariaga Gomez de Cuenca: [COPs should] avoid rushed, closed-door negotiations without party consultations, which make implementation impossible. When draft text appears in the eleventh hour and is forwarded to the closing plenary without proper discussion, the possibilities of parties gaslighting each other on the actual “meaning” and “intention” of the text multiply. Language such as “transitioning away from fossil fuels” or the path towards the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3tn” – where the wording is not clear – allows parties to cherry-pick the most favourable interpretation, undermining the implementation of decisions that were already difficult to achieve.
Dr Joanna Depledge: Streamlining agendas and limiting government delegation size are worth fighting for, but imposing criteria for selecting COP hosts and excluding private companies involved in high-carbon activities are non-starters. If the real problem is that the COP is not taking decisions in line with the science, then the answer is not tinkering around the edges of procedure and process. What is needed is a major strategic rethink and more fundamental reforms – notably to decision-making practices and voting – as I argue elsewhere.
Harjeet Singh, founding director at the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation: The process must change: streamline negotiations, review consensus rules and ban fossil-fuel lobbyists from influencing texts. Centre the voices of Indigenous peoples, frontline communities and civil society. And scale up public climate finance to enable a just transition and real support for adaptation and addressing loss and damage – by making polluters pay. The recent International Court of Justice advisory opinion has reinforced the demand for climate reparations. COP30 must open a new era of accountability and justice.
Can UN climate talks drive faster emissions cuts?
Dr Jennifer Allan, senior lecturer in international relations, Cardiff University: The UNFCCC is only as effective as parties allow it to be. The Paris Agreement is working precisely how some feared and how some major emitting countries hoped. It is premised on the promise of transparency: that national reports and the global stocktake, coupled with principles of progression, will – somehow – inspire climate ambition. But transparency is not the same as accountability.
Todd Stern: The Paris regime itself has an important role to play. For starters, the regime needs to develop much more of a broad partnership in the spirit of the 2015 High Ambition Coalition. Part of such a shift will depend on considering whether country emission targets are adequate. Of course, Paris was built on the principle of “nationally determined contributions” and that principle cannot be thrown overboard. But Paris was also built on the promise that it would strive to prevent dangerous climate change, that new emission targets every five years would reflect countries’ highest possible ambition and that global stocktakes would, in fact, take stock.
Claudio Angelo, head of international policy at the Climate Observatory: The “nationally determined” nature of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), and the fact that no assessment of progress is formally done outside the five-year period of the global stocktake, mean that the ambition gap will become more difficult to close the more urgent it becomes to close it. The irony of it is that the Paris architecture was tailor-made to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of the US, which has pulled out of the agreement anyway.
Prof Navroz K Dubash, professor of public and international affairs at Princeton School of Public and International Affairs: A bumper sticker for reform of the UN climate talks might read: “Less talk of ambition; more action on implementation”. An “ambition-first” approach rests on extracting national statements of emissions reduction intent, leveraging these up through country “naming and shaming” and strengthening compliance through enhanced accountability. But the conditions are not favourable for this approach. National politics rarely privilege emissions reductions over other objectives and global politics is increasingly non-responsive to climate shame. By contrast, the conditions for a “learning-by-doing” approach based on on-the-ground implementation appear brighter. Many countries are experimenting with pragmatic efforts to turn their economies in low-carbon directions.
Todd Stern: There is nothing about the nationally determined character of country pledges that says countries cannot be questioned, prodded and critiqued. Protecting thin skin is not as important as protecting a liveable world.
Prof Navroz K Dubash: How might global talks enable learning by doing, rather than doubling down on ambition-first approaches? NDCs could be liberated to be templates for experimentation rather than rigid bases for accountability alone. Detailed sectoral low-carbon development pathways would highlight country commonalities, reveal productive scope for international cooperation and incentivise finance…A renewed international process should be focused on the hard, detailed work of enabling low-carbon, resilient development transitions and less on extracting statements of intent.
Kaveh Guilanpour: [We should] move to an approach where progress is measured predominantly by the impact of implemented national level policies, not NDCs on paper. Focus as much on enhancing international cooperation to deliver implementation as on increasing formal ambition on paper through NDC target-setting.
How could COPs ensure broader accountability?
Paul Watkinson: The biggest opportunity to support implementation is outside the formal process, putting order and structure into the “action agenda”. It has grown enormously in recent years and there have been many valuable initiatives…But there has been insufficient continuity and not enough follow-up and tracking to ensure that what is announced and promised is delivered. That is why I welcome the proposal of the incoming Brazilian COP30 presidency to structure the action agenda around six broad themes, drawn from the outcomes of the global stocktake, including a cross-cutting theme around enablers including the vital role of finance. They have the power, in close coordination with the high-level champions, to relaunch the action agenda on stronger foundations that could serve for years to come.
Dr Jennifer Allan: Within the negotiations, there is a glaring need to track the many commitments made outside of the regular negotiation process, either in presidency-led declarations or cover decisions. A central, publicly available hub needs to collate these promises and track progress. Presidencies may broker these commitments, but have few incentives to follow up on them.
Bernice Lee: What can – and must – change is how the system functions. Every decade or so, the climate regime has adapted – from Kyoto’s top-down legalism to Paris’s nationally determined flexibility. These shifts were not just philosophical, they also enabled new capacities. The collapse in Copenhagen helped catalyse renewable energy investment plans, while Paris introduced NDCs. The next phase must embed delivery and equity more deeply into the process including, for example, mechanisms aligning corporate transition plans with country transition, national policies and sectoral pathways. The outcomes of any reform process should mean fewer theatrics, earlier decisions and sharper accountability. All of this would enhance not only country but also public engagement, as well as the credibility of the global climate process.
Harjeet Singh: Rather than catalysing ambition, the Paris Agreement has been used by developed countries to shirk their historical responsibilities…It is not the Paris Agreement or the UNFCCC that failed – it is rich countries that undermined the system to protect polluters and preserve an unsustainable growth model. True reform begins with accountability. Wealthy nations must be held responsible for their historical emissions and must pay for the loss and damage they have caused.
Sandrine Dixson-Declève, honorary president at the Club of Rome and executive chair of Earth4All: Strengthen climate target enforcement through scientific oversight, peer review and robust reporting – ensuring governments, COP presidencies and corporations are held accountable. [There should be] a permanent scientific advisory body within the COP. Science must be central to negotiations, with all delegations regularly briefed on the latest data around risks, equity, solutions and scenarios.
Prof Navroz K Dubash: Ambition and implementation can be complementary, but they are not necessarily so. The former is driven by a relentless focus on emissions, comparability in emission pledges and building accountability. The latter is enabled by linking climate to other objectives, seeking country-specific formulations that buy political support and flexible experimentation that allows for learning from failure. Being more, not less, in the sectoral weeds might reveal opportunities not apparent from the stratospheric heights of climate negotiations. Well-developed, home-grown visions of sustainable futures are the most robust basis for developing countries’ legitimate claims for finance and other support.
Do UN climate talks need majority voting?
Erika Lennon, senior climate attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law: Voting is the elephant in the room. The parties to the UNFCCC have never been able to adopt the “rules of procedure” because they cannot agree on the provision related to voting in the absence of consensus. Instead, they proceed meeting after meeting using them as “draft rules of procedure”. This has created a race to the bottom whereby countries that want to stall progress can do so. For 29 years, other parties have had to agree to the lowest common denominator in the name of consensus.
Claudio Angelo: The decision made in 2023 to “transition away from fossil fuels” needs both fleshing out and monitoring, but it is nowhere to be seen in the formal negotiations towards Belém. Such omissions reflect one fundamental problem of the UNFCCC and one fundamental flaw of the Paris Agreement: the consensus rule. Some countries are now shamelessly backtracking on their previous commitment and saying that any mention of cutting back on fossil fuels anywhere is a red line for them…A handful of countries are holding the future of humanity hostage because they can block whatever they want [due to the consensus rule]. Even COP presidencies that do want to move the agenda forward are afraid to be bold, lest “the process should collapse”. But a process that is unfit for purpose might as well collapse.
Christiana Figueres: In the context of the formal negotiations, we could reconsider our tradition of having to adopt all decisions unanimously. UNFCCC procedures require consensus for the adoption of decisions, not necessarily unanimity. The difference is important and admittedly challenging to manage, but worth examining.
Erika Lennon: The fix would be to adopt the rules of procedure, including the paragraphs on voting. The UNFCCC would then join many other multilateral environmental agreements – and its own financial instruments – that sometimes use majority voting.
Bernice Lee: In recent months, many well-meaning critics have called the UN multilateral climate process broken, arguing it should be dismantled and replaced, but with no viable alternatives waiting in the wings. Reforming core procedures – such as introducing majority voting or amending the convention – would require agreement from three-quarters of countries, followed by domestic ratification. Even without today’s fractured geopolitics, this would be a tall order.
What should the role of the COP presidency be?
Dr Monserrat Madariaga Gomez de Cuenca: [COPs should] avoid adding more pressure by clarifying duties and processes for the COP president. Rules of procedure simply give the COP president the power to formally conduct the negotiations, which should be done in a neutral manner. Increasingly, we see COP presidents setting exceedingly ambitious plans for their respective COPs. Ideas of “success” and “legacy” permeate what should be a facilitative role towards the collective progress of UN climate talks. COPs finish with statements and reports of achievements that do not reflect the actual progress. Reviewing the conduct of negotiations and the role and expectations of COP presidencies could help in restoring some of the damaged trust in the process.
Prof Thomas Hale, professor in public policy at the University of Oxford: The “action agenda” needs to escape the “boom-bust” cycle that shifting presidencies and high-level champions have imposed on it, in which new announcements trump delivery. The COP30 presidency has laid out a positive approach here, but the acid test lies in making it real.
Sandrine Dixson-Declève: Only countries with high climate ambition should be eligible to host COPs.
Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute: Instead of – or alongside – three more paragraphs specifying how the world will “transition away from fossil fuels” or “triple renewable energy”, how about three renewable projects in the COP host country, to be announced in conjunction with the climate summit?…Efforts to advance the implementation agenda through additional multilateral rulemaking and COP decisions risk missing the point. The COP presidency…could showcase a handful of large‑scale renewable energy projects in their own countries, backed by concrete financing. Such a “trade fair” function of the COP would help bridge the widening gap between what is agreed at COPs and what is happening on the ground.
Do fossil-fuel companies have too much influence?
Erika Lennon: The fossil fuel industry’s survival depends on the UNFCCC’s failure, as meeting the goals of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement undeniably means phasing out fossil fuels. It is therefore no wonder that, since the beginning, fossil-fuel industry lobbyists have been present at COPs and working to undermine ambition.
Dr Jennifer Allan: Presidencies have much to answer for and can be key to raising accountability. COP is becoming the new Davos: a place for billionaires to meet, without scrutiny of their activities or announcements. This must end. Presidencies should revoke invitations to [Amazon chief executive] Jeff Bezos and others who have been offered high-level platforms.
Erika Lennon: Parties could adopt a conflict-of-interest policy to, at the very least, make [fossil-fuel lobbyists’] influence transparent and subsequently exclude those who aim to unduly influence the process. Parties, including the presidency team, could refuse to give them badges…In addition, they could end greenwashing at COPs in the form of corporate sponsorships and pavilions.
Are COPs too big?
Prof Thomas Hale: COP is both too big and too small for an era of implementation. Its cost and complexity eat up scarce resources. Meanwhile, it creates a gravity well that warps the climate community’s work into an annual rush to the end of the year…At the same time, even the biggest COPs are puny compared to the problem. Climate change demands action from all of society…In this complex system, the UNFCCC process plays the critical function of setting agendas and goals. No other body has the multilateral legitimacy to serve as a lighthouse.
Dr Jennifer Allan: Climate summits could shift from a talkshop to a demonstration of leadership if invitations are only extended to countries that have submitted and maintained more progressive NDCs and are implementing them.
Prof Thomas Hale: We need COPs to be everything, everywhere, all at once. Alongside a single, two-week meeting in one place, we need lots of smaller, focused meetings in many places. Instead of an intergovernmental process that talks about action, we need to fully shift the “action agenda” into the heart of the UNFCCC. The good news is that the elements of this shift are already well in motion, with more and more cities hosting “climate weeks”…Regional meetings with more flexible formats reach more people, in a more targeted way, much more cheaply and efficiently than a COP.
Dr Jennifer Allan: I’ve been researching the role of side events, pavilion activities and Global Climate Action Hub panels in the “expo” that now dominates COP space and participation opportunities. There has been a decided shift, from a smaller number of events focused on negotiation and implementation to a huge array of panels showcasing new initiatives or national actions. It is about what is new, not following up on what has been agreed. Side events and Global Climate Action Hub events could shift focus under the secretariat and the high-level champions. Pavilion spaces could be reserved for those who can demonstrate that their presence will advance climate action.
Sandrine Dixson-Declève: COPs must evolve from negotiation-heavy forums to more frequent, smaller, solution-focused meetings centred on progress and implementation, with broad stakeholder participation.
How could COP participation be improved?
Erika Lennon: Civil society, youth, Indigenous peoples, women, local communities and people with disabilities, among others, have increasingly faced shrinking civic space in the UNFCCC process. They have to fight to have their voices heard, to be present in the rooms where decisions happen, for access to information and open decision-making, and to assemble peacefully.
Shreeshan Venkatesh, global policy lead at Climate Action Network International: Structural barriers…undermine inclusivity and equitable participation in UNFCCC meetings, from the high cost of accommodation at COPs to discriminatory visa practices and shrinking civil society quotas. These barriers must be dismantled to ensure all parties and stakeholders can participate fully and on equal terms.
Erika Lennon: Parties should incorporate and support participation not only at COPs, but also in climate action and decisions on the ground. They can do this by creating space across all agenda items to hear from rightsholders and ensuring human rights and civic space are guaranteed during all negotiations.
Shreeshan Venkatesh: Civic space and freedoms are under threat, even at COPs. Host agreements must guarantee freedom of speech, assembly and accessibility, backed by an independent body to address violations.
How can COPs drive change outside the UN process?
Sandrine Dixson-Declève: COP must transform from a forum of negotiation to a platform of delivery, inclusion and accountability, anchoring climate action in the lived realities of people and the demands of science.
Kaveh Guilanpour: There should be a thorough and honest analysis of the value add of the UNFCCC process and what is best left to other fora.
Christiana Figueres: While some negotiations remain necessary, the most urgent action has shifted to implementation in the context of market forces and climate economics. There is no doubt that civil society, businesses, cities and communities are moving faster than governments. These actors, traditionally considered and labelled as mere “observers” in the formal UNFCCC space, have become the true engines of transformation. One could consider the pros and cons of creating a semi-detached “real world” space alongside COP – one that amplifies their progress, showcases innovation and feeds actionable insights back into the formal process.
Todd Stern: The Paris regime has a role to play in encouraging and tracking strong action outside its purview. This includes the public and private sectors working together on rapid decarbonisation and on unlocking the kind of large-scale investment needed for countries in the global south to build sustainable and resilient economies.
Shreeshan Venkatesh: The UNFCCC, and other multilateral fora that have become central to the formulation and implementation of climate policy and international cooperation, must align with international law. This includes the recent advisory opinions from the ICJ and the Inter-American Court of Justice, and the obligations they clearly lay out.
Claudio Angelo: [There is] a final, bigger problem, which no UNFCCC reform can solve: the climate regime is a child of the democratic world order and the lynchpin of that world order has become a rogue state. The rise of the far-right and the erosion of democracy are rendering multilateralism itself useless – a world that is unable to stop genocides in Gaza and Sudan can’t solve the climate crisis.
The post COP experts: How could the UN climate talks be reformed? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
In 2026, the dangers of fossil fuel dependence have been laid bare like never before. The illegal invasion of Iran has brought pain and destruction to millions across the Middle East and triggered a global energy crisis impacting us all. Communities in the Pacific have been hit especially hard by rising fuel prices, and Australians have seen their cost-of-living woes deepen.
Such moments of crisis and upheaval can lead to positive transformation. But only when leaders act with courage and foresight.
There is no clearer statement of a government’s plans and priorities for the nation than its budget — how it plans to raise money, and what services, communities, and industries it will invest in.
As we count down the days to the 2026-27 Federal Budget, will the Albanese Government deliver a budget for our times? One that starts breaking the shackles of fossil fuels, accelerates the shift to clean energy, protects nature, and sees us work together with other countries towards a safer future for all? Or one that doubles down on coal and gas, locks in more climate chaos, and keeps us beholden to the whims of tyrants and billionaires.
Here’s what we think the moment demands, and what we’ll be looking out for when Treasurer Jim Chalmers steps up to the dispatch box on 12 May.
1. Stop fuelling the fire
2. Make big polluters pay
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
4. Build the industries of the future
5. Build community resilience
6. Be a better neighbour
7. Protect nature
1. Stop fuelling the fire
In mid-April, Pacific governments and civil society met to redouble their efforts towards a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. Moving beyond coal, oil and gas is fundamental to limiting warming to 1.5°C — a survival line for vulnerable communities and ecosystems. And as our Head of Pacific, Shiva Gounden, explained, it is “also a path of liberation that frees us from expensive, extractive and polluting fossil fuel imports and uplifts our communities”.
Pacific countries are at the forefront of growing global momentum towards a just transition away from fossil fuels, and it is way past time for Australia to get with the program. It is no longer a question of whether fossil fuel extraction will end, but whether that end will be appropriately managed and see communities supported through the transition, or whether it will be chaotic and disruptive.
So will this budget support the transition away from fossil fuels, or will it continue to prop up coal and gas?
When it comes to sensible moves the government can make right now, one stands out as a genuine low hanging fruit. Mining companies get a full rebate of the excise (or tax) that the rest of us pay on diesel fuel. This lowers their operating costs and acts as a large, ongoing subsidy on fossil fuel production — to the tune of $11 billion a year!
Greenpeace has long called for coal and gas companies to be removed from this outdated scheme, and for the billions in savings to be used to support the clean energy transition and to assist communities with adapting to the impacts of climate change. Will we see the government finally make this long overdue change, or will it once again cave to the fossil fuel lobby?
2. Make big polluters pay
While our communities continue to suffer the escalating costs of climate-fuelled disasters, our Government continues to support a massive expansion of Australia’s export gas industry. Gas is a dangerous fossil fuel, with every tonne of Australian gas adding to the global heating that endangers us all.
Moreover, companies like Santos and Woodside pay very little tax for the privilege of digging up and selling Australians’ natural endowment of fossil gas. Remarkably, the Government currently raises more tax from beer than from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) — the main tax on gas profits.
Momentum has been building to replace or supplement the PRRT with a 25% tax on gas exports. This could raise up to $17 billion a year — funds that, like savings from removing the diesel tax rebate for coal and gas companies, could be spent on supporting the clean energy transition and assisting communities with adapting to worsening fires, floods, heatwaves and other impacts of climate change.
As politicians arrive in Canberra for budget week, they will be confronted by billboards calling for a fair tax on gas exports. The push now has the support of dozens of organisations and a growing number of politicians. Let’s hope the Treasurer seizes this rare window for reform.
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
As the price of petrol and diesel rises, electric vehicles (EVs) are helping people cut fuel use and save money. However, while EV sales have jumped since the invasion of Iran sent fuel prices rising, they still only make up a fraction of total new car sales. This budget should help more Australians switch to electric vehicles and, even more importantly, enable more Australians to get around by bike, on foot, and on public transport. This means maintaining the EV discount, investing in public and active transport, and removing tax breaks for fuel-hungry utes and vans.
Millions of Australians already enjoy the cost-saving benefits of rooftop solar, batteries, and getting off gas. This budget should enable more households, and in particular those on lower incomes, to access these benefits. This means maintaining the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and building on the Household Energy Upgrades Fund.
4. Build the industries of the future
If we’re to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to be building the clean industries of the future.
No state is more pivotal to Australia’s energy and industrial transformation than Western Australia. The state has unrivaled potential for renewable energy development and for replacing fossil fuel exports with clean exports like green iron. Such industries offer Western Australia the promise of a vibrant economic future, and for Australia to play an outsized positive role in the world’s efforts to reduce emissions.
However, realising this potential will require focussed support from the Federal Government. Among other measures, Greenpeace has recommended establishing the Australasian Green Iron Corporation as a joint venture between the Australian and Western Australian governments, a key trading partner, a major iron ore miner and steel makers. This would unite these central players around the complex task of building a large-scale green iron industry, and unleash Western Australia’s potential as a green industrial powerhouse.
5. Build community resilience
Believe it or not, our Government continues to spend far more on subsidising fossil fuel production — and on clearing up after climate-fuelled disasters — than it does on helping communities and industries reduce disaster costs through practical, proven methods for building their resilience.
Last year, the Government estimated that the cost of recovery from disasters like the devastating 2022 east coast floods on 2019-20 fires will rise to $13.5 billion. For contrast, the Government’s Disaster Ready Fund – the main national source of funding for disaster resilience – invests just $200 million a year in grants to support disaster preparedness and resilience building. This is despite the Government’s own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) estimating that for every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, there is a $9.60 return on investment.
By redirecting funds currently spent on subsidising fossil fuel production, the Government can both stop incentivising climate destruction in the first place, and ensure that Australian communities and industries are better protected from worsening climate extremes.
No communities have more to lose from climate damage, or carry more knowledge of practical solutions, than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The budget should include a dedicated First Nations climate adaptation fund, ensuring First Nations communities can develop solutions on their own terms, and access the support they need with adapting to extreme heat, coastal erosion and other escalating challenges.
6. Be a better neighbour
The global response to climate change depends on the adequate flow of support from developed economies like Australia to lower income nations with shifting to clean energy, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage.
Such support is vital to building trust and cooperation, reducing global emissions, and supporting regional and global security by enabling countries to transition away from fossil fuels and build greater resilience.
Despite its central leadership role in this year’s global climate negotiations, our Government is yet to announce its contribution to international climate finance for 2025-2030. Greenpeace recommends a commitment of $11 billion for this five year period, which is aligned with the global goal under the Paris Agreement to triple international climate finance from current levels.
This new commitment should include additional funding to address loss and damage from climate change and a substantial contribution to the Pacific Resilience Facility, ensuring support is accessible to countries and communities that need it most. It should also see Australia get firmly behind the vision of a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.
7. Protect nature
There is no safe planet without protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity that sustain us and regulate our climate.
Last year the Parliament passed important and long overdue reforms to our national environment laws to ensure better protection for our forests and other critical ecosystems. However, the Government will need to provide sufficient funding to ensure the effective implementation of these reforms.
Greenpeace has recommended $500 million over four years to establish the National Environment Agency — the body responsible for enforcing and monitoring the new laws — and a further $50 million to Environment Information Australia for providing critical information and tools.
Further resourcing will also be required to fulfil the crucial goal of fully protecting 30% of Australian land and seas by 2030. This should include $1 billion towards ending deforestation by enabling farmers and loggers to retool away from destructive practices, $2 billion a year for restoring degraded lands, $5 billion for purchasing and creating new protected areas, and $200 million for expanding domestic and international marine protected areas.
Conclusion
This is not the first time that conflict overseas has triggered an energy crisis, or that a budget has been preceded by a summer of extreme weather disasters, highlighting the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels. What’s different in 2026 is the availability of solutions. Renewable energy is now cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Global momentum is firmly behind the transition away from fossil fuels. The Albanese Government, with its overwhelming majority, has the chance to set our nation up for the future, or keep us stranded in the past. Let’s hope it makes some smart choices.
The 2026 budget test: Will Australia break free from fossil fuels?
Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economies
In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
-
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way -
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry
Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energy
The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org global campaign to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all
The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Computer models that use artificial intelligence (AI) cannot forecast record-breaking weather as well as traditional climate models, according to a new study.
It is well established that AI climate models have surpassed traditional, physics-based climate models for some aspects of weather forecasting.
However, new research published in Science Advances finds that AI models still “underperform” in forecasting record-breaking extreme weather events.
The authors tested how well both AI and traditional weather models could simulate thousands of record-breaking hot, cold and windy events that were recorded in 2018 and 2020.
They find that AI models underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events.
A study author tells Carbon Brief that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI weather forecasts
Extreme weather events, such as floods, heatwaves and storms, drive hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year through the destruction of cropland, impacts on infrastructure and the loss of human life.
Many governments have developed early warning systems to prepare the general public and mobilise disaster response teams for imminent extreme weather events. These systems have been shown to minimise damages and save lives.
For decades, scientists have used numerical weather prediction models to simulate the weather days, or weeks, in advance.
These models rely on a series of complex equations that reproduce processes in the atmosphere and ocean. The equations are rooted in fundamental laws of physics, based on decades of research by climate scientists. As a result, these models are referred to as “physics-based” models.
However, AI-based climate models are gaining popularity as an alternative for weather forecasting.
Instead of using physics, these models use a statistical approach. Scientists present AI models with a large batch of historical weather data, known as training data, which teaches the model to recognise patterns and make predictions.
To produce a new forecast, the AI model draws on this bank of knowledge and follows the patterns that it knows.
There are many advantages to AI weather forecasts. For example, they use less computing power than physics-based models, because they do not have to run thousands of mathematical equations.
Furthermore, many AI models have been found to perform better than traditional physics-based models at weather forecasts.
However, these models also have drawbacks.
Study author Prof Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the research institute for statistics and information science at the University of Geneva, tells Carbon Brief that AI models “depend strongly on the training data” and are “relatively constrained to the range of this dataset”.
In other words, AI models struggle to simulate brand new weather patterns, instead tending forecast events of a similar strength to those seen before. As a result, it is unclear whether AI models can simulate unprecedented, record-breaking extreme events that, by definition, have never been seen before.
Record-breaking extremes
Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as the climate warms. Record-shattering extremes – those that break existing records by large margins – are also becoming more regular.
For example, during a 2021 heatwave in north-western US and Canada, local temperature records were broken by up to 5C. According to one study, the heatwave would have been “impossible” without human-caused climate change.
The new study explores how accurately AI and physics-based models can forecast such record-breaking extremes.
First, the authors identified every heat, cold and wind event in 2018 and 2020 that broke a record previously set between 1979 and 2017. (They chose these years due to data availability.) The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to identify these records.
This produced a large sample size of record-breaking events. For the year 2020, the authors identified around 160,000 heat, 33,000 cold and 53,000 wind records, spread across different seasons and world regions.
For their traditional, physics-based model, the authors selected the High RESolution forecast model from the Integrated Forecasting System of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. This is “widely considered as the leading physics-based numerical weather prediction model”, according to the paper.
They also selected three “leading” AI weather models – the GraphCast model from Google Deepmind, Pangu-Weather developed by Huawei Cloud and the Fuxi model, developed by a team from Shanghai.
The authors then assessed how accurately each model could forecast the extremes observed in the year 2020.
Dr Zhongwei Zhang is the lead author on the study and a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He tells Carbon Brief that many AI weather forecast models were built for “general weather conditions”, as they use all historical weather data to train the models. Meanwhile, forecasting extremes is considered a “secondary task” by the models.
The authors explored a range of different “lead times” – in other words, how far into the future the model is forecasting. For example, a lead time of two days could mean the model uses the weather conditions at midnight on 1 January to simulate weather conditions at midnight on 3 January.
The plot below shows how accurately the models forecasted all extreme events (left) and heat extremes (right) under different lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy.
The chart on the left shows how two of the AI models (blue and green) performed better than the physics-based model (black) when forecasting all weather across the year 2020.
However, the chart on the right illustrates how the physics-based model (black) performed better than all three AI models (blue, red and green) when it came to forecasting heat extremes.
The authors note that the performance gap between AI and physics-based models is widest for lower lead times, indicating that AI models have greater difficulty making predictions in the near future.
They find similar results for cold and wind records.
In addition, the authors find that AI models generally “underpredict” temperature during heat records and “overpredict” during cold records.
The study finds that the larger the margin that the record is broken by, the less well the AI model predicts the intensity of the event.
‘Warning shot’
Study author Prof Erich Fischer is a climate scientist at ETH Zurich and a Carbon Brief contributing editor. He tells Carbon Brief that the result is “not unexpected”.
He adds that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
The analysis, he continues, is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI models are likely to continue to improve, but scientists should “not yet” fully replace traditional forecasting models with AI ones, according to Fischer.
He explains that accurate forecasts are “most needed” in the runup to potential record-breaking extremes, because they are the trigger for early warning systems that help minimise damages caused by extreme weather.
Leonardo Olivetti is a PhD student at Uppsala University, who has published work on AI weather forecasting and was not involved in the study.
He tells Carbon Brief that “many other studies” have identified issues with using AI models for “extremes”, but this paper is novel for its specific focus on extremes.
Olivetti notes that AI models are already used alongside physics-based models at “some of the major weather forecasting centres around the world”. However, the study results suggest “caution against relying too heavily on these [AI] models”, he says.
Prof Martin Schultz, a professor in computational earth system science at the University of Cologne who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the results of the analysis are “very interesting, but not too surprising”.
He adds that the study “justifies the continued use of classical numerical weather models in operational forecasts, in spite of their tremendous computational costs”.
Advances in forecasting
The field of AI weather forecasting is evolving rapidly.
Olivetti notes that the three AI models tested in the study are an “older generation” of AI models. In the last two years, newer “probabilistic” forecast models have emerged that “claim to better capture extremes”, he explains.
The three AI models used in the analysis are “deterministic”, meaning that they only simulate one possible future outcome.
In contrast, study author Engelke tells Carbon Brief that probabilistic models “create several possible future states of the weather” and are therefore more likely to capture record-breaking extremes.
Engelke says it is “important” to evaluate the newer generation of models for their ability to forecast weather extremes.
He adds that this paper has set out a “protocol” for testing the ability of AI models to predict unprecedented extreme events, which he hopes other researchers will go on to use.
The study says that another “promising direction” for future research is to develop models that combine aspects of traditional, physics-based weather forecasts with AI models.
Engelke says this approach would be “best of both worlds”, as it would combine the ability of physics-based models to simulate record-breaking weather with the computational efficiency of AI models.
Dr Kyle Hilburn, a research scientist at Colorado State University, notes that the study does not address extreme rainfall, which he says “presents challenges for both modelling and observing”. This, he says, is an “important” area for future research.
The post Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility