Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Over two weeks in November, more than 55,000 government negotiators, business representatives, activists and journalists gathered in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku for the annual conference of parties (COP) to the UN’s climate change convention (UNFCCC).

They were joined on the opening days of COP29 by about 105 heads of state and government who made back-to-back speeches. Most, like UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell, emphasised the urgency of addressing the climate crisis. But the host, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, went the other way with a speech praising fossil fuels as a “gift of the god” and calling on leaders to be “realistic”.

Negotiators and ministers then got to work hammering out a new goal to finance climate action in developing countries after the current one runs out next year. Those talks inched forward for two weeks, with rich nations refusing to put a concrete offer on the table.

At the last minute, as the pavilions of the international trade show that accompanies COPs were packed away on the official closing day, the negotiations exploded. On that Friday, a number for the core finance goal was finally put on the table, sparking anger among developing nations which dismissed it as too low. On Saturday evening, negotiators from small islands and the world’s poorest countries stormed out – and a target of $300bn a year by 2035 was pushed through in controversial circumstances in the early hours of Sunday.

Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest

Climate Home had a reporting team in Baku throughout, producing a bulletin and newsletter each day. As well as our explainer on what was agreed at COP29, below we bring you our five most dramatic moments from the Baku talks.

1.UN’s climate head gets personal

At the start of every COP, the head of the UN’s climate body gives what amounts to a motivational speech, calling on governments to do more to tackle the climate crisis.

This year, instead of reeling off statistics or listing climate-driven disasters, Simon Stiell got personal. He became emotional as he put up on a big screen a photograph of him hugging his neighbour Florence in front of her hurricane-destroyed house on their native Caribbean island of Carriacou (part of Grenada).

“At 85, Florence has become one of the millions of victims of climate change this year alone,” he said. In perhaps a coded reference to Donald Trump’s recent election as US president, he said Florence was “knocked down and getting back up again” – and government officials in the audience should too.

2. Host-nation leader calls fossil fuels “gift of the god”

On COP29’s second day, after a long cultural ceremony of music and dancing, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev kicked off a series of speeches by the UN secretary-general and world leaders – and used it to double down on his past public backing of fossil fuels.

After attacking American”fake news media” and “so-called independent NGOs”, Aliyev repeated his claim that fossil fuels are “a gift of the god” and called out the European Union for criticising fossil fuels while doing a multi-year deal to buy gas from Azerbaijan.

He later used a summit of small island developing states to accuse France and the Netherlands of ongoing “colonial rule”, sparking a diplomatic spat with those countries and the European Union, which sprang to their defence. As a result, France’s environment minister decided to boycott COP29.

3. Finance goal: “Is it a joke?”

Nine days into COP29, developed countries had yet to put forward a proposal for how much they were willing to contribute to the post-2025 climate finance goal.

The most anyone had to go on was a Politico report that the European Union was considering $200bn-300bn a year – so the $200bn figure was raised by a journalist at a press conference of Bolivia’s chief negotiator Diego Pacheco, Uganda’s Adonia Ayebare and Kenya’s Ali Mohamed.

“Is it a joke?” asked Pacheco with a smile, to applause from climate campaigners in the room.

Ayebare laughed and repeated his words, before Mohamed added more sternly: “We don’t know where you’re getting the 200 but, joke or otherwise, the quantum we are putting forward is nothing near to what you have just suggested.”

This off-the-cuff remark led to the word “joke” being used repeatedly by campaigners and negotiators about the finance goal for the rest of the summit. The next day, the COP29 presidency published a $250-billion-a-year proposal, which increased to $300 billion in the final agreement.

4. Vulnerable nations storm out

On the last night of the negotiations, all government delegations were summoned to a meeting room where Azeri diplomats showed them a copy of the latest draft text.

According to Michai Robertson, finance negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), developed countries and big developing nations like China, India and Brazil had been consulted by the presidency the night before, with those conversations informing the new text.

But, he said, AOSIS and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) had not been asked for their views. So after reading it, the chair of the LDC group Evans Njewa told the room: “We are not ready to associate with this paper and our sitting here means nothing to us.”

“If you want to continue discussing on this paper, then you can do so – this will allow us to leave this room – when you are done, maybe you call us back,” he added.

He called for the meeting’s suspension, stood up, picked up his bag and walked out. So did the rest of the negotiators for his group and those of AOSIS.

Robertson was among them. He told Climate Home the walk-out was unplanned and spontaneous.

Robertson said the presidency then gathered representatives of the LDCs, small island developing states (SIDS) and developed countries upstairs, where the LDCs and SIDs won compromises like a commitment to triple the amount of finance that goes through multilateral UN climate funds like the Green Climate Fund.

On their way to that meeting, rich-country negotiators were mobbed by climate campaigners and journalists who had gathered in the hall outside the meeting rooms. Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan rushed out, leaving journalists running after her as she refused to answer questions on her way to the presidency’s private office.

US climate envoy John Podesta, meanwhile, walked off more slowly and was surrounded by security and TV cameras as a campaigner shouted “shame” and “you’re selling us out”. He told reporters that he hoped this was the “storm before the calm”.

5. India ignored?

As negotiators huddled in the plenary room in the early hours of Sunday morning, a rumour spread to journalists at the back of the room that India was preparing to block the agreement on the post-2025 finance goal.

Their objection, it was said, was over language that recognised “the voluntary intention of [governments] to count all climate-related outflows from and climate-related finance mobilised by multilateral development banks towards achievement of the goal”.

A big chunk of climate finance comes from multilateral development banks (MDBs) like the World Bank. These banks are mostly owned by developed countries – but big emerging economies like China and India also have stakes in some of them.

Currently, developed countries are only given credit for 70% of the climate finance flowing through MDBs – roughly equivalent to their share in these banks. But the change in the new goal to include all of it could count developing countries’ share of MDB funding as well, making it easier for developed nations to meet the target without mobilising additional money.

Shortly before 3am on Sunday morning after a string of mundane decisions, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev invited the room to adopt the draft and without pausing for a second, banged down his gavel to signal official agreement.

Some negotiators stood up to applaud, some stayed sitting and clapped politely, while others looked on sternly. Babayev and Stiell hugged on stage and Azerbaijani negotiators punched the air.

Three members of the Indian delegation rushed onto the stage where Babayev was presiding, said something to the officials there and walked back looking angry.

When given the floor to speak, India’s head of delegation Chandni Raina said: “This has been an unfortunate incident and it is in continuation of a string of such unfortunate incidents that we have seen of not following inclusivity”.

She said she had informed the UNFCCC and COP29 presidency that she had wanted to make a statement before any decision was made. “However,” she said to whoops and applause, “this has been stage-managed and we are extremely, extremely disappointed with this incident.”

Later in the plenary, Nigeria’s climate envoy Nkiruka Maduekwe said she “lent [her] voice to India”, adding that “we have a right as countries to choose if we are going to take this or not – and I am saying that we do not accept this.”

“It is 3am and we are going to clap our hands and say this is what we are going to do – I don’t think so,” she finished. “Your statement will be reflected in the report,” replied Babayev.

Despite the objections of two nations representing a fifth of the world’s population, the deal appeared to have been done. Joanna Depledge, who researches climate talks at Cambridge University, said that “once a decision has been gavelled through, it would be a really big thing for it to be overturned”.

(Reporting by Joe Lo and Mariel Lozada; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post COP29: Five most dramatic moments from the UN climate summit in Baku appeared first on Climate Home News.

COP29: Five most dramatic moments from the UN climate summit in Baku

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

Published

1 day ago

on

August 24, 2026

By

New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.

The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.

Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.

    Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.

    Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.

    In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.

    Corporate lobbying in the shadows

    Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.

    “That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”

    The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.

    The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.

    Green groups fail to stop bill

    The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.

    But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.

    A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.

    “Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035

    Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.

    But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.

    The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.

    Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”

    Copycat legislation on the rise

    New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.

    In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.

    The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.

    UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court

    Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.

    “Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.

    The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.

    New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

    Published

    2 days ago

    on

    August 24, 2026

    By

    Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS. 

    Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.

    Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.

    The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.

    The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.

    Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output

    Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.

    Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.

      Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.

      Stronger environmental enforcement

      Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.

      This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.

      The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.

      A coastal village is wedged between the sea and a large nickel mine in Indonesia
      The fishing villages of Tapunggaya in Sulawesi, Indonesia, are squeezed between the sea and an expanding nickel mine (Photo by Garry Lotulung/NurPhoto)

      The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.

      In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.

      None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.

      Unequal benefits

      For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

      Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.

        In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.

        Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.

        The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.

        None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.

        The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry  appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

        Continue Reading

        Climate Change

        Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans

        Published

        2 days ago

        on

        August 24, 2026

        By

        SYDNEY, Monday 24 August 2026 – New analysis of Woodside modelling released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley has revealed the oil and gas corporation’s plans to drill at Scott Reef could cause an oil spill up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara disaster, impacting the Kimberley coastline and reaching as far as Indonesia.

        The new analysis details the “catastrophic” oil spill risk put to environmental regulators for approval by Woodside in its Browse to North West Shelf Project (Browse) plans, the worst-case scenario being a blowout directly below Scott Reef, polluting whale migratory pathways and covering isolated turtle nesting ground with oil condensate.

        An FOI application (F348) revealed the federal environment department (DCCEEW) asked offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA to look into the oil spill risk in 2025. NOPSEMA’s response to the application refused access to its report, and one document shows DCCEEW sought further advice this year.

        Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley are calling on the Federal Government to publicly release the NOPSEMA report given the risk of an uncontrolled release of oil condensate from directly below Scott Reef.

        Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Woodside is aware that drilling at Scott Reef risks a massive oil spill that would have severe, far-reaching consequences. It appears environmental regulators are aware too.

        “The state and federal governments need to take this risk from Woodside’s drilling plans seriously, as they could end up allowing the worst oil spill in Australian history.

        “The pygmy blue whales that migrate up and down the WA coast with their newborns each year could be swimming and feeding in toxic, oil-slicked water. Woodside’s proposal to drill at Scott Reef is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the WA and federal governments have one surefire way to prevent catastrophe — reject Browse.”

        Martin Prichard, Executive Director at Environs Kimberley, said: “A catastrophic oil spill by Woodside would be disastrous not just for marine life in the area but also for the Kimberley’s $500 million tourism industry.

        “The state and federal governments will see five marine parks on the Kimberley coast included in the risk area of a catastrophic Woodside oil spill.

        “The Montara oil spill was disastrous for West Timor with the toxic oil destroying seaweed farmers’ livelihoods. The Kimberley dodged a bullet with Montara, we were lucky the spill didn’t head our way. Myself and a crew flew over the Montara oil spill and followed it as far as we could. It was like a scene from a disaster movie.”

        After the WA Environmental Protection Authority deemed Browse “unacceptable” due, in part, to oil spill risk, Woodside submitted a mitigation plan based on technology that has never been used “in anger”, a weakness stated in an independent expert review of the plan.

        Professor Richard Steiner, independent oil spill expert, said: “A large offshore spill is impossible to effectively contain or recover. Historically, only 2-6% of total spill volume is recovered and the ecological injury from the release of toxic hydrocarbons in the sea can be severe, extensive, and long-term.

        “Here in Alaska, government research concludes that several marine populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, including whales, fish, and seabirds, are still not recovering today, 37 years later. We should expect similar long-term ecological impacts in Western Australia if there were to be a major oil spill. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a catastrophic marine oil spill is to not develop oil and gas projects in marine environments.”

        -ENDS-

        Media contact

        Emma Sangalli on emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465

        Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com