Electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and other clean energy technologies are driving booming demand for metals and minerals – including copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel – which many countries now consider “critical” to their security. But will procuring those supplies harm the environment and human rights?
Across the world, from Africa and Asia to Latin America, a growing number of mining projects has been associated with nature destruction, pollution, labour abuses and conflict, while local communities often shoulder much of the cost and share little of the benefit.
As the scramble for minerals for the energy transition rises to the top of the political agenda, there are mounting calls for international cooperation to ensure production of these resources is sustainable and equitable, alongside a flurry of proposed initiatives for global standards and stronger governance.
Explainer: Why the world is racing to mine critical minerals
Colombia is drumming up support for a legally binding minerals agreement based on the model of global negotiations for a plastic treaty. An alliance of NGOs wants to get the issue onto the agenda of this year’s COP30 climate talks, and experts are calling for a new materials data hub.
The United Nations, which oversees the most advanced efforts to create a global framework for energy transition minerals, insists it remains the best-placed broker for thrashing out global norms, despite a funding crisis.
This month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) joined a chorus of voices calling for more cooperation on the issue. In its latest Critical Minerals Outlook report, it warned of growing risks of disruption to mineral supply chains as the market becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, with China controlling around 70% of the refining of 19 out of 20 strategic minerals analysed by the agency.
Rising copper demand fuels concern over pollution and rights abuses
Meanwhile, since returning to the White House, US President Donald Trump has taken a new approach to resource diplomacy, negotiating access to Ukraine’s mineral resources as a condition for American support and eyeing mineral-rich Greenland and Canada.
“It’s climate change, security, development and geopolitical elements intersecting – which I think is why there’s so much appetite and urgency around improving multilateralism to address this really complex issue,” Erica Westenberg, director of governance programmes at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, told Climate Home News.
Plan for an international minerals treaty
Colombia’s proposal for a global minerals treaty is motivated by the aim of rooting out extensive illegal gold mining, a source of environmental destruction and pollution that is threatening people’s health in the Amazon nation.
“[Existing] norms and standards are optional, and this isn’t good enough,” Mauricio Cabrera Leal, Colombia’s vice minister for environmental policy, told a conference at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris earlier this month.
“We need to have a mandatory agreement to assess the whole value chain with transparency and traceability at the international level,” he added.
Colombia plans to put forward a resolution for countries to begin negotiations on a binding minerals treaty at the UN Environment Assembly in December. If approved, countries would then need to decide on the scope of the agreement, Cabrera Leal told Climate Home – an approach that has proved highly contentious and so far unsuccessful in talks for a plastic treaty.
But the idea has received a “good response” from some African and European nations, he added. And others agree with the principle.
A high-level council of former ministers and leaders of international institutions convened by the Paris Peace Forum to reflect on mineral supply chain challenges has also called for an international agreement on resource management and the creation of a separate repository for mineral data.
Justin Vaïsse, director general of the Paris Peace Forum, told the OECD conference it was “now time to think seriously” about these proposals.
Observers in the mining sector caution that any agreement must build on hard-learned lessons and existing best practices, including the need to ensure that affected communities and Indigenous people are at the negotiating table.
An international materials agency?
The co-chairs of the International Resource Panel (IRP), a body of policy experts established by the UN Environment Programme, meanwhile are advocating for the creation of an international materials agency.
This data hub would cover all the materials needed to deliver on global climate and development goals, including critical minerals. It would help make supply chains more transparent and track their environmental implications.
Solar squeeze: US tariffs threaten panel production and jobs in Thailand
Janez Potočnik, the IRP’s co-chair, told Climate Home the proposed agency would “complement” the IEA’s growing work on the security of mineral supplies by considering the impacts of mineral production and consumption models with a mandate that could evolve over time to include international negotiations on materials.
Potočnik said the proposal is backed by the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Economic Forum – demonstrating the private sector’s interest in more transparent data.
UN push for better standards
Last year, UN boss António Guterres convened a panel of governments, international organisations and experts which defined seven principles to underpin the responsible, fair and sustainable extraction of energy transition minerals.
The UN is now expected to release a plan to implement those principles and appoint an advisory group to draft a global framework to make mineral supply chains more transparent, traceable and accountable.
Efforts to define responsible mining are not new. But there are currently around 200 voluntary mining standards and “a lot of them are not the best standards”, said Sascha Raabe, who heads the UN Industrial Development Organization’s (UNIDO) Global Alliance for Responsible and Green Minerals. It aims to bring together governments, the private sector, NGOs and communities to help countries develop sustainability policies that can add value to their resources.
Europe’s lithium rush leaves mineral-rich communities in the dark
UNIDO’s alliance will also work alongside other UN agencies to define a set of concrete environmental, social and governance criteria – such as a living wage – for assessing existing voluntary mining standards, Raabe explained.
“It’s important that the UN set up these criteria to give direction to the private sector and consumers and create a global level playing field,” said Raabe, adding that “the UN is the best forum to bring these global goals together”.
One of the largest efforts to harmonise voluntary mining standards is the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative, which is being developed by four mining industry groups covering 100 companies. But campaign groups have criticised the industry’s efforts to self-regulate as “weak” and at “risk of creating a race to the bottom”.
Instead, they back the The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance’s standard, which is overseen by a collaborative process including industry, civil society, labour groups and community representatives.
Putting minerals on the COP30 agenda
Campaigners are also pushing for stronger links between the challenges of obtaining minerals for the clean energy transition and the UN’s climate and nature policy processes.
At UN biodiversity talks in Colombia last year, governments agreed to “avoid or, if not possible, minimise, the negative impacts of climate actions on biodiversity”, without singling out transition minerals.
Now a coalition of NGOs is urging the Brazilian COP30 presidency to put ways to tackle the environmental and social risks associated with these minerals on the agenda of the UN climate summit in Belém in November.
Campaigners want governments at COP30 to recognise the risks posed by unmanaged extraction to global climate and biodiversity goals, endorse the work of the UN’s advisory group on responsible sourcing and designate “no-go” mining zones in climate-critical ecosystems and Indigenous territories.
“This is a once-in-a-generation chance for Brazil to lead on climate justice and ensure that the clean energy transition doesn’t come at the expense of frontline communities, the planet’s last intact forests, and other critical ecosystems that should be marked as no-go zones,” said Emily Iona Stewart, head of policy for Global Witness’s transition minerals campaign.
The Brazilian environment ministry and COP30 Presidency did not respond to Climate Home’s requests for comment by the time of publication.
The post Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?
The US is expected to resume its attempt to sink measures for a greener global shipping sector at closed-door talks between governments at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in early September.
The US and oil-producing allies like Saudi Arabia want to weaken a proposed plan for cleaner fuels that aims to reduce planet-heating emissions from the industry, which relies heavily on dirty bunker fuels. Shipping currently represents 3% of global emissions.
Those that want a softer system are likely to back a Liberian proposal which expert analysis suggests would see emissions fall by only half at most by 2050, far short of the sector’s agreed climate goals.
After several years of debate, governments provisionally agreed in April 2025 on the “Net Zero Framework” (NZF), a series of emissions reduction targets for shipowners, backed up with financial rewards for meeting the targets and fees for missing them.
But in October 2025, after a high-profile intervention from US President Donald Trump and threats of sanctions and visa restrictions, the US convinced a majority of voting nations to postpone the adoption of the NZF for a year.
Ralph Regenvanu, climate minister for the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, called the delay “unacceptable” given the urgency of accelerating climate change.
After a round of low-profile talks in May, the first of three further sets of talks on how to clean up shipping will begin at the IMO’s riverside headquarters in London on Tuesday, culminating in a final public session in November.
Em Fenton, who follows the talks as senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, an NGO focused on aviation and shipping, said governments should not be sidetracked by alternative proposals to the NZF, calling them “a distraction from a hard-fought multilateral compromise”.
“If countries want to deliver a just and fair maritime transition, there is really only one choice: back the NZF and stand together in solidarity against those who would tear it apart,” Fenton added.
Five proposals on the table
Governments will discuss five different proposals submitted in advance of next week’s meeting. The most ambitious of these is from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, which has proposed a levy on the entirety of a ship’s emissions rather than just those above a certain level, as the NZF envisions.
That had been the original demand of Pacific nations before the NZF was provisionally adopted in April 2025. At the time, Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe described the NZF as disappointing and not ambitious enough.
For this reason, six Pacific countries abstained in the vote on the NZF. While they supported the original plan for its adoption in October 2025, they have used the delay to push again for more ambition.
John Kautoke, advisor to a group of Pacific nations called 6PAC+, told Climate Home News that the NZF “cannot diminish its already inadequate ambition. If anything, the NZF must increase in ambition if we are going to renegotiate its parameters.”
-
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
A new bill prevents corporations being sued for the climate damage their emissions cause, as the government says climate action should be handled at the national level not in court -
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue -
As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31
Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans
Analysis by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) suggests that, of the five proposals, only Tuvalu’s would meet the 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets for global shipping that were agreed by governments in 2023. Those were for cuts of 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and then reaching net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”.
Despite this, the UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa have formally proposed that governments adopt the NZF, which won support in a 63-13 vote among governments at the April 2025 talks. Trump’s US walked out halfway through.
According to IMarEst’s analysis, while the NZF proposal will not be enough to meet the industry’s targets, it will reduce emissions more cheaply than the Pacific proposal.
A proposal by Brazil – which fought hard for the NZF last October – suggests tweaking the framework to make meeting targets easier in the short term and harder in the long term.
While this compromise will make it more appealing to the owners of polluting ships and countries that support them, IMarEst estimates it would lead to higher cumulative emissions than either the NZF or Pacific proposals.
The NZF stipulates that fees for high-polluting shipowners should be be put into a Net Zero Fund and used to promote clean shipping fuels and a fairer transition. The Brazilian proposal would delay raising and spending these funds by two years, from 2029 to 2031.
Liberia’s proposal weakens emissions cuts
The US and Saudi Arabia are likely to swing behind a new proposal from Liberia, whose government makes millions of dollars a year selling the right for shipowners to register their vessels in the small West African nation via a US-based company.
This proposal would weaken the emissions reduction targets. IMarEst says it would cut the industry’s emissions at most by a half by 2050, falling far short of the target agreed in 2023 for international shipping to reach net zero “close to 2050”.
It would also replace the NZF’s fees for missing targets with a carbon trading system. As a result, there would be no Net Zero Fund and therefore less money available to incentivise green fuels and make the transition more equitable for poorer nations.
Pacific advisor Kautoke said that, as well as preventing shipping from reaching zero emissions by 2050, Liberia’s proposal would mean the Pacific “will not receive any support to deal with the disproportionately negative impacts created by the cost of the transition”.
“We get a double blow if we adopt the Liberian proposal,” he warned. “We get all the cost of a transition without any support, and we have an industry that continues to burn fossil fuels to an unforeseen point.”
Japanese proposal favours shipowners
Japan has submitted a late proposal to amend the NZF so that shipowners have more control over how the fees they would pay for emitting above a set threshold are spent.
University College London professor Tristan Smith has argued that this change means there will be no central mechanism to incentivise investments in clean fuels. He wrote on LinkedIn that under the system put forward by Japan, shipowners would be able to select which green projects their fees would go to. They could choose their own or those of a sister company or other shipowners, rather than funding broader just transition projects that would benefit marine workers or developing countries hit by rising shipping costs.
Despite its flaws, Smith added that Japan’s proposal “could still get taken seriously by some, given how appealing it may seem to shipowners who have consistently demanded control of revenues, and given how the US and other member states have pushed back against the IMO Net Zero Fund and [greenhouse gas] pricing.”
Tacit or explicit approval?
Next week, governments are expected to make statements saying which proposals – or which aspects of proposals – they prefer. Another set of talks will be held from November 23-27 before a potentially final round from November 30-December 4.
A new framework to tackle shipping emissions could be adopted at those talks if two-thirds of countries that are present and signed up to a regulation called Marpol Annex VI – endorsed by just over 100 states – vote in favour of it, as they did in April 2025.
The US and its allies are also trying to change the rules to make the next stage more difficult. Decisions that have been adopted at IMO meetings usually take effect automatically unless a certain number of countries object within a certain time period decided by governments, a system known as tacit approval.
But the US wants that to require explicit approval instead, so that any new emissions standard would not come into force unless enough governments – representing a certain percentage of the world’s shipping fleet – actively indicate support for it.
Critics say this change would give a small number of countries with large shipping registries the power to block implementation. Liberia has the world’s biggest shipping registry, run by an American company, followed by Panama and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Liberia and Panama have supported the US at the talks on the Net Zero Framework. The Marshall Islands has long been one of the most vocal supporters of climate action in shipping but, with its officials and shipping registry income vulnerable to US retaliation, did not sign on to the recent Pacific proposal vowing to strengthen the NZF if it is re-opened.
Brazilian negotiator Adriana de Medeiros Gabinio warned in April that the NZF’s opponents are trying to change the rules by which it comes into force as a “safety net to block” it.
The post Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks
SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.
Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:
“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.
“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.
“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”
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.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
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
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits