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.
Is the end near for COPs in petrostates?
Fossil fuels have been given warm hospitality at COPs in recent years, with the last two climate summits being held in fossil fuel-expanding petrostates with presidencies even getting caught promoting oil and gas deals on the job.
That’s why a group of top climate experts, scientists and former UN chiefs called for reform in an open letter published this Friday, where they argue that countries expanding oil and gas should not be able to hold the COP presidencies.
Signed by former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the letter calls on countries to establish a “strict eligibility criteria to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy”.
The letter does not provide details of who would judge this criteria. Climate Home requested additional information, but had not received a response at the time of publication.
While the experts recognise the importance of UN climate talks, they also call for reform of the COP process, writing that the “current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale” needed to address the climate crisis.
The COP29 presidency has been vocal about its disinterest in a quick fossil-fuel phase out, with Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev even telling the opening plenary that fossil fuels are a “gift from god” and that “we must be realistic” about energy transition.
An analysis of Aliyev’s speeches published today by campaign group 350.org found that the Azeri president defended or promoted fossil fuels in more than three quarters of his energy and climate-related speeches. In over a year of such speeches, Aliyev never even mentioned the Paris Agreement, the campaign group found.
Some campaigners backed the reform proposal. Catherine Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub, said it is “demoralising” to hear the messages sent by Azerbaijan’s COP presidency.
She told media in Baku that the UN climate body, UNFCCC, should come up with a “conflict of interest policy” for delegates and the COP presidency that “puts a firewall between fossil fuel interests and the COP process.
She also called on countries to limit the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP. According to another report published today by Global Witness, almost 1,800 lobbyists have shown up at COP29 – around 700 hundred less than last year but more than the 10 most climate-vulnerable countries combined.
Currently, countries can select who participates in their delegations, either with a “party” or “party overflow” badge. They do not choose people with an “observer” badge. Most lobbyists are observers, but some countries such as Japan, the UK, Canada and Italy brought fossil fuel lobbyists as part of their national delegations, the Global Witness report found.
According to the report, the biggest group of fossil fuel lobbyists is from an observer group called the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) which sent 43 people.
But IETA denies this characterisation. While it does have a representative from French oil and gas giant TotalEnergies, an IETA spokesperson told Climate Home their delegates were “a broad mix” which “includes emitters who are committed to a just transition and solution providers who will help them on that journey”. Drawing up an exclusion list will be contentious.
Peace, Baku style
It is the “Energy, Peace Relief and Recovery” Day here in Baku. But if you’re running through the halls you won’t note much change – as there hasn’t been in conflict-afflicted nations across the world, despite Azerbaijan’s COP Truce proposal.
The COP29 host wanted to pause all the conflicts in the world – which number more than 50 – for the duration of the climate talks, inspired, they said, by the Olympic Truce.
On Friday, the COP Truce appeal did not feature prominently on the agenda. Nonetheless, the presidency said that the initiative received the support of 132 countries. That includes nations currently involved in civil wars and international conflicts, like Sudan, Myanmar, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Azerbaijan itself has yet to reach a fully-fledged peace deal with neighbouring Armenia. According to Azeri media, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry said that there cannot be any “physical meetings” with their Armenian counterparts until December as the climate summit is the government’s main focus.
When the COP Truce was first announced, climate campaigners called it a “performative… PR exercise” and “a distraction” from a separate UN-supported push to strengthen climate action in conflict-affected regions.
On that front, the COP29 presidency and six countries launched today the ‘Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief, and Recovery’, aiming to develop a strategy for preventing climate-induced wars and scaling up support for conflict-struck vulnerable nations.
The initiative will see the creation of a hub through which countries can “collaborate on peace and climate initiatives”.
During an event on this initiative, Climate Home asked Elshad Iskandarov, special envoy of Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, about the ceasefire appeal. He said that the truce was proposed to “foster peace in the world and highlight the importance of climate” without giving any further details.
But not everyone feels attuned to the “COP of peace” vision pushed by the COP presidency. Mohammed Usrof, founder of the Palestinian Youth Climate Negotiators Team, voiced concerns about COP29 being hosted in Azerbaijan because the country is Israel’s biggest crude oil supplier, as shown in a recent report by Oil Change International.
Mila Sirychenko, a Ukrainian activist, had reservations about expressing her views at COP due to the large size of the Russian delegation. Russia’s party at this COP counts 900 people, only topped by the Azeri (995) and Brazil delegations (984).
Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Eni – all companies that supply crude oil to Israel – brought a combined total of 39 lobbyists to the climate summit.
“So many others continue to be complicit with maintaining business as usual,” Usrof told Climate Home, referring to the almost 1,800 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP, many of whom are part of countries’ official delegations. “And, as we see, the business as usual involves the genocide of Gazans”.
“Puzzling” lack of pledges for adaptation
There’s a “great paradox” in evidence at COP29 between leaders’ speeches urgently calling to keep people safe from worsening climate change impacts – and the apparent lack of money available to do that, according to the head of the Adaptation Fund.
The UN fund – which has been at the cutting edge of efforts to build resilience to extreme weather and rising seas for the last two decades – only managed to secure contributions of around $61 million from donor countries at a fundraising event on Thursday, against its annual goal of $300 million.
This despite exhortations from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the UN climate chief at the start of COP29 for rich countries to fill the huge gap in adaptation funding, which could reach $187 billion-$359 billion a year by 2030.
“These missing dollars are not abstractions on a balance sheet: they are lives taken, harvests lost, and development denied,” said Guterres.
While there’s still time for more governments to come forward with new pledges before the end of COP29, Adaptation Fund head Mikko Ollikainen told Climate Home that “this year the situation looks quite difficult”.
“Contributor governments [are] almost all talking about the importance of adaptation – and quite a few of them are recognising the need for grant-based financing for adaptation especially – so it’s puzzling how that relates to the reality of there not being new pledges to the Adaptation Fund or adaptation funds in general,” he said on the sidelines of the COP.
At last year’s climate conference in Dubai, the fund also fell short of the same target – bringing in around $188 million. But there, wealthy governments had an excuse: they were also asked to dig deep to get the fledgling loss and damage fund up and running, which they did to the tune of nearly $700 million.
This year, however, they can’t hide behind the loss and damage fund as new money for that at COP29 has so far amounted to little more than Sweden’s $18.4 million pledge. Sweden has also stumped up around $763 million for the Green Climate Fund and $12 million for the Adaptation Fund.
This week the Adaptation Fund has received pledges from 10 European countries and regions, with flood-hit Spain offering the most ($19 million). The UK and the European Union are so far no-shows, though Germany has said it plans to contribute.
To make matters worse, the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund – also set up under the UN climate talks to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change – has had to suspend a planned pledging event at CO29 after it “didn’t get very good signals” money would be forthcoming, the chair of the LDC Group told Climate Home on Friday.
Ollikainen said “the direction is quite wrong”, with needs going up and less money coming into the coffers of his fund. The Adaptation Fund has a long pipeline of projects but if donors don’t cough up more it will run out of money, he added. It is set to receive income from a 5% levy on sales of offsets in the new UN carbon market, but that may not start until 2026, he noted.
Samoan minister Cedric Schuster, who chairs the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), told Climate Home he remains hopeful more money will come through for vulnerable countries at COP29 – and that the new climate finance goal due to be agreed in Baku will ensure contributions in the future.
“We can’t do anything if there are no pledges,” he said.
In brief…
Green light for new forest carbon credits: A key watchdog for the carbon market has given its high-integrity seal of approval to three methodologies for producing offsets that aim to reduce deforestation under so-called REDD+ projects. No credits have been issued so far under the rulebooks for forest projects approved by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), but the body said “there is a large volume of credits in pipeline”. Hundreds of millions of existing REDD+ offsets have been issued under older methodologies but have faced widespread criticism over their alleged lack of real emissions reductions and failure to protect environmental and human rights. ICVCM did not assess the criteria for these earlier projects and producers of those credits will not be able to claim the high-integrity label unless they switch to the new methodologies.
The post COP29 Bulletin Day 5: Pressure to clean up COPs and shortfall in adaptation pledges appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP29 Bulletin Day 5: Pressure to clean up COPs and shortfall in adaptation pledges
Climate Change
DeBriefed 27 February 2026: Trump’s fossil-fuel talk | Modi-Lula rare-earth pact | Is there a UK ‘greenlash’?
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Absolute State of the Union
‘DRILL, BABY’: US president Donald Trump “doubled down on his ‘drill, baby, drill’ agenda” in his State of the Union (SOTU) address, said the Los Angeles Times. He “tout[ed] his support of the fossil-fuel industry and renew[ed] his focus on electricity affordability”, reported the Financial Times. Trump also attacked the “green new scam”, noted Carbon Brief’s SOTU tracker.
COAL REPRIEVE: Earlier in the week, the Trump administration had watered down limits on mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, reported the Financial Times. It remains “unclear” if this will be enough to prevent the decline of coal power, said Bloomberg, in the face of lower-cost gas and renewables. Reuters noted that US coal plants are “ageing”.
OIL STAY: The US Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments brought by the oil industry in a “major lawsuit”, reported the New York Times. The newspaper said the firms are attempting to head off dozens of other lawsuits at state level, relating to their role in global warming.
SHIP-SHILLING: The Trump administration is working to “kill” a global carbon levy on shipping “permanently”, reported Politico, after succeeding in delaying the measure late last year. The Guardian said US “bullying” could be “paying off”, after Panama signalled it was reversing its support for the levy in a proposal submitted to the UN shipping body.
Around the world
- RARE EARTHS: The governments of Brazil and India signed a deal on rare earths, said the Times of India, as well as agreeing to collaborate on renewable energy.
- HEAT ROLLBACK: German homes will be allowed to continue installing gas and oil heating, under watered-down government plans covered by Clean Energy Wire.
- BRAZIL FLOODS: At least 53 people died in floods in the state of Minas Gerais, after some areas saw 170mm of rain in a few hours, reported CNN Brasil.
- ITALY’S ATTACK: Italy is calling for the EU to “suspend” its emissions trading system (ETS) ahead of a review later this year, said Politico.
- COOKSTOVE CREDITS: The first-ever carbon credits under the Paris Agreement have been issued to a cookstove project in Myanmar, said Climate Home News.
- SAUDI SOLAR: Turkey has signed a “major” solar deal that will see Saudi firm ACWA building 2 gigawatts in the country, according to Agence France-Presse.
$467 billion
The profits made by five major oil firms since prices spiked following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine four years ago, according to a report by Global Witness covered by BusinessGreen.
Latest climate research
- Claims about the “fingerprint” of human-caused climate change, made in a recent US Department of Energy report, are “factually incorrect” | AGU Advances
- Large lakes in the Congo Basin are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from “immense ancient stores” | Nature Geoscience
- Shared Socioeconomic Pathways – scenarios used regularly in climate modelling – underrepresent “narratives explicitly centring on democratic principles such as participation, accountability and justice” | npj Climate Action
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
The constituency of Richard Tice MP, the climate-sceptic deputy leader of Reform UK, is the second-largest recipient of flood defence spending in England, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. Overall, the funding is disproportionately targeted at coastal and urban areas, many of which have Conservative or Liberal Democrat MPs.
Spotlight
Is there really a UK ‘greenlash’?
This week, after a historic Green Party byelection win, Carbon Brief looks at whether there really is a “greenlash” against climate policy in the UK.
Over the past year, the UK’s political consensus on climate change has been shattered.
Yet despite a sharp turn against climate action among right-wing politicians and right-leaning media outlets, UK public support for climate action remains strong.
Prof Federica Genovese, who studies climate politics at the University of Oxford, told Carbon Brief:
“The current ‘war’ on green policy is mostly driven by media and political elites, not by the public.”
Indeed, there is still a greater than two-to-one majority among the UK public in favour of the country’s legally binding target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as shown below.
Steve Akehurst, director of public-opinion research initiative Persuasion UK, also noted the growing divide between the public and “elites”. He told Carbon Brief:
“The biggest movement is, without doubt, in media and elite opinion. There is a bit more polarisation and opposition [to climate action] among voters, but it’s typically no more than 20-25% and mostly confined within core Reform voters.”
Conservative gear shift
For decades, the UK had enjoyed strong, cross-party political support for climate action.
Lord Deben, the Conservative peer and former chair of the Climate Change Committee, told Carbon Brief that the UK’s landmark 2008 Climate Change Act had been born of this cross-party consensus, saying “all parties supported it”.
Since their landslide loss at the 2024 election, however, the Conservatives have turned against the UK’s target of net-zero emissions by 2050, which they legislated for in 2019.
Curiously, while opposition to net-zero has surged among Conservative MPs, there is majority support for the target among those that plan to vote for the party, as shown below.
Dr Adam Corner, advisor to the Climate Barometer initiative that tracks public opinion on climate change, told Carbon Brief that those who currently plan to vote Reform are the only segment who “tend to be more opposed to net-zero goals”. He said:
“Despite the rise in hostile media coverage and the collapse of the political consensus, we find that public support for the net-zero by 2050 target is plateauing – not plummeting.”
Reform, which rejects the scientific evidence on global warming and campaigns against net-zero, has been leading the polls for a year. (However, it was comfortably beaten by the Greens in yesterday’s Gorton and Denton byelection.)
Corner acknowledged that “some of the anti-net zero noise…[is] showing up in our data”, adding:
“We see rising concerns about the near-term costs of policies and an uptick in people [falsely] attributing high energy bills to climate initiatives.”
But Akehurst said that, rather than a big fall in public support, there had been a drop in the “salience” of climate action:
“So many other issues [are] competing for their attention.”
UK newspapers published more editorials opposing climate action than supporting it for the first time on record in 2025, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Global ‘greenlash’?
All of this sits against a challenging global backdrop, in which US president Donald Trump has been repeating climate-sceptic talking points and rolling back related policy.
At the same time, prominent figures have been calling for a change in climate strategy, sold variously as a “reset”, a “pivot”, as “realism”, or as “pragmatism”.
Genovese said that “far-right leaders have succeeded in the past 10 years in capturing net-zero as a poster child of things they are ‘fighting against’”.
She added that “much of this is fodder for conservative media and this whole ecosystem is essentially driving what we call the ‘greenlash’”.
Corner said the “disconnect” between elite views and the wider public “can create problems” – for example, “MPs consistently underestimate support for renewables”. He added:
“There is clearly a risk that the public starts to disengage too, if not enough positive voices are countering the negative ones.”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP’S ‘PETROSTATE’: The US is becoming a “petrostate” that will be “sicker and poorer”, wrote Financial Times associate editor Rana Forohaar.
RHETORIC VS REALITY: Despite a “political mood [that] has darkened”, there is “more green stuff being installed than ever”, said New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells.
CHINA’S ‘REVOLUTION’: The BBC’s Climate Question podcast reported from China on the “green energy revolution” taking place in the country.
Coming up
- 2-6 March: UN Food and Agriculture Organization regional conference for Latin America and Caribbean, Brasília
- 3 March: UK spring statement
- 4-11 March: China’s “two sessions”
- 5 March: Nepal elections
Pick of the jobs
- The Guardian, senior reporter, climate justice | Salary: $123,000-$135,000. Location: New York or Washington DC
- China-Global South Project, non-resident fellow, climate change | Salary: Up to $1,000 a month. Location: Remote
- University of East Anglia, PhD in mobilising community-based climate action through co-designed sports and wellbeing interventions | Salary: Stipend (unknown amount). Location: Norwich, UK
- TABLE and the University of São Paulo, Brazil, postdoctoral researcher in food system narratives | Salary: Unknown. Location: Pirassununga, Brazil
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 27 February 2026: Trump’s fossil-fuel talk | Modi-Lula rare-earth pact | Is there a UK ‘greenlash’? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Seven Pacific island nations say they will demand heftier levies on global shipping emissions if opponents of a green deal for the industry succeed in reopening negotiations on the stalled accord.
The United States and Saudi Arabia persuaded countries not to grant final approval to the International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF) in October and they are now leading a drive for changes to the deal.
In a joint submission seen by Climate Home News, the seven climate-vulnerable Pacific countries said the framework was already a “fragile compromise”, and vowed to push for a universal levy on all ship emissions, as well as higher fees . The deal currently stipulates that fees will be charged when a vessel’s emissions exceed a certain level.
“For many countries, the NZF represents the absolute limit of what they can accept,” said the unpublished submission by Fiji, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands.
The countries said a universal levy and higher charges on shipping would raise more funds to enable a “just and equitable transition leaving no country behind”. They added, however, that “despite its many shortcomings”, the framework should be adopted later this year.
US allies want exemption for ‘transition fuels’
The previous attempt to adopt the framework failed after governments narrowly voted to postpone it by a year. Ahead of the vote, the US threatened governments and their officials with sanctions, tariffs and visa restrictions – and President Donald Trump called the framework a “Green New Scam Tax on Shipping”.
Since then, Liberia – an African nation with a major low-tax shipping registry headquartered in the US state of Virginia – has proposed a new measure under which, rather than staying fixed under the NZF, ships’ emissions intensity targets change depending on “demonstrated uptake” of both “low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels”.
The proposal places stringent conditions on what fuels are taken into consideration when setting these targets, stressing that the low- and zero-carbon fuels should be “scalable”, not cost more than 15% more than standard marine fuels and should be available at “sufficient ports worldwide”.
This proposal would not “penalise transitional fuels” like natural gas and biofuels, they said. In the last decade, the US has built a host of large liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, which the Trump administration is lobbying other countries to purchase from.
The draft motion, seen by Climate Home News, was co-sponsored by US ally Argentina and also by Panama, a shipping hub whose canal the US has threatened to annex. Both countries voted with the US to postpone the last vote on adopting the framework.
-
IMO head: Shipping decarbonisation “has started” despite green deal delay
Arsenio Dominguez said the shipping industry’s net zero emissions goal is not in dispute although countries have stalled on adopting a framework to reach it -
US-led alliance wins a year’s delay in adoption of green shipping deal
The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework will be up for approval again in October 2026, after the US and Saudi Arabia persuaded countries not to vote on it as planned
The IMO’s Panamanian head Arsenio Dominguez told reporters in January that changes to the framework were now possible.
“It is clear from what happened last year that we need to look into the concerns that have been expressed [and] … make sure that they are somehow addressed within the framework,” he said.
Patchwork of levies
While the European Union pushed firmly for the framework’s adoption, two of its shipping-reliant member states – Greece and Cyprus – abstained in October’s vote.
After a meeting between the Greek shipping minister and Saudi Arabia’s energy minister in January, Greece said a “common position” united Greece, Saudi Arabia and the US on the framework.
If the NZF or a similar instrument is not adopted, the IMO has warned that there will be a patchwork of differing regional levies on pollution – like the EU’s emissions trading system for ships visiting its ports – which will be complicated and expensive to comply with.
This would mean that only countries with their own levies and with lots of ships visiting their ports would raise funds, making it harder for other nations to fund green investments in their ports, seafarers and shipping companies. In contrast, under the NZF, revenues would be disbursed by the IMO to all nations based on set criteria.
Anais Rios, shipping policy officer from green campaign group Seas At Risk, told Climate Home News the proposal by the Pacific nations for a levy on all shipping emissions – not just those above a certain threshold – was “the most credible way to meet the IMO’s climate goals”.
“With geopolitics reframing climate policy, asking the IMO to reopen the discussion on the universal levy is the only way to decarbonise shipping whilst bringing revenue to manage impacts fairly,” Rios said.
“It is […] far stronger than the Net-Zero Framework that is currently on offer.”
The post Pacific nations want higher emissions charges if shipping talks reopen appeared first on Climate Home News.
Pacific nations want higher emissions charges if shipping talks reopen
Doubts over whether governments will maintain ambitious targets on boosting the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) are a threat to the industry’s growth and play into the hands of fossil fuel companies, investors warned this week.
Several executives from airlines and oil firms have forecast recently that SAF requirements in the European Union, United Kingdom and elsewhere will be eased or scrapped altogether, potentially upending the aviation industry’s main policy to shrink air travel’s growing carbon footprint.
Such speculation poses a “fundamental threat” to the SAF industry, which mainly produces an alternative to traditional kerosene jet fuel using organic feedstocks such as used cooking oil (UCO), Thomas Engelmann, head of energy transition at German investment manager KGAL, told the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Investor conference in London.
He said fossil fuel firms would be the only winners from questions about compulsory SAF blending requirements.
The EU and the UK introduced the world’s first SAF mandates in January 2025, requiring fuel suppliers to blend at least 2% SAF with fossil fuel kerosene. The blending requirement will gradually increase to reach 32% in the EU and 22% in the UK by 2040.
Another case of diluted green rules?
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, CEO of French oil and gas company TotalEnergies Patrick Pouyanné said he would bet “that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF regulation in Europe”.
The EU watered down green rules for car-makers in March 2025 after lobbying from car companies, Germany and Italy.
“You will see. Today all the airline companies are fighting [against the EU’s 2030 SAF target of 6%],” Pouyanne said, even though it’s “easy to reach to be honest”.
While most European airline lobbies publicly support the mandates, Ryanair Group CEO Michael O’Leary said last year that the SAF is “nonsense” and is “gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do”.
EU and UK stand by SAF targets
But the EU and the British government have disputed that. EU transport commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said in November that the EU’s targets are “stable”, warning that “investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets”.
UK aviation minister Keir Mather told this week’s investor event that meeting the country’s SAF blending requirement of 10% by 2030 was “ambitious but, with the right investment, the right innovation and the right outlook, it is absolutely within our reach”.
“We need to go further and we need to go faster,” Mather said.
SAF investors and developers said such certainty on SAF mandates from policymakers was key to drawing the necessary investment to ramp up production of the greener fuel, which needs to scale up in order to bring down high production costs. Currently, SAF is between two and seven times more expensive than traditional jet fuel.
Urbano Perez, global clean molecules lead at Spanish bank Santander, said banks will not invest if there is a perceived regulatory risk.
David Scott, chair of Australian SAF producer Jet Zero Australia, said developing SAF was already challenging due to the risks of “pretty new” technology requiring high capital expenditure.
“That’s a scary model with a volatile political environment, so mandate questioning creates this problem on steroids”, Scott said.
Others played down the risk. Glenn Morgan, partner at investment and advisory firm SkiesFifty, said “policy is always a risk”, adding that traditional oil-based jet fuel could also lose subsidies.
Asian countries join SAF mandate adopters
In Asia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Japan have recently adopted SAF mandates, and Matti Lievonen, CEO of Asia-based SAF producer EcoCeres, predicted that China, Indonesia and Hong Kong would follow suit.
David Fisken, investment director at the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, said the Australian government, which does not have a mandate, was watching to see how the EU and UK’s requirements played out.
The US does not have a SAF mandate and under President Donald Trump the government has slashed tax credits available for SAF producers from $1.75 a gallon to $1.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
SAF and energy security
SAF’s potential role in boosting energy security was a major theme of this week’s discussions as geopolitical tensions push the issue to the fore.
Marcella Franchi, chief commercial officer for SAF at France’s Haffner Energy, said the Canadian government, which has “very unsettling neighbours at the moment”, was looking to produce SAF to protect its energy security, especially as it has ample supplies of biomass to use as potential feedstock.
Similarly, German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall said last year it was working on plans that would enable European armed forces to produce their own synthetic, carbon-neutral fuel “locally and independently of global fossil fuel supply chain”.
Scott said Australia needs SAF to improve its fuel security, as it imports almost 99% of its liquid fuels.
He added that support for Australian SAF production is bipartisan, in part because it appeals to those more concerned about energy security than tackling climate change.
The post Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn appeared first on Climate Home News.
Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits