PERTH, Monday 9 March 2026 —  In response to reports that the West Australian government is preparing to build new gas-fired power stations in WA, the following lines can be attributed to Geoff Bice, WA Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:

“Adding new gas-fired power stations is a bizarre and backwards suggestion – there is no need for more fossil fuels in the WA energy system. WA desperately needs to reduce its emissions, so it makes no sense to undermine the good work of shutting down one fossil fuel source just to open up another. Recent modelling by Greenpeace clearly demonstrates that WA does not need more gas, and entrenching it is a risk to our economic development as a renewable energy powerhouse.

“Adding new gas is simply too risky for WA. Becoming more gas reliant only exposes WA households and businesses to the price volatility we are currently seeing in global oil and gas markets due to the war in the Middle East. Given the global backlog in production of gas-fired generators, access to a new facility could be years away, well after coal has already exited the system.

“New gas is not the solution for WA when we have such an abundance of infinite, cheap renewable energy and an ambitious battery investment plan. Gas is a costly and risky option for WA taxpayers that would lock in pollution for decades to come. 

“The Minister must keep her courage in the face of gas industry lobbying. The build-out of batteries and renewable energy has been gathering pace, and WA cannot afford to take a backward step at this crucial stage.”

-ENDS-

New gas plans for WA ‘bizarre and backwards’

A landmark conference hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands will aim to lay the foundations for renewed talks on transitioning away from fossil fuels at COP31, though organisers say it remains unclear what concrete outcomes it will deliver.

The First Conference on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels will take place in April in the city of Santa Marta, on Colombia’s Caribbean coast, where first-moving countries, states and cities will seek to restart last year’s stalled push for a global roadmap away from coal, oil and gas.

Bastiaan Hassing, head of international climate policy for the Dutch government, told an online briefing last week that the “most obvious” impact of the conference would be for its hosts to report back to the UN climate summit on what was agreed in Santa Marta.

“Ideally, but this is also more complicated, we discuss with each other (at COP) what next steps we could take in the implementation, for instance, of paragraph 28 of the COP decision in Dubai, which talks about the global transition away from fossil fuels,” Hassings said.

He noted that there are many options for how the conference can influence UN talks on implementing the global transition away from fossil fuels, but the exact possibilities would depend on the outcome of the talks. “Rest assured that we will be looking into this,” he added.

At last year’s COP30, a bloc of 80 countries, including small island states, as well as some Latin American, European, and African countries, called for the creation of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels.

But major oil and gas producers and consumers blocked the initiative in Belém. As a compromise, Brazil’s COP presidency promised to draft proposals for two voluntary roadmaps: one to end deforestation and another to guide the transition away from fossil fuels.

Brazil has launched consultations seeking input for those plans, asking governments and stakeholders about technological and economic barriers, climate justice considerations and examples of best practice. Last week, COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago told Brazilian media that he would hold discussions on his roadmap proposal at the Santa Marta conference.

Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres told reporters last week that “this is the moment to be honest about the challenges involved in transitioning away from fossil fuels”.

“It is not easy. It involves commitments from both the Global North and South. It involves interests and tensions at the subnational level,” she added. “Yet none of this diminishes its urgency or the need to reach agreements at the international multilateral level”.

Process to end fossil fuels

Vélez Torres said she hoped the Santa Marta meeting would help establish an ongoing process to advance discussions that often stall in the formal UN negotiations, where decisions are made by consensus and fossil fuel producers resist stronger language.

“This is the first conference, and we want it to be followed by another. We also want to establish a technical secretariat to sustain these debates,” said Vélez Torres, who added that the initiative would be “articulated with [the] COP30 and COP31” presidencies.

Colombia has been one of the few fossil fuel-producing countries that pledged to halt all new coal, oil and gas exploration. The move triggered backlash from industry and political opponents – with former president Iván Duque calling the decision “political and economic suicide”. The South American country depends on fossil fuels for about 10% of fiscal revenues and 4% of GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Organisers of the Santa Marta conference said they expect between 40 and 80 high-level representatives from governments, both at national and subnational levels. Colombian president Gustavo Petro is expected to participate, and invitations have been extended to California governor Gavin Newsom and Dutch prime minister Rob Jetten.

Deep divisions persist as plastics treaty talks restart at informal meeting

No turning back

The conference comes amid renewed volatility in global energy markets. As the US and Israel’s war in Iran disrupts oil and gas supplies and threatens to cause severe global economic damage, analysts say governments should seek to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels through investments in renewables and energy efficiency.

The upcoming Santa Marta conference should build momentum to plan that transition away from fossil fuels and signal that “there is no turning back”, said Peter Newell, professor of international relations at the University of Sussex and one of the main proponents of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

“Its outcomes, which might include a declaration on key principles and next steps (for the fossil fuel transition), should give renewed vigour to efforts within the UN climate negotiations to drive the agenda forward,” Newell said.

Because major fossil fuel producers have effectively “vetoed” discussions on a fossil fuel phase-out at COPs, he added, willing countries must move forward independently with initiatives like the Santa Marta conference.

Andreas Sieber, head of political strategy at the NGO 350.org, agreed that the push away from fossil fuels is “both necessary and economically inevitable”, adding that a conference on phasing out fossil fuels would have been “unthinkable just five years ago”.

US set to exit UN climate convention in February 2027

Countries moving forward

COP30 host Brazil has taken the lead in developing its own national roadmap away from fossil fuels, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva requested his government to draft late last year. The roadmap is expected to be formally developed this year.

The plan – expected to include a dedicated energy transition fund – was initially due in February but has not yet been made public as ministers continue technical discussions.

In Europe, governments have also stepped up efforts to curb fossil fuel use following the energy shocks triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East.

Leo Roberts, a fossil fuel transition analyst at the climate think tank E3G, said the recent surge in gas prices linked to the Iran conflict reinforces the case for accelerating the transition to boost energy security and protect people from price shocks.

“Hopefully, Santa Marta is able to really demonstrate that not only is there momentum at the international sphere through the COP30 roadmap process, but there’s huge momentum away from fossil fuels in the real world,” he said.

The post New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition

Nick Dearden is the director of Global Justice Now.

The US push for nations to join a club that would coordinate the trade of critical minerals outside China signals a giant shift in Washington’s vision for how to govern the global economy But it will, unfortunately, also hinder the clean energy transition.

Critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper and rare earths are needed to manufacture clean energy technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines and batteries on which the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy depends.

But these minerals also have applications for a wide range of advanced technologies, not least military equipment and digital infrastructure. In recent years, AI deployment and the build out of data centres have become the primary political justification for mineral extraction.

No US official mentioned clean energy technologies as they promoted the new minerals club in Washington last month. Instead, the trading bloc aims to break China’s dominance over mineral supply chains and ensure US access to the resources it needs for digital and military sectors.

Analysis by Global Justice Now found that almost one in five of the 33 minerals that the UK identified as critical in 2024 are not needed to achieve the International Energy Agency’s decarbonisation pathways. A further 15 play only a very small role and only seven require significant production increases for the clean energy transition.

Prioritise minerals for the energy transition

The urgency of addressing climate change means we must prioritise the use of minerals to rapidly and equitably wean the global economy off coal, oil and gas while reducing resource overconsumption in the Global North. The US approach could make this prioritisation a lot harder.

For Washington, this isn’t about addressing climate change, but America’s ever deepening rivalry with China, a renewable energy superpower. In contrast, Donald Trump has called climate change “a hoax” and overseen unprecedented climate deregulation in favour of fossil fuels.

The minerals trading bloc risks diverting mineral resources towards carbon-intensive military and technology build-up in the US, which is directly at odds with the need to use these resources to manufacture clean energy technologies.

What’s more, for the green transition to be just, fair and equitable, resource-rich governments must be able to refine and add value to their resources, creating jobs and economic development in the process. But Trump’s trading bloc is intended to tell “partner” countries what role they should play in the global mineral supply chains to best serve US interests.

Serving US interests rather than clean energy

Countries with the smallest and least developed economies stand to lose out.

More than a dozen countries have signed bilateral deals with the Trump administration. The terms of the deals appear to get better the richer a country is.

At the poorer end is the deal with DRC – an outright piece of imperialism with one-sided obligations that override the country’s mineral sovereignty by giving the US first dibs on a range of strategic mining sites and the energy needed to power these sites.

‘America needs you’: US seeks trade alliance to break China’s critical mineral dominance

In the middle, Malaysia committed to facilitate American involvement in its mineral sector and refrain from banning or imposing quotas on exports of raw minerals to the US. This risks restricting the development of Malaysia’s refining capacities, making value addition harder.

At the top end is the UK, which has signed a deal that includes a commitment to streamline mineral permitting, but appears more focused on facilitating financial services to members of the trading bloc.

Wherever countries sit in the pecking order, the agreements signed with the US limit governments’ strategic sovereignty over their resources and stifle their ability to create a more sustainable economy which meets people’s needs.

Tools for a way forward

There is some hope, however. Trump’s mineral trading bloc would operate with profoundly different rules than the neoliberal trade deals, which we have become used to.

Some of its components – like price floors and state ownership – have not been seen in trade deals for a long time. In the right hands, these tools could help governments plan, coordinate and prioritise a globally just green transition and break away from the ‘market knows best’ logic which has long locked poorer countries into low-value exports of raw materials.

If governments work together, outside the coercive US trade bloc, to adopt some of these tools and policies, they might be able to draw local benefits from their mineral wealth and build a genuinely fair and equitable trade in transition minerals.

The post The US’s critical minerals club threatens an equitable clean energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

The US’s critical minerals club threatens an equitable clean energy transition