This article will be updated throughout the day and an edited version will be sent out each evening as a newsletter – you can sign up here.
Finance: Everything back on the table
Yesterday, developing countries told the co-chairs of the talks on a new climate finance goal to put all the options they wanted back into a nine-page text that had been slimmed down as a basis for negotiations. They went away last night and did so – and at 8.30 this morning they released a new text, which is 34 pages long.
Fernanda Carvalho, WWF’s climate and energy policy lead, described the ballooning length as “frustrating” because “after three years of preliminary talks, we had hoped to see a more streamlined text at this point”. She noted that the “swollen draft text puts everything back on the table – both good and bad options”.
The basic options on the structure of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) remain the same in both texts. The first option is a goal for a certain dollar amount, consisting of finance provided by governments and private finance mobilised by their money.
The second is a provision and mobilisation goal, plus a wider investment goal that includes private and domestic finance. As this goal is “multi-layered”, it has been compared to an onion – and it’s what developed countries want.
There are several different proposals for the size of the government finance goal: $100bn+, $1tn+, $1.1tn, $1.3tn+ or $2tn. Developed countries want less and developing countries want more, with the G77 and China umbrella group jointly pushing for $1.3tn+.
On who pays, both texts include the same options – either just developed countries or various criteria to identify a larger set of contributors based on countries’ wealth and emissions. The African Group’s lead negotiator Ali Mohamed said today that attempts to widen the contributor base beyond developed countries were “why we had to reject the earlier draft”.
Newly arrived in the text are specific proposals for minimum amounts that should go to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The latest text has options for $220bn for LDCs and $39bn for SIDS in grant-equivalent terms each year.
It also introduces options specifying that climate finance should transition away from fossil fuels or “emissions intensive investments”. That might seem obvious but it’s not, for example, to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – which last year counted its investment in a gas-fired power plant in Bangladesh as climate finance.
Both the new and old texts have – outside brackets, suggesting it’s uncontroversial – commitments to phasing out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions”. But the new text adds a target date of 2025 alongside the previous text’s options of 2035 and “as soon as possible”.
MDBs’ big climate-cash goal
Multilateral development banks (MDBs) say they are “walking the talk” on climate finance as pressure piles on them to channel more of their cash into developing countries’ efforts to shift to clean energy and adapt to climate change.
Their overall climate finance provision is estimated to reach $170 billion a year by 2030 – up 30% from a “record high” of $125 billion in 2023, the group of ten MDBs, including the World Bank, said in a joint statement on Tuesday.
Drilling down into the numbers, over 70% of the money ($120 billion) is expected to go to low and middle-income countries, with more than a third of that earmarked for adaptation.
Rob Moore, associate director for public banks and development at think-tank E3G, told journalists on Wednesday that this number is “significant” as it “provides a basis” for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) to go significantly beyond the existing figure of $100 billion a year.
MDBs have been under the spotlight over the last few years as several country leaders and campaigners have called for wide-ranging reforms that would enable the financial institutions to pour more money into climate action. The World Bank – the largest among them – updated its mission to focus more on climate and made a series of technical tweaks to free up more capital for projects across the world.
Nadia Calviño, president of the European Investment Bank, said in a statement on Tuesday that “the family of multilateral development banks is walking the talk” with its new climate finance commitment. But experts think MDBs could and should go further.
Economists Vera Songwe and Nicholas Stern wrote in an influential report last year that development banks need to triple their lending to $390 billion by 2030 with a substantial chunk of the extra dollars funding climate projects.
In their statement on Tuesday, MDBs warned that their ability to do more largely depends on the commitment of their shareholders from both developed and developing countries. The group of banks urged them to show “greater ambition”, adding that “additional capital” could “unlock more MDB financing”.
Campaigners have also raised concerns over where the MDB’s climate cash actually ends up and on what terms it is provided.
In a report published this week, NGO Recourse said that the lenders’ definition of climate finance is “far from as extensive and stringent as required”, allowing for “troubling and high emitting projects”, like fossil gas, waste-to-energy incineration and airport expansion projects, to count as climate finance. It also highlighted that the majority of funding comes as loans, which contributes to “worsening the debt crisis in many countries”, the NGO said.
The MDBs added on Tuesday that they aimed to mobilise an additional $130 billion a year from the private sector by 2030. The development lenders have repeatedly stressed their role as multipliers of climate finance, using relatively modest amounts of public money to unlock much higher private capital.
But a Climate Home investigation earlier this year found private-sector climate projects enabled with the World Bank’s backing included the renovation of luxury hotels in Senegal, while a vulnerable fishing community next door struggled against rising seas with almost no support.
Meanwhile, some leaders are continuing their search for “innovative” ways to fill up the climate coffers. Barbados’ Prime Minister Mia Mottley used her speech on Tuesday to point out that putting levies on shipping companies, airlines, and bonds and stocks, as well as taxing fossil fuel extraction, could raise hundreds of billions of dollars.
Fourteen countries – including France, Spain, Kenya, Senegal and Colombia – plus the European Commission and the African Union are trying to make those ideas more concrete through a “Coalition for Solidarity Levies”. It announced five new developing-country members in Baku on Tuesday and said it will target carbon-intensive industries.
In brief…
Fossil fuel emissions still rising: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels worldwide are expected to grow 0.8% in 2024, belying predictions of a peak, according to the Global Carbon Project. That’s higher than the average growth rate of 0.6% per year over the past decade and follows a rise of 1.4% in 2023. Global fossil CO2 emissions are now 8% higher than in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was negotiated. Emissions from coal use are set to increase 0.2% in 2024, hitting another record high, due to growth in India and China.
Youth take on NDCs: Youth-led organisations are calling for a “Universal NDC Youth Clause” to be included in countries’ updated national climate plans, urging governments to involve young people more actively in climate strategies. The proposed clause has three pillars: recognising young people as essential drivers of climate action, collaborating with youth in developing the NDCs, and educating young people on the impacts of climate change. At the launch, the organisations noted that “several governments” are expected to announce commitments to the clause in the coming days.
The post COP29 Bulletin Day 3: New finance text and development banks’ 2030 offer appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP29 Bulletin Day 3: Finance text balloons and Brazil presents new NDC
Climate Change
What Is the Economic Impact of Data Centers? It’s a Secret.
N.C. Gov. Josh Stein wants state lawmakers to rethink tax breaks for data centers. The industry’s opacity makes it difficult to evaluate costs and benefits.
Tax breaks for data centers in North Carolina keep as much as $57 million each year into from state and local government coffers, state figures show, an amount that could balloon to billions of dollars if all the proposed projects are built.
Climate Change
GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), a multilateral fund that provides climate and nature finance to developing countries, has raised $3.9 billion from donor governments in its last pledging session ahead of a key fundraising deadline at the end of May.
The amount, which is meant to cover the fund’s activities for the next four years (July 2026-June 2030), falls significantly short of the previous four-year cycle for which the GEF managed to raise $5.3bn from governments. Since then, military and other political priorities have squeezed rich nations’ budgets for climate and development aid.
The facility said in a statement that it expects more pledges ahead of the final replenishment package, which is set for approval at the next GEF Council meeting from May 31 to June 3.
Claude Gascon, interim CEO of the GEF, said that “donor countries have risen to the challenge and made bold commitments towards a more positive future for the planet”. He added that the pledges send a message that “the world is not giving up on nature even in a time of competing priorities”.
Donors under pressure
But Brian O’Donnell, director of the environmental non-profit Campaign for Nature, said the announcement shows “an alarming trend” of donor governments cutting public finance for climate and nature.
“Wealthy nations pledged to increase international nature finance, and yet we are seeing cuts and lower contributions. Investing in nature prevents extinctions and supports livelihoods, security, health, food, clean water and climate,” he said. “Failing to safeguard nature now will result in much larger costs later.”
At COP29 in Baku, developed countries pledged to mobilise $300bn a year in public climate finance by 2035, while at UN biodiversity talks they have also pledged to raise $30bn per year by 2030. Yet several wealthy governments have announced cuts to green finance to increase defense spending, among them most recently the UK.
As for the US, despite Trump’s cuts to international climate finance, Congress approved a $150 million increase in its contribution to the GEF after what was described as the organisation’s “refocus on non-climate priorities like biodiversity, plastics and ocean ecosystems, per US Treasury guidance”.
The facility will only reveal how much each country has pledged when its assembly of 186 member countries meets in early June. The last period’s largest donors were Germany ($575 million), Japan ($451 million), and the US ($425 million).
The GEF has also gone through a change in leadership halfway through its fundraising cycle. Last December, the GEF Council asked former CEO Carlos Manuel Rodriguez to step down effective immediately and appointed Gascon as interim CEO.
Santa Marta conference: fossil fuel transition in an unstable world
New guidelines
As part of the upcoming funding cycle, the GEF has approved a set of guidelines for spending the $3.9bn raised so far, which include allocating 35% of resources for least developed countries and small island states, as well as 20% of the money going to Indigenous people and communities.
Its programs will help countries shift five key systems – nature, food, urban, energy and health – from models that drive degradation to alternatives that protect the planet and support human well-being by integrating the value of nature into production and consumption systems.
The new priorities also include a target to allocate 25% of the GEF’s budget for mobilising private funds through blended finance. This aligns with efforts by wealthy countries to increase contributions from the private sector to international climate finance.
Niels Annen, Germany’s State Secretary for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a statement that the country’s priorities are “very well reflected” in the GEF’s new spending guidelines, including on “innovative finance for nature and people, better cooperation with the private sector, and stable resources for the most vulnerable countries”.
Aliou Mustafa, of the GEF Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), also welcomed the announcement, adding that “the GEF is strengthening trust and meaningful partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities” by placing them at the “centre of decision-making”.
The post GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget appeared first on Climate Home News.
GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget
Climate Change
Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones
Tropical cyclones that rapidly intensify when passing over marine heatwaves can become “supercharged”, increasing the likelihood of high economic losses, a new study finds.
Such storms also have higher rates of rainfall and higher maximum windspeeds, according to the research.
The study, published in Science Advances, looks at the economic damages caused by nearly 800 tropical cyclones that occurred around the world between 1981 and 2023.
It finds that rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones that pass near abnormally warm parts of the ocean produce nearly double – 93% – the economic damages as storms that do not, even when levels of coastal development are taken into account.
One researcher, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new analysis is a “step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future” in an increasingly warm world.
As marine heatwaves are projected to become more frequent under future climate change, the authors say that the interactions between storms and these heatwaves “should be given greater consideration in future strategies for climate adaptation and climate preparedness”.
‘Rapid intensification’
Tropical cyclones are rapidly rotating storm systems that form over warm ocean waters, characterised by low pressure at their cores and sustained winds that can reach more than 120 kilometres per hour.
The term “tropical cyclones” encompasses hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, which are named as such depending on which ocean basin they occur in.
When they make landfall, these storms can cause major damage. They accounted for six of the top 10 disasters between 1900 and 2024 in terms of economic loss, according to the insurance company Aon’s 2025 climate catastrophe insight report.
These economic losses are largely caused by high wind speeds, large amounts of rainfall and damaging storm surges.
Storms can become particularly dangerous through a process called “rapid intensification”.
Rapid intensification is when a storm strengthens considerably in a short period of time. It is defined as an increase in sustained wind speed of at least 30 knots (around 55 kilometres per hour) in a 24-hour period.
There are several factors that can lead to rapid intensification, including warm ocean temperatures, high humidity and low vertical “wind shear” – meaning that the wind speeds higher up in the atmosphere are very similar to the wind speeds near the surface.
Rapid intensification has become more common since the 1980s and is projected to become even more frequent in the future with continued warming. (Although there is uncertainty as to how climate change will impact the frequency of tropical cyclones, the increase in strength and intensification is more clear.)
Marine heatwaves are another type of extreme event that are becoming more frequent due to recent warming. Like their atmospheric counterparts, marine heatwaves are periods of abnormally high ocean temperatures.
Previous research has shown that these marine heatwaves can contribute to a cyclone undergoing rapid intensification. This is because the warm ocean water acts as a “fuel” for a storm, says Dr Hamed Moftakhari, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Alabama who was one of the authors of the new study. He explains:
“The entire strength of the tropical cyclone [depends on] how hot the [ocean] surface is. Marine heatwave means we have an abundance of hot water that is like a gas [petrol] station. As you move over that, it’s going to supercharge you.”
However, the authors say, there is no global assessment of how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves interact – or how they contribute to economic damages.
Using the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) – a database of tropical cyclone paths and intensities – the researchers identify 1,600 storms that made landfall during the 1981-2023 period, out of a total of 3,464 events.
Of these 1,600 storms, they were able to match 789 individual, land-falling cyclones with economic loss data from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and other official sources.
Then, using the IBTrACS storm data and ocean-temperature data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the researchers classify each cyclone by whether or not it underwent rapid intensification and if it passed near a recent marine heatwave event before making landfall.
The researchers find that there is a “modest” rise in the number of marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones globally since 1981, but with significant regional variations. In particular, they say, there are “clear” upward trends in the north Atlantic Ocean, the north Indian Ocean and the northern hemisphere basin of the eastern Pacific Ocean.
‘Storm characteristics’
The researchers find substantial differences in the characteristics of tropical cyclones that experience rapid intensification and those that do not, as well as between rapidly intensifying storms that occur with marine heatwaves and those that occur without them.
For example, tropical cyclones that do not experience rapid intensification have, on average, maximum wind speeds of around 40 knots (74km/hr), whereas storms that rapidly intensify have an average maximum wind speed of nearly 80 knots (148km/hr).
Of the rapidly intensifying storms, those that are influenced by marine heatwaves maintain higher wind speeds during the days leading up to landfall.
Although the wind speeds are very similar between the two groups once the storms make landfall, the pre-landfall difference still has an impact on a storm’s destructiveness, says Dr Soheil Radfar, a hurricane-hazard modeller at Princeton University. Radfar, who is the lead author of the new study, tells Carbon Brief:
“Hurricane damage starts days before the landfall…Four or five days before a hurricane making landfall, we expect to have high wind speeds and, because of that high wind speed, we expect to have storm surges that impact coastal communities.”
They also find that rapidly intensifying storms have higher peak rainfall than non-rapidly intensifying storms, with marine heatwave-influenced, rapidly intensifying storms exhibiting the highest average rainfall at landfall.
The charts below show the mean sustained wind speed in knots (top) and the mean rainfall in millimetres per hour (bottom) for the tropical cyclones analysed in the study in the five days leading up to and two days following a storm making landfall.
The four lines show storms that: rapidly intensified with the influence of marine heatwaves (red); those that rapidly intensified without marine heatwaves (purple); those that experienced marine heatwaves, but did not rapidly intensify (orange); and those that neither rapidly intensified nor experienced a marine heatwave (blue).

Dr Daneeja Mawren, an ocean and climate consultant at the Mauritius-based Mascarene Environmental Consulting who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new study “helps clarify how marine heatwaves amplify storm characteristics”, such as stronger winds and heavier rainfall. She notes that this “has not been done on a global scale before”.
However, Mawren adds that other factors not considered in the analysis can “make a huge difference” in the rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, including subsurface marine heatwaves and eddies – circular, spinning ocean currents that can trap warm water.
Dr Jonathan Lin, an atmospheric scientist at Cornell University who was also not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that, while the intensification found by the study “makes physical sense”, it is inherently limited by the relatively small number of storms that occur. He adds:
“There’s not that many storms, to tease out the physical mechanisms and observational data. So being able to reproduce this kind of work in a physical model would be really important.”
Economic costs
Storm intensity is not the only factor that determines how destructive a given cyclone can be – the economic damages also depend strongly on the population density and the amount of infrastructure development where a storm hits. The study explains:
“A high storm surge in a sparsely populated area may cause less economic damage than a smaller surge in a densely populated, economically important region.”
To account for the differences in development, the researchers use a type of data called “built-up volume”, from the Global Human Settlement Layer. Built-up volume is a quantity derived from satellite data and other high-resolution imagery that combines measurements of building area and average building height in a given area. This can be used as a proxy for the level of development, the authors explain.
By comparing different cyclones that impacted areas with similar built-up volumes, the researchers can analyse how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves contribute to the overall economic damages of a storm.
They find that, even when controlling for levels of coastal development, storms that pass through a marine heatwave during their rapid intensification cause 93% higher economic damages than storms that do not.
They identify 71 marine heatwave-influenced storms that cause more than $1bn (inflation-adjusted across the dataset) in damages, compared to 45 storms that cause those levels of damage without the influence of marine heatwaves.
This quantification of the cyclones’ economic impact is one of the study’s most “important contributions”, says Mawren.
The authors also note that the continued development in coastal regions may increase the likelihood of tropical cyclone damages over time.
Towards forecasting
The study notes that the increased damages caused by marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones, along with the projected increases in marine heatwaves, means such storms “should be given greater consideration” in planning for future climate change.
For Radfar and Moftakhari, the new study emphasises the importance of understanding the interactions between extreme events, such as tropical cyclones and marine heatwaves.
Moftakhari notes that extreme events in the future are expected to become both more intense and more complex. This becomes a problem for climate resilience because “we basically design in the future based on what we’ve observed in the past”, he says. This may lead to underestimating potential hazards, he adds.
Mawren agrees, telling Carbon Brief that, in order to “fully capture the intensification potential”, future forecasts and risk assessments must account for marine heatwaves and other ocean phenomena, such as subsurface heat.
Lin adds that the actions needed to reduce storm damages “take on the order of decades to do right”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“All these [planning] decisions have to come by understanding the future uncertainty and so this research is a step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future.”
The post Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 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”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
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






