Connect with us

Published

on

Mukhtar Babayev is COP29 President and Special Representative of the President of Azerbaijan for Climate Issues.

We face an historic irony this year. 2025 was supposed to start a new decade in climate finance.

When countries signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, they set this year as the date from which donor countries would support the developing world under a new climate finance deal. The Baku Finance Goal agreed at COP29 in Azerbaijan did indeed set a target of $300 billion a year by 2035, a three-fold increase on the current funding.

But instead of stepping up, donors are stepping back. Governments are diverting funds from communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Military spending is being raised at the expense of climate finance and aid budgets are being slashed.

This is not how the new decade of solidarity and action was supposed to begin. Developed countries were supposed to take the lead. It is a bitter pill for the world’s poorest to swallow.

No enforcement mechanism for promises

Worryingly, this comes as countries prepare their next generation of climate plans for submission. This round of emission cuts is our last best chance to keep the 1.5 degree Celsius target within reach without a sustained overshoot. But how can developing countries cut emissions if they can’t count on support?

COP Presidents face the same question – how do you ensure the deals you gavelled are actually delivered? The awkward truth is that, technically, we cannot. There are proposals to reform climate governance, but we currently have no formal power to hold countries to account.

There is no international enforcement mechanism. Some countries should be commended for embedding commitments into domestic law. Most, however, exploit every loophole to avoid legally binding requirements.

COP30 president: Transition from fossil fuels can start without climate talks

Instead, we rely on norms, values and standards. We place our hope in enlightened leaders who can see their own interest in collective climate action. We hope they understand that promises made are promises. Or we are forced to invoke their sense of duty.

When governments break promises to each other, it breeds distrust and anger. We can see this in the hallways of climate negotiations already. There is little point investing in soft power if leaders go soft on their words.

Many donor countries seem oblivious to the promises made. At ministerial meetings on climate change, few can recount the pledges of past years. Ministers gathered in Spain last week for the Fourth International Financing for Development conference. For all the talk of implementation, how many governments have kept the promises they made last time?

The early milestones for 2025 are barely on the agenda for this year’s UN climate summit. Small island states have said that, if need be, they will fight to get climate finance on the agenda. Why are their voices alone?

Adaptation finance goal expires this year

The earliest invoice due is a pledge made when the UK hosted COP26 in 2021. Under the “Glasgow Pact”, developed countries would at least double their collective support to help communities adapt to the consequences of climate change by 2025. Put simply, that’s at least $40 billion a year.

This is a critical early test of whether the will is there to hit the $300 billion by 2035. Falling short of a commitment due now augurs ill for a much larger commitment due ten years hence.

The conventional excuse is that the world has changed, making old plans and pledges redundant. To that, we say the world was always going to change. These targets were supposed to provide certainty in uncertain times. They were collective goals, so collectively they must be delivered.

Green Climate Fund reforms aim to fix “slow, cumbersome” accreditation process

When we negotiated the Baku Finance Goal in November following the US election, donors insisted they couldn’t be expected to pay more than $300 billion when some of the biggest players were stepping away. They cannot use the same excuse again to explain why they can’t meet the goal.

To lead is to choose, and in a world of tight finances, the burden of leadership is heavy. Nobody should envy the trade-offs governments must make: which causes to support, which sectors to prioritise, which issues to address. There are no free choices.

But there are shortsighted choices. And there are choices that can corrode the system. Breaking your word is not an acceptable choice. It would be a matter of deep regret. Developed countries need to take the lead on climate finance. Donors must send a clear and strong signal that a promise made is a promise kept.

The post Donors were supposed to step up, not step back on climate finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

Donors were supposed to step up, not step back on climate finance

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Maine Presses Pause on Large Data Centers. Will Other States Follow Its Lead?

Published

on

The moratorium is the first of its type to pass a legislative chamber, but about a dozen other states have pending proposals.

Maine is now the first state to pass a moratorium on the development of large data centers, and others may follow.

Maine Presses Pause on Large Data Centers. Will Other States Follow Its Lead?

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

Published

on

The Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 endangerment finding revokes the agency’s authority to regulate climate pollution. Environmental activists are mourning the loss while vowing to resurrect it.

A procession of mourners representing sea level rise, melting permafrost, ecocide and other climate calamities grieved the demise of a groundbreaking climate rule outside the Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 9 headquarters in downtown San Francisco on Tuesday.

Climate Activists Stage Mock Funeral for Landmark Climate Rule

Continue Reading

Climate Change

IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

Published

on

Global oil demand is expected to be almost one million barrels per day less than was forecast before the Iran war, as shortages and soaring costs prompt drastic cutbacks by consumers and businesses, a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Wednesday.

With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz choking off supplies and keeping prices high, less oil is being used to make products such as jet fuel, LPG cooking gas and petrochemicals, the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly oil report, forecasting the biggest quarterly demand drop since the COVID pandemic.

The Iran war “upends our global outlook”, the government-backed agency said, adding that it now expects oil demand to shrink by 80,000 barrels per day in 2026 from last year.

Before the conflict began, the IEA said in February it expected oil demand to rise by 850,000 barrels per day this year, meaning the difference between the pre-war and current estimates is 930,000 barrels a day, or 340 million barrels a year.

That could have a significant impact on the outlook for planet-heating carbon emissions this year.

At an intensity of 434 kg of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil – the estimate used by the US Environmental Protection Agency – the annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from oil for 2026, compared with the pre-war forecast, is similar to the amount emitted by the Philippines each year.

Harry Benham, senior advisor at Carbon Tracker, told Climate Home News that he expects at least half of the reduction in oil demand to be permanent because of efficiency gains, behavioural change and faster electrification.

The oil shock is leading to oil being replaced, especially in transport, with electricity and other fuels, just as past oil shocks drove lasting reductions in consumption, he said. “The shock doesn’t delay the transition – it reinforces it,” he added.

Demand takes a hit

While demand for oil has fallen significantly, supplies have fallen even further. Supply in March was 10 million barrels a day less than February, the IEA said, calling it the “largest disruption in history”.

This forecast relies on the assumption that regular deliveries of oil and gas from the Middle East will resume by the middle of the year, the IEA said, although the prospects for this “remain unclear at this stage”.

    Last month, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the CERAWeek oil industry conference that prices were not high enough to lead to permanent reductions in demand for oil, known as demand destruction.

    But the IEA said on Wednesday that “demand destruction will spread as scarcity and higher prices persist”.

    Industries contributing to weaker demand for oil include Asian petrochemical producers, who are cutting production as oil supplies dry up, the report said, while consumers are cutting back on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which is mainly used as a cooking gas in developing countries, the IEA said.

    Flight cancellations caused by the war have dampened demand for oil-based jet fuel, the IEA said. As well as cancellations caused by risk from the conflict itself, airports have warned that fuel shortages could lead to disruption.

    Across the world, governments, businesses and consumers have sought to reduce their oil use after the war. The government of Pakistan has cut the speed limit on its roads, so that people drive at a more fuel-efficient speed, and Laos has encouraged people to work from home to preserve scarce petrol and diesel.

    Nepal’s EV revolution pays off as oil crisis causes pain at the pumps

    Consumers in Bangladesh are seeking electric vehicles (EVs) to avoid fuel queues and, in Nigeria, more people are seeking to replace petrol and diesel generators with solar panels, Climate Home News has reported.

    In the longer term, the European Union is considering cutting taxes on electricity to help it replace fossil fuels and France is promoting EVs and heat pumps.

    IEA urged to help “future-proof” economies

    Meanwhile, the IEA came under fire last week from energy security experts, including former military chiefs, who signed an open letter in which they accused the agency of offering “only a temporary response to turbulent markets”, calling for stronger structural action “to future-proof our economies”.

    They said that besides releasing emergency oil stocks and offering advice on how to reduce oil demand in the short term, the IEA should show countries how to reduce their exposure to volatile oil and gas markets.

    The IEA has also been under pressure from the Trump administration to talk less about the transition away from fossil fuels.

    This article was amended on 15 April 2026 to correct the drop in 2026 forecast oil demand from “nearly a billion” to “nearly a million”

    The post IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day appeared first on Climate Home News.

    IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com