More than 85% of countries are set to miss the UN’s deadline to submit new nature pledges ahead of the COP16 biodiversity summit in Colombia, according to a joint investigation by Carbon Brief and the Guardian.
Three of the G7 nations are among those not to publish new national pledges, known as national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), ahead of the talks, which will take place in the city of Cali from from 21 October to 1 November..
Only five of the 17 “megadiverse countries” – which together provide a home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity – have produced new pledges for tackling nature loss, according to the Carbon Brief and Guardian analysis.
The three nations that hold the vast majority of the Amazon rainforest – Brazil, Peru and COP16 host nation Colombia – have all failed to produce new nature plans before the talks.
All of the six countries responsible for the Congo basin in Africa, the world’s second-largest rainforest after the Amazon, also missed the deadline.
Representatives from environment ministries across the world tell Carbon Brief and the Guardian that “technical difficulties” and “structural barriers” – ranging from the need for lengthy consultations with stakeholders to delays caused by general elections – prevented them from meeting the deadline.
Biodiversity on Earth is declining at a faster rate than at any time in human history. Around one million animal and plant species face extinction, with human activity having already altered 70% of the land surface and 87% of the ocean.
Missed deadlines and delays
At COP15 in 2022, nations signed a landmark agreement called the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which aims to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030. It is often described as the “Paris Agreement for nature”.
As part of the agreement, countries agreed to submit new NBSAPs “by” COP16 in October 2024.
NBSAPs are blueprints for how individual countries plan to tackle biodiversity loss, as well as ensure they meet the targets outlined in the GBF.
They are similar to nationally determined contributions (NDCs), plans that outline how individual countries envisage meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, a key difference is that countries are legally obliged to submit NDCs, but not NBSAPs.
The publishing of new NBSAPs was meant to ensure that countries actually implement the targets of the GBF within their borders. A lack of implementation was widely cited as one of the major factors behind the failure of the last set of global biodiversity rules, the Aichi targets, which were agreed in 2010.
However, the Carbon Brief and Guardian analysis shows that just 25 countries and the EU have met the deadline to publish an NBSAP ahead of COP16. This leaves 170 countries that have not met the deadline.
(Carbon Brief’s in-depth NBSAP tracker contains a full list of the 26 parties that have published an NBSAP and examines what their plans say about stemming biodiversity loss.)
Rainforests at risk
Only five of the 17 “megadiverse countries” – which together provide a home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity – have produced new NBSAPs. This includes Australia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Mexico.
The megadiverse countries to miss the deadline are Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela. (The US is a megadiverse country, but is not a signatory to the biodiversity convention.)
A representative for COP16 host nation Colombia tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that the country has been working “for over a year” on its NBSAP, starting before the country knew it would host the next round of biodiversity talks. (Colombia offered to host COP16 last year after the original host Turkey was forced to withdraw following major earthquakes in the country.)
In 2024, the environment ministry “organised more than 30 events in every region of the country, reaching more than 20 cities” to consult a range of Indigenous and local community groups on the ministry’s proposal for tackling nature loss in the country, the spokesperson says.
This lengthy consultation process has caused the country to miss the deadline, the spokesperson adds. However, they say that Colombia plans to publish its NBSAP at the start of the COP16 summit.
A representative for Brazil – the most biodiverse nation on Earth, home to nearly 60% of the Amazon rainforest – also tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that the publishing of its NBSAP has been delayed by a “broad consultation process”.
Braulio Dias, director of biodiversity conservation at the Brazilian ministry of environment, who is responsible for the NBSAP process, says:
“Brazil is a huge country with the largest share of biodiversity [and] a large population with a complex governance. We are a federation with 26 states and 5,570 municipalities. We started the process to update our NBSAP in May last year and have managed to conclude a broad consultation process involving over a thousand people in face-to-face meetings.
“We are in the process of consolidating all proposals received, consulting all the departments of the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, all the federal ministries and agencies engaged in the biodiversity agenda and the National Biodiversity Committee, before we can have a high-level political endorsement. Then we still have to build a monitoring strategy, a finance strategy and a communication strategy. We will only conclude this process toward the end of the year or early next year.”
The representative of another megadiverse nation, India, declined repeated requests for comment on why it has not published its NBSAP.
Back in August, Dr V Rajagopalan, chair of India’s working group tasked with reviewing the country’s NBSAP, told Carbon Brief that one challenge for the country was translating the global goals of the GBF into a workable plan for the nation:
“Our situation is different from the west: what can be done there, cannot be done here. [F]or example, [the issue of] subsidies is a challenge for us – similarly, pesticides – because of our agricultural status and food-security requirements. But, still, we have kept our targets very ambitious.”
UN biodiversity chief Astrid Schomaker tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that she expects India to announce its NBSAP during COP16.
Commenting on why so many nations have missed the deadline to submit new NBSAPs before COP16, Schomaker says that some countries have struggled to access the funding needed to prepare their plans or have been delayed by pursuing a “whole of society” approach to pulling them together. She adds:
“More NBSAPs would be better. That’s clear…These are different processes and better than we’ve had in the past.”
Major economies missing
Three of the G7 nations did not produce new NBSAPs ahead of COP16. Germany and the UK missed the deadline, while the US is not a signatory to the convention.
Missing the target time could be particularly damaging for the UK’s reputation at the negotiations. It campaigned for an ambitious agreement at COP15 and is the oceans lead of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People group of nations.
The UK pledged to publish its NBSAP by May of this year – and even organised a launch event at Wicken Fen nature reserve in Cambridgeshire for that month – before a change of government in Scotland forced a postponement.
The release of the strategy was delayed further by a UK general election in July – and the new Labour party government now intends to publish it in the new year, as revealed by Carbon Brief earlier this month.
Although it will not now publish a new NBSAP before COP16, the UK did provide the UN with a technical document, known as a national target submission, in place of its strategy. (Around 77 countries have submitted national targets to the CBD ahead of COP16, according to Schomaker.)
When approached about missing the deadline for producing a new NBSAP ahead of COP16, a spokesperson for the Department for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) referred to the UK’s national target submission, saying:
“Nature and our wildlife underpin everything – the economy, food, health and society. That is why we have submitted the UK’s biodiversity targets to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), aligning us with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and committing us to achieve the agreements made at COP15.”
The post COP16: More than 85% of countries miss UN deadline to submit nature pledges appeared first on Carbon Brief.
COP16: More than 85% of countries miss UN deadline to submit nature pledges
From cross-border pipelines for green hydrogen that can also carry natural gas, to sustainable aviation fuel that threatens forests, and costly carbon capture projects that are used to recover more oil, “false solutions” to climate change have gained ground in recent years, often backed by fossil fuel firms.
A new research paper, published last month in the journal Energy Research and Social Science, shines a light on this trend, exploring such projects that have also caused environmental injustices such as air pollution or depriving communities of their source of income.
The study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), in collaboration with the University of Sussex, is based on 48 cases of environmental conflicts around the world, contained in the ICTA-UAB’s Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas).
The selected cases range from Norway’s Trollvind offshore wind farm, built partly to decarbonise the power supply to the Troll and Oseberg oil and gas fields; to US fossil fuel firms working with the dairy industry to turn manure into biogas; and a tree plantation in the Republic of Congo proposed by TotalEnergies, where locals say they have been prevented from accessing their customary farmland.
“House of cards”: Verra used junk carbon credits to fix Shell’s offsetting scandal
The researchers argue that “false solutions” – which also include large-scale carbon offsetting projects, many of which have been discredited – help to reinforce the political and economic power of the industry that is responsible for the climate crisis, and are undermining the global energy transition.
Climate Home News spoke to co-author Freddie Daley, a research associate at the University of Sussex’s Centre for Global Political Economy, about the paper’s findings and implications for climate policy.
Q: What was your motivation in exploring these types of “false solutions” to the climate crisis?
A: It’s very much a reaction to the fossil fuel industry insisting these technologies are solutions, rather than us creating a typology of things that are not working. All of the [paper’s] authors are very keen on a habitable planet – and we’re not going to let perfection be the enemy of the good.
But this is a call [to] arms to say that governments need to be very careful about what they’re giving public subsidy to, because in a complex situation – where there’s an urgency for reducing emissions but also for creating sustainable livelihoods and for ensuring that the needs of people living in and around these projects are met – I think it’s very important to scrutinise the viability of these schemes.
The starting point was off the back of oil majors – or so-called integrated energy companies – coming out and being very bullish on sustainability and net zero, and alongside this, proffering that they were part of the solution to climate mitigation, energy transition, job creation, green growth. And we took this as a problem statement to begin our analysis: How can fossil companies be part of the solution?
Q: What did your work reveal about “false solutions” and how can it deepen understanding of them?
A: “False solutions” is a term that’s been used for many, many years by Indigenous groups and by frontline communities – so we wanted to formalise it because it’s not really been engaged with in academic literature so far. We thought it was quite a big gap that needed to be filled.
We thought how can we categorise it? How can we help redefine it? What are the characteristics of these false solutions? So we dug into the data, the EJ Atlas, across many technologies – from hydrogen through to carbon offsets and biofuels, but also renewable energy projects, because we were finding that renewable energy projects causing conflicts were either being used to fuel fossil fuel production, such as solar panels or wind turbines to run rigs, which we thought was an interesting pattern – and also utility-scale renewable energy projects which were operated by fossil fuel firms.
Out of total energy generation, fossil fuel companies’ production of renewables is a tiny, tiny fraction. Why do these projects exist, and how do they operate within the broader energy system? We wanted to look at what their function was – and going through the data and the lived experience of the communities on the frontlines of these projects, we found that they’re very much used to legitimise fossil fuel expansion or just continued operation.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
And then we also looked at the governmental role within the institutions as well – so fossil fuel firms using these technologies and these false solutions as ways to garner public subsidy, particularly for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen, to some degree.
And what we found across all these cases was they did very little to reduce emissions and generated environmental conflicts… and they ultimately delayed an energy transition, or the sort of industrial transformation that’s required to deliver deep and rapid emissions cuts.
Q: Shouldn’t fossil fuel companies be able to use all the climate solutions available to help reduce their emissions while the world is transitioning away from coal, oil and gas?
A: My response [to that argument] is to actually look at the data. When people say hydrogen and CCS are very important and they’re crucial, I don’t disagree with the idea that we might need some sort of technology to suck carbon out the atmosphere at some point in the future. But currently, the operational projects are not delivering that, and fossil fuel projects should not be expanded on the premise that future technologies can undo their emissions.
Just a few weeks ago, the Financial Times ran a very big story about how most of the oil majors have cancelled all their hydrogen projects because the scale of it’s not there yet, and they don’t think it’s going to stack up. These are companies with huge amounts of capital in an easy-to-abate sector – energy – saying we’re not going to do this. So you have to question the plan of hydrogen as a solution, if even the people that have the expertise and the capital to make it work are saying we’re not going to do this because we cannot make it work.
Likewise with carbon capture, many of the large energy projects and energy producers that have garnered vast amounts of public subsidies on the promise that they will do carbon capture are cutting those research projects down.
So at this stage in the energy transition – which some people call the “mid transition”, the difficult part – I think we need to scrutinise these technologies and look at what they do deliver on a project-by-project basis, and then on an aggregate basis.
Q: High-carbon industries say they need government subsidies to cover the high cost of researching, developing and creating markets for new technologies to help combat climate change. Is this justified?
A: I’m a big believer in the idea that the energy transition – the ideal energy transition, which is one of scaling up new industry while phasing out an old one – is going to require not only public money, but public coordination. That means states actively stewarding investment, picking winners and sequencing what is going to be a highly disruptive process.
I think public subsidy is necessary. We need to see deep and rapid decarbonisation, especially in wealthy industrialised states, but it should be used in a very targeted way to scale up technologies which have a marked impact on emissions and also uplift welfare as well – so heat pumps insulating homes in poorer communities. With these sort of things, you get your bang for your buck.
Comment: The battle over a global energy transition is on between petro-states and electro-states
You don’t get bang for your buck giving BP and Shell money to pilot a carbon capture and storage facility. It’s an extension of existing relationships between big business and government that needs to be looked at closely in the context of energy transition, because ultimately, these companies are not serious about transitioning at the requisite speed or scale to stave off climate disaster.
Look at both oil and gas companies’ ownership of renewable assets (1.42% of operational renewable projects around the world) and the renewables share of their primary generation (0.13%). They have the capital, and they have the know-how to do this. They haven’t done it. The question is, why do they need more public subsidy to continue not doing it?
This interview was shortened and edited for clarity.
The post Q&A: “False” climate solutions help keep fossil fuel firms in business appeared first on Climate Home News.
Q&A: “False” climate solutions help keep fossil fuel firms in business
Climate Change
States Say They Need More Help Replacing Lead Pipes. Congress May Cut the Funding Instead.
The U.S. House voted to cut millions promised for the work this year. The Senate will vote this week, as advocates and some lawmakers push back.
The Senate is taking up a spending package passed by the House of Representatives that would cut $125 million in funding promised this year to replace toxic lead pipes.
States Say They Need More Help Replacing Lead Pipes. Congress May Cut the Funding Instead.
Here are 6 inspiring books discussing oceans, critiques of capitalism, the Indigenous fight for environmental justice, and hope—for your upcoming reading list this year.
The Deepest Map: The High-Stakes Race to Chart the World’s Oceans
by Laura Trethewey (2023)
This book reminds me of the statement saying that people hear more about the moon and other planets in space than what lies beneath Earth’s oceans, which are often cited as ‘scary’ and ‘harsh’. Through investigative and in-depth reportage, ocean journalist and writer Laura Trethewey tackles important aspects of ocean mapping.
The mapping and exploration can be very useful to understand more about the oceans and to learn how we can protect them. On the other hand, thanks to neoliberal capitalism, it can potentially lead to commercial exploitation and mass industrialisation of this most mysterious ecosystem of our world.
The Deepest Map is not as intimidating as it sounds. Instead, it’s more exciting than I anticipated as it shows us more discoveries we may little know of: interrelated issues between seafloor mapping, geopolitical implications, ocean exploitation due to commercial interest, and climate change.
The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality
by Katharina Pistor (2019)
Through The Code of Capital, Katharina Pistor talks about the correlation between law and the creation of wealth and inequality. She noted that though the wealthy love to claim hard work and skills as reasons why they easily significantly generate their fortunes, their accumulation of wealth would not last long without legal coding.
“The law is a powerful tool for social ordering and, if used wisely, has the potential to serve a broad range of social objectives: yet, for reasons and with implications that I attempt to explain, the law has been placed firmly in the service of capital,” she stated.
The book does not only show interesting takes on looking at inequality and the distribution of wealth, but also how those people in power manage to hoard their wealth with certain codes and laws, such as turning land into private property, while lots of people are struggling under the unjust system.
The Intersectional Environmentalist: How to Dismantle Systems of Oppression to Protect People + Planet
by Leah Thomas (2022)
Arguing that capitalism, racism, and other systems of oppression are the drivers of exploitation, activist Leah Thomas focuses on addressing the application of intersectionality to environmental justice through The Intersectional Environmentalist. Marginalised people all over the world are already on the front lines of the worsening climate crisis yet struggling to get justice they deserve.
I echo what she says, as a woman born and raised in Indonesia where clean air and drinkable water are considered luxury in various regions, where the extreme weather events exacerbated by the climate crisis hit the most vulnerable communities (without real mitigation and implementations by the government while oligarchies hijack our resources).
I think this powerful book is aligned with what Greenpeace has been speaking up about for years as well, that social justice and climate justice are deeply intertwined so it’s crucial to fight for both at the same time to help achieve a sustainable future for all.
As Long As Grass Grows
by Dina Gilio-Whitaker (2019)
Starting with the question “what does environmental justice look like when Indigenous people are at the centre?” Dina Gilio-Whitaker takes us to see the complexities of environmental justice and the endless efforts of Indigenous people in Indian country (the lands and communities of Native American tribes) to restore their traditional cultures while healing from the legacy of trauma caused by hundreds of years of Western colonisation.
She emphasizes that what distinguishes Indigenous peoples from colonisers is their unbroken spiritual relationship to their ancestral homelands. “The origin of environmental justice for Indigenous people is dispossession of land in all its forms; injustice is continually reproduced in what is inherently a culturally genocidal structure that systematically erases Indigenous people’s relationships and responsibilities to their ancestral places,” said Gilio-Whitaker.
I believe that the realm of today’s modern environmentalism should include Indigenous communities and learn their history: the resistance, the time-tested climate knowledge systems, their harmony with nature, and most importantly, their crucial role in preserving our planet’s biodiversity.
The Book of Hope
by Jane Goodall and Douglas Abrams with Gail Hudson (2021)
The Book of Hope is a marvelous glimpse into primatologist and global figure Jane Goodall’s life and work. The collaborator of the book, journalist Douglas Abrams, makes this reading experience even more enjoyable by sharing the reflective conversations between them, such as the definition of hope, and how to keep it alive amid difficult times.
Sadly, as we all know, Jane passed away this year. We have lost an incredible human being in the era when we need more someone like her who has inspired millions to care about nature, someone whose wisdom radiated warmth and compassion. Though she’s no longer with us, her legacy to spread hope stays.
Ocean: Earth’s Last Wilderness
by David Attenborough and Colin Butfield (2025)
“I could only have dreamed of recording in the early stages of my career, and we have changed the ocean so profoundly that the next hundred years could either witness a mass extinction of ocean life or a spectacular recovery.”
The legend David Attenborough highlights how much humans have yet to understand the ocean in his latest book with Colin Butfield. The first part of it begins with what has happened in a blue whale’s lifetime. Later it takes us to coral reefs, the deep of the ocean, kelp forest, mangroves, even Arctic, Oceanic seamounts, and Southern Ocean. The book contains powerful stories and scientific facts that will inspire ocean lovers, those who love to learn more about this ecosystem, and those who are willing to help protect our Earth.
To me, this book is not only about the wonder of the ocean, but also about hope to protect our planet. Just like what Attenborough believes: the more people understand nature, the greater our hope of saving it.
Kezia Rynita is a Content Editor for Greenpeace International, based in Indonesia.
-
Greenhouse Gases5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change5 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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits