Countries have agreed at the resumed COP16 talks in Rome to a strategy for “mobilising” at least $200bn per year by 2030 to help developing countries conserve biodiversity.
Nations also agreed for the first time to a “permanent arrangement” for providing biodiversity finance to developing nations, “future-proofing” the flow of funds past 2030.
Faced with a highly unstable geopolitical landscape and a previous set of talks that ended in disarray in Colombia, countries forged a path to consensus on a set of texts in what many nations celebrated as a win for multilateralism in uncertain times.
The agreement on finance comes despite the world’s largest biodiversity donor – the US, which has never been a formal party within these talks – recently deciding to withdraw most of its nature funding in a foreign-aid freeze under Donald Trump.
Many European countries who signed onto the agreement have also recently cut their aid budgets.
Nations also agreed on two texts for tracking their progress towards achieving the targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).
The GBF is a landmark deal first made in 2022 aiming to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
Colombian politician and COP16 president Susana Muhamad received a lengthy standing ovation for her role in guiding parties to consensus in the early hours of Friday morning in Rome.
But, amid celebrations, some countries cautioned that a vast amount of progress will be needed to have a chance of halting and reversing biodiversity loss in just five years.
Some three-quarters of nations have still not submitted their UN biodiversity plans for how they will achieve the targets of the GBF – four months after the deadline.
And a recent investigation by Carbon Brief and the Guardian revealed that more than half of nations that have submitted UN biodiversity plans do not commit to the GBF’s flagship target of protecting 30% of land and seas for nature by 2030.
- COP16’s back story
- Finance
- Global review
- Monitoring framework
- Cooperation with other conventions
- Around the COP
COP16’s back story
COP16 was the first UN biodiversity summit following the adoption in 2022 of a landmark agreement, known as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), at COP15. The overall goal of the GBF is to “halt and reverse biodiversity” loss by 2030, through four goals and 23 targets.
At COP16, many issues centred around the “means of implementation” of the GBF. Initially, the conference was set to take place in Turkey, but the country withdrew from hosting it after a series of destructive earthquakes. Colombia took on the organisation of the summit and Cali was named as host city in February 2024.
In Cali, countries agreed on a new fund for the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic data, the creation of a dedicated subsidiary body for Indigenous peoples and local communities and a new process to identify ecologically and biologically significant marine areas.
However, the final plenary ran through the night, owing to disagreements over biodiversity finance. With many delegations needing to catch flights home, COP16 was suspended the following morning due to a lack of the “quorum” needed to reach consensus.
Later that month, the COP16 presidency stated that the negotiations would be resumed in the new year to “address outstanding issues on finance and complete the mandate of this COP”.
Among the pending items left over from Cali was a new strategy for “resource mobilisation”, aimed at allocating $200bn annually for biodiversity conservation “from all sources” by 2030.
Alongside that, countries needed to agree on the mechanism for distributing funds. Global-south countries urged the creation of a new global fund for biodiversity, to be under the control of the COP. Meanwhile, global-north countries argued for maintaining the current fund, which is housed under the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a multilateral fund set up in the early 1990s to “support developing countries’ work to address the world’s most pressing environmental issues”.
Countries also had to revisit the monitoring framework for the implementation of the GBF, which seeks to “provide the common yardsticks that parties will use to measure progress against the 23 targets” of the GBF, according to the CBD.
Parties also failed to agree on a new text outlining the process for a global review of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) at COP17 in Armenia in 2026 and COP19, four years later.
The CBD took up the remaining issues in two “resumed” sessions of COP16.
The first of these meetings, to approve the budget, was held in December under “silence procedure” – meaning the text was circulated and parties given a period of time to respond with any objections. The second resumed session was held in person at the headquarters of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome, from 25 to 27 February 2025, to address all remaining decisions.
Finance
Post-2030 fund
The fight over a new, dedicated global biodiversity fund – the subject of fraught negotiations in Nairobi, Montreal and Cali – dominated the agenda at the resumed COP16 nature talks in Rome.
As a whole, COP16 was supposed to deliver a strategy for raising funds to assist countries in implementing the “ambitious” nature deal struck at COP15.
It was also expected to deliver a financial mechanism under the COP to provide developing countries with the means to meet biodiversity goals and targets.
At the resumed COP16 talks in Rome, countries made history by agreeing to set up a “permanent arrangement for the financial mechanism” under the COP by 2030 – a decision that is decades in the works.
While the decision does not establish a brand new fund immediately, it is “future proofing” global biodiversity finance beyond 2030, Georgina Chandler from the Zoological Society of London told a press briefing. The text leaves open the form that the finance will take – either under a new entity, or as part of existing funding instruments that biodiverse countries have been seeking to reform.
A permanent financial mechanism is the “unfinished business of the COP, 30 years in the making”, said Lim Li Ching from the Third World Network. While there is much to be debated at successive COPs, “at least the mechanism is locked in”, she told Carbon Brief.
The resumed COP16 also saw countries agree on a roadmap to develop the financial mechanism, reform existing financial institutions and mobilise funding from “all sources” to close the $200bn per year biodiversity funding gap.
To speed up raising these resources, the text asks the executive secretary of the CBD to “facilitate an international dialogue” of ministers of environment and finance from developing and developed countries.
This was a “highlight” of the outcome in Rome, Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, said in a statement.
Per the roadmap, countries will have to decide on criteria for the mechanism by COP17 next year in Armenia. By COP18, they will have to decide whether this will take the form of a new fund and, if so, make it operational by COP19 in 2030.
At the same time, the COP has tasked its expert subsidiary body to look into “opportunities for broadening the contributor base”, accommodating a key ask from developed countries.
This means including more countries, such as China, as formal biodiversity finance providers, according to Laetitia Pettinotti from development finance thinktank ODI. Pettinotti told Carbon Brief:
“Countries have agreed to look into the contributor base. But, actually, many developing countries already contribute biodiversity finance via their funding to multilateral entities – the GEF, WB [World Bank], UN agencies, etc. So part of this discussion will need to look at recognising those contributions.”
Resource mobilisation: from Cali to Rome
The Rome talks were expected to pick up where Cali left off – with an ambitious, but divisive, draft decision on resource mobilisation issued by Muhamad in the early hours of 2 November last year.
That document contained a proposal to establish a new global biodiversity fund under the COP’s governance, to be ready by COP30.
This had been a key demand of developing countries in the run-up to the previous talks in Montreal. Instead, the final nature deal for this decade – gavelled through at COP15 in a hurry – gave the world an interim fund with a mandate to operate only until 2030.
Without enough countries in the room to pass the decision in Cali, the fight for a new fund had to wait until COP16 resumed in Rome.
Between the Cali and Rome talks, Muhamad held regional consultations and bilateral meetings with countries and ministers from around the world in an effort to find agreement.
On 14 February, Muhamad released a “reflection note” laying out the state of play in the finance negotiations. In this, she discussed some of the “important differences” remaining between countries on the resource mobilisation draft and areas of “broad agreement” that emerged in her consultations.
Some of these disagreements, she said, were partly rooted in “different interpretations of terms used”. To address this, the note contained a glossary defining terms used within the finance texts.
Muhamad put forward a roadmap towards improving global biodiversity finance architecture, which, she said, countries “broadly support[ed]” at that stage.
In an updated note on 21 February, the president issued “textual suggestions” on the most contentious paragraphs of the resource mobilisation text.
At the opening plenary on 25 February, minister Muhamad said the discussions at this COP were “not technical decisions”, but rather “political decisions”. She questioned whether countries were able to “transcend…old and outdated” institutional structures and move towards something new.
Some countries broadly supported the president’s suggestions, but were clear that more discussions were needed. Others, such as India, were sceptical and favoured the explicit language in the draft text from Cali.
Most developing countries called for establishing a dedicated financial instrument at the Rome talks, opposed expanding the donor base and highlighted the need to “honour” existing financial commitments.
In turn, most developed countries wanted to improve – not replace – existing funding instruments and broaden the list of donor countries and funding sources. They also favoured a process leading up to COP19 that would not “prejudge the outcome”.
Fiji noted in the opening plenary that adopting a clear and comprehensive resource mobilisation strategy is “critical” to the success of the GBF. They added that the future process and roadmap must be “efficient and streamlined”, given the urgency of financing needs.
Informal consultations on resource mobilisation took place on the evening of 25 February. The next morning, Muhamad thanked delegates for the “very open and frank discussion” on their various positions on the text.
The negotiations moved slowly for most of the three days. A third of the morning plenary on 26 February, for example, was taken up by a back-and-forth over a request from the DRC to change the agenda.
A revised resource mobilisation document was released by the presidency on the evening of 26 February. Minutes later, countries were invited to give their thoughts on the significantly updated text in plenary.
Many expressed their surprise at the revisions and requested more time to review the text, which was only available in English as it had not yet been translated into the other five UN languages.
Egypt and the DRC’s request to give the African Group a few minutes to consult on the text was denied by Muhamad, with countries instead encouraged to discuss the text and present their concerns as regional groupings the next morning.
“This is becoming a precedent that a region cannot ask for regional consultations,” said Daniel Mukubi Kikuni of the DRC at the evening plenary, adding that the draft resembled Muhamad’s “informal” reflection note more than its predecessor that was negotiated by all countries in Cali. Kikuni added:
“[This document has been] deeply changed, transformed and modified. We cannot accept it as a foundational document for our discussion.”
Panama said that it was concerned by a “lack of ambition” in the revised document. Other countries, including Ivory Coast and Egypt, expressed concern that the pace of the document’s proposed roadmap was “missing urgency” and was too “process-heavy”, given that 2030 is five years away.
While the EU, Norway and the UK appreciated the text as a “balanced package” and said it was “very close to the landing zone”, they were caught off-guard by text that suggested “possible direct allocation” of funds to countries.
The next morning, another plenary took place for regional groupings to provide consolidated feedback on the updated draft. Several blocs and countries suggested alternative text, including a “compromise” proposal submitted by Brazil on behalf of BRICS countries and Zimbabwe articulating Africa’s position.
With the clock ticking and much to accomplish before midnight, Muhamad adjourned the plenary and asked up to five representatives from regions to work with her in a small group towards a consensus text to bring to the plenary.
After a six-hour closed door session, a new resource mobilisation non-paper emerged around 7pm on the final evening of talks.
The non-paper referred to the establishment of a “permanent arrangement for the financial mechanism”, mirroring text suggested by Brazil on behalf of BRICS countries earlier in the day. Instead of promising a new fund, the text said that the mechanism could be “entrusted to one or more entities, new, reformed or existing” – suggesting that a compromise had been struck between developed and developing countries
The non-paper had just one bracket in place (which, in UN documents, signals disagreement), stating that the final structure of the mechanism had to be “non-discriminatory”, which some delegates feared could potentially rule out certain funds that were limited by sanctions.
Bernadette Fischler Hooper, the head of international advocacy at WWF, told the press that this was a “make or break moment” to determine the levels of trust between countries, but that the text “showcased the high art of diplomacy”. She added:
“It doesn’t sound very exciting, but the fact that there will be [an instrument] from 2030 onwards is actually a huge step forward, because they haven’t managed to do that for the last five years. That was what nearly brought the COP15 in Montreal to fall.”
The presidency released a final revised document on resource mobilisation at 10:40pm, when the final plenary was already long-delayed.
This contained the same text as the non-paper, but with the final bracket removed. With no interventions, countries agreed and the final resource mobilisation text was gavelled through amid applause, cheers and tears in the plenary hall.
Minutes later, after interventions from the EU and Japan, Brazil cautioned against last-ditch changes to the closely related financial mechanism text, saying that “if we start to blow too close to [a castle of] cards, then everything starts to fall off”.
After a show of support from former COP-hosts Canada, the COP adopted the decision on the financial mechanism.
Juliette Landry of the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) described the finance outcome to Carbon Brief as “a delicate balance” struck between “reluctant parties”. She added that countries had “agreed to lift polarised opposition” around a new fund in order to fix “systemic” gaps in existing biodiversity funding.
The figure below illustrates the development of language around a new financial instrument, in each iteration of the resource mobilisation text.
Successive iterations of language around the new financial instrument from Cali (left) to Rome (centre and right). Source: UN CBD (2024, 2025a, 2025b)
One of the drivers behind finance reform is that developing countries say they can struggle to access biodiversity finance. Ramson Karmushu from the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity told a press conference that submitting a funding proposal can be complicated and time-consuming.
He further noted that proposals which ask for data can be difficult for Indigenous peoples when the data is “in our minds, not in computers”.
Lim Li Ching from TWN, meanwhile, told Carbon Brief that despite the financial goals for 2025 and 2030 not being discussed in Rome, they remain “incredibly important”. She concluded:
“There’s still a long road ahead, but we live to fight another day.”
Global review
Another text that was adopted in Rome was on mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review (PMRR), including a global review of progress due to be conducted at COP17 in Armenia in 2026.
This is document outlines the schedule for how countries will assess their progress towards meeting the targets of the GBF in the coming years.
It is the first time in the history of biodiversity talks that countries have agreed to a text specifically on tracking their own progress. The groundwork for this was laid out in the GBF itself, which includes a section on “responsibility and transparency” from countries.
“Planning” refers to countries submitting national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). Countries were meant to submit new NBSAPs by October 2024, but, so far, three-quarters of countries have yet to do so.
“Monitoring” refers to countries using indicators set out in the monitoring framework (see below) to assess their progress towards meeting biodiversity targets.
“Reporting” refers to the need for countries to produce national reports detailing this progress by early 2026. Shortly after this, a “global report” will be produced, assessing NBSAPs and national targets to track whether countries are on track for the targets of the GBF.
“Review” refers to a global review of progress, which is due to take place at COP17.
In Cali, countries managed to produce a bracket-free version of the PMRR text.
At the time, observers said it was generally positive that nations had managed to agree to a way for tracking their own progress, but noted that the text lacked a clear follow-up procedure to ensure countries increase their efforts accordingly after the global review.
Some also lamented the lack of opportunities for all stakeholders, including civil society, to participate in the PMRR process.
Despite countries finalising the text, it was not adopted at the end of the Cali talks. This is because it was scheduled for adoption after the texts on finance, which countries ultimately failed to find consensus on.
In Rome, the CBD secretariat presented a new version of the PMRR text during a plenary on 25 February. This included an adjusted timeline reflecting that work towards the report and review will start following the end of the resumed talks, rather than December 2024 as previously set out.
A representative of the secretariat said the timeline for ensuring all the work is completed is now extremely “tight”, but still achievable.
Many nations expressed their support for the PMRR text and urged other countries to accept it without making any further changes.
However, Russia and Zimbabwe both raised concerns with small details of the text. COP16 president Susana Muhamad said she would consult privately with parties that were not yet happy to accept the PMRR text.
In plenary on the following day, countries turned to the PMRR text again.
At this point, Zimbabwe suggested adding in a new footnote.
Zimbabwe’s specific concern was around a section of the text that invites non-state actors, such as NGOs and companies, to voluntarily contribute what they are doing to meet the targets of the GBF to the CBD’s online portal.
Zimbabwe called for a footnote noting that these submissions shall be subject to the consent and approval of the country that the non-state actor is based in.
This call was backed by Cameroon, Egypt, Indonesia, Russia, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, the DRC and Russia, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin. It was opposed by the European Union and Norway.
Explaining the possible motivations of including such a footnote in the text, one observer told Carbon Brief that, from a “positive” perspective, it might allow countries to block “greenwashing” from companies, adding:
“If you want to be a little bit more cynical about it, it gives countries an opportunity to be less open to hearing from voices they don’t necessarily want to hear criticism from.”
The next day, all nations agreed to include this new footnote – leaving no outstanding issues.
During the summit’s final plenary session, the PMRR text was gavelled through with no objections.
Monitoring framework
The monitoring framework is a document that lays out how countries will measure their progress towards the individual targets of the GBF, using four types of indicators: headline; binary; component; and complementary:
- Headline indicators: used to measure quantifiable progress towards a given target, such as the pledge to restore 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.
- Binary indicators: yes-or-no questions used to evaluate progress towards more qualitative goals, such as engagement with women and youth.
- Component indicators: used to measure progress towards specific parts of the targets of the GBF.
- Complementary indicators: used to measure progress towards related goals that are not made explicit in the GBF itself.
While headline and binary indicators are mandatory for countries to report, component and complementary indicators are optional.
During the Cali summit, Lim Li Lin, a senior legal and environment advisor at Third World Network, told Carbon Brief:
“Everyone’s doing a juggle, right? We want the good ones to go in the mandatory and we want the bad ones to go in the complementary, if we can’t get rid of them. And everyone’s doing the same thing from their own interest and perspective.”
Going into Rome, the entire monitoring framework was contained in brackets – meaning, in UN parlance, that the text had not been agreed. This was a result of manoeuvring by the DRC during Cali to ensure that the fate of the framework was tied to that of the finance deal.
Within the text, however, were two outstanding areas of disagreement: one on the indicator for target 7 on reducing harm from pollution, including pesticides; and one on the indicator for target 16 on enabling sustainable consumption.
On pesticide usage, parties were split between requiring countries to report their “pesticide environment concentration” and the “aggregated total applied toxicity”. The former was adopted as part of the monitoring framework during COP15, while the latter was proposed by the technical expert group that met in between COP15 and COP16.
In Colombia, parties converged on allowing both methods to be used as headline indicators, but could not reach agreement on an accompanying footnote explaining why both were being listed and how parties had to report.
In the plenary on 25 February, the UK proposed a compromise footnote text allowing parties to choose which headline indicator to use.
Although some countries suggested prioritising one indicator over the other, the proposal was approved “in the spirit of compromise”, Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported. A separate footnote explained that the FAO is working to “further develop and test the aggregated total applied toxicity headline indicator”.
On sustainable use, countries were split over non-binding component indicators on “global environmental impacts of consumption” and “ecological footprint”. Brazil suggested removing the indicator on global impacts of consumption, “noting that it cannot be validated at the national level”, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
Discussions on the sustainable-use indicators spilled over into the second day of the Rome talks. The compromise proposal, brought forward by the EU, was to remove the indicator on global environmental impacts of consumption, but retain the indicator on ecological footprint, along with a footnote on methodology and the availability of data.
The updated text was accepted with no objections during the final plenary on 27 February.
Cooperation with other conventions
A text highlighting the links between the Convention on Biological Diversity and other organisations was not discussed until the final hours of the Rome talks.
The text was not viewed as contentious near the start of the three-day summit. Amid the trickier negotiations, it was pushed down on the agenda until a dramatic finale in which the text was approved, un-approved and then gavelled through with last-minute amendments.
The Cook Islands and other countries expressed disappointment with the final tweaks, but said they agreed in order to get a deal over the line.
The agreement recognised, among other things, the ties between the three Rio Conventions – the UN treaties agreed in 1992 under which countries meet separately to negotiate on climate change, biodiversity and desertification.
The final COP16 cooperation decision “invites” countries to “strengthen synergies and cooperation in the implementation of each convention, in accordance with national circumstances and priorities”.
The presidency released a new version of the draft text on 27 February. Among the changes in this text from the previous December draft was the removal of two bracketed paragraphs stressing the importance of future collaboration between the CBD and the global treaty on governing the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (“BBNJ”, or the “High Seas Treaty”).
In the closing plenary, Iceland opposed the deletion of these “two very important paragraphs” referring to the BBNJ treaty “without any discussion”. Russia, supported later by Brazil, stood by the deletion, adding that they were “not in a position to bring [those paragraphs] back”.
The negotiations on this draft went on until close to midnight on 27 February when Muhamad said, much like “Cinderella”, they were running out of time. (The UN translators were supposed to work only until midnight, although they ended up staying through the end of the plenary.) In light of this constraint – and amid disagreement on BBNJ’s inclusion – Muhamad withdrew discussions on the text, pushing its agreement to COP17.
However, Switzerland, the EU and Zimbabwe intervened to push for the approval of the “really important” text. Iceland withdrew its intervention on BBNJ and Muhamad moved to adopt the document.
But Russia noted that the president had not addressed their proposal to delete paragraph 20, which discussed collaboration with the future UN plastic pollution treaty on the pollution-reducing target of the GBF.
After indications of support from India, Switzerland and the EU, the text was adopted by the plenary – now with paragraph 20 removed.
But it did not end there. Argentina took to the floor to suggest further amendments in three parts of the text. Muhamad said this interjection was too late, but Argentina argued that they requested to speak before the gavel fell.
Brazil backed Argentina and recalled the ending of COP15 in Montreal when the final GBF was gavelled through, despite objections by the DRC.
Brazil said this is a “wound that has not healed” for developing countries and that, while they disagree with Argentina’s position, they support their right to speak up.
Muhamad said she did not see Argentina’s request before dropping the gavel, but offered to postpone cooperation negotiations, if countries agreed. The EU did not want this and suggested deleting the paragraphs Argentina took issue with.
These included paragraph 7, referring to FAO work on a draft action plan on biodiversity for food and nutrition, and paragraph 12, discussing the rights of nature and other knowledge systems.
Georgia and Zimbabwe intervened to say that, while unfortunate to remove this text, they agreed with the EU. After more back-and-forth, the text was once again gavelled through, with the proposed amendments.
The final text also referenced outcomes from the UN Environment Programme, the World Health Organization and others.
Around the COP
The Rome COP was a more low-key affair than other summits. There were no side events, parallel meetings or working groups – just plenary sessions, followed by informal evening meetings between countries.
Around 1,000 people attended the talks, compared to 14,000 in Cali.
In the run-up to the summit, Muhamad’s COP16 presidency was called into question after she announced her resignation as Colombia’s environment minister on 9 February. The move was in protest of a controversial cabinet appointment by president Gustavo Petro, Reuters reported.
Muhamad asked Petro in her resignation letter to let her remain in the position until 3 March to allow her to conclude the COP16 talks, Climate Home News said.
In the end, she presided over the Rome talks, telling Carbon Brief in a press conference that she continued to have full capacity as environment minister.
Environment ministers and vice-ministers from Canada, Colombia, DRC, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Peru, Armenia, Fiji, Germany, Suriname confirmed they would attend the talks.
The Cali Fund – a mechanism where companies can contribute money if they use digitally accessed genetic resources from nature in their products – was officially launched at a press conference in Rome on Tuesday 25 February.
The fund – which was one of the major successes of the Cali talks – is currently empty.
A number of companies are already “actively considering” paying into the fund, Astrid Schomaker said at the launch of the fund. (She would not name specific companies when asked by Carbon Brief.)
The CBD chief said the convention has actively contacted companies and business groups to discuss paying into the fund. Muhamad added at the press conference that the fund is not for “charity from the companies”, but “fair payment for the use of global biodiversity”.
The resumed nature talks came at a volatile time in climate and nature diplomacy. The new administration of the US – a major donor to climate and nature funds – caused turmoil and uncertainty across the globe when Donald Trump announced moves to shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAid).
The UN confirmed to Carbon Brief that the US did not send a delegation to Rome.
This was a first for biodiversity talks. Despite not being party to the CBD, US officials usually still attend talks to contribute to negotiations as observers.
At the opening plenary of the talks, Susana Muhamad spoke about the need for agreement amid the current “polarised, fragmented, divisive geopolitical landscape”. She added:
“We have an important responsibility here in Rome. In 2025, we can send a light globally and be able to say that still, even with our differences, even with our tensions…we are able to collaboratively work together for something that transcends our own interests.”
At the sidelines of the talks, the UK made a snap decision to belatedly publish its NBSAP, Carbon Brief reported.
Some three-quarters of nations still have not published their NBSAPs, four months after the UN deadline.
On the summit’s final day, youth activists held a demonstration in the corridors of the conference, in protest of their lack of opportunities to speak at the event.
The post COP16: Key outcomes agreed at the resumed UN biodiversity conference in Rome appeared first on Carbon Brief.
COP16: Key outcomes agreed at the resumed UN biodiversity conference in Rome
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