When I was first invited to participate in the Climate Generation cohort attending COP 28, I was especially interested in learning more about the global impact of climate change on food systems, especially with regard to Indigenous peoples. Once I figured out the logistical challenges of navigating Expo City in Dubai, I spent much of my time at the Food & Health pavilion as well as the nearby Indigenous peoples pavilion. My hope was to augment my work in food sovereignty with a deeper, global understanding of the challenges posed by climate change. And to see the negotiating process up close as a way of clarifying my own responsibility to the health of the earth.
While I appreciated the learning experience that was provided by each session that I attended, there were a few peak experiences that helped reshape my understanding of climate change and the myriad ways in which we, as individuals, can help mitigate these changes.
COP 28 provided a global perspective through the United Nations, as well as a lens into work being done by various governmental levels, from state to city to organization. Since my return home, I’ve been thinking about how I can help translate my understanding of this multi-level, international movement into individual and community based action, especially when there is already widespread fear and paralysis about the future.
One of the experiences that offered pragmatic, useful insight into the negotiating process was an informal conversation our group had with Abby’s sister, who was a climate negotiator for the US. She helped clarify the seemingly overwhelming challenge of achieving consensus among 196 countries with different cultures and very different needs. Within that context, and despite all the politics, I could see the value of this process as it allowed for countries to advocate and educate about their particular climate challenges. Given the political reality of countries failing to achieve their NDCs or even slow down fossil fuel consumption, it also seems unlikely that the United Nations will find the political will to move fast enough to achieve the 1.5 degree goal, and to do it in a just and equitable manner with regard to developing and Indigenous countries. So how can other levels of government, other sectors, artists, farmers, teachers, youth, elders, all contribute to making changes that don’t wait for the UN to fix this for us?
How do I translate the goals of phasing out fossil fuels, empowering Indigenous communities to lead, and limiting warming to 1.5 degrees into my own life?
When I attended the session promoting Minnesota as a model that was hosted by the America Is All In pavilion, it was highly gratifying to learn more about Minnesota’s commitment to a goal of 100% renewable energy sourced electricity by 2040. But the panel was mostly white and completely ignored both the needs and contributions of Indigenous and people of color in Minnesota. Especially disturbing was the statistic quoted in opening remarks that the Midwest would rank 5th in the world for emissions, bypassing many countries, only to have the role of agriculture not mentioned at all. When I asked how much of Minnesota’s emissions are the result of agriculture and what is being done to hold that sector accountable, the panelist from Fresh Energy reassured me that she was on the governor’s advisory panel. Somehow, that didn’t answer my question. Another interesting statistic from that session: one acre of solar panels will generate 18x the amount of energy produced by an acre of corn to be used as ethanol.
One of COP’s great highlights for me turned out to be Soil day at the Food pavilion, with an entire day of programming dedicated to the topic of Soil. I listened to the recordings for most of the sessions, feeling somewhat obsessive in learning as much as I could about the connection between Soil, Nature and People (the overall theme for the day). There was a strong call for Soil to be included in the global stocktake as it was increasingly important to monitor the capacity for countries to maintain stable, healthy food systems. Soil stores 3x more carbon than the atmosphere and healthy soil has the ability to sequester 15 billion tons of carbon, which means that soil plays an important role in the climate crisis.
I also learned that half of the world’s land could be unusable within decades and that we can only achieve a sustainable food system by improving soil health. Soil health unites all food producers because it offers the means to deal with the growing food crisis as well as the ongoing biodiversity crisis. Most importantly, a transition to regenerative agriculture practices that maintain healthy soil, healthy crops, and healthy animals has the potential to help produce 40% more food by 2050 with zero emissions. Now that’s an inspiring goal!
By the end of the week, my head was packed full of ideas, statistics, perspectives, fears, hopes, and new insights. On my last day at COP, I decided to take a break and finally visit the Green Zone. That’s when I wandered into a series of small moments and experiences that would help me redefine and clarify my relationship to healing and protecting the health of the earth and responding to the challenges posed by climate change.
Almost immediately, I was drawn to a large wire and paper sculpture of a massive bee swarm, a piece that promoted Beethechange, an international organization that is supporting bees and pollinators. I was invited to make an origami bee that I could attach to the tail section of the sculpture. The first step was to write a climate intention on the small paper. I wrote, “I will take care of my relatives,” as providing habitat for all pollinators, and especially native bees, is the primary focus of my gardens. Shifting from a week of long meetings to hands-on artmaking was a reminder of the immense power of art to tell this story by emphasizing what we cherish, rather than always trying to motivate people with statistics and reports that can fuel fear and anxiety. This was the core belief I carried with me to COP, that we are strongest when we are protecting what we love.
From there I went in search of the Expo City urban farm that I had been hearing about. On a landscape formed primarily from sand and heat, the garden was impressive, with row upon row of healthy, vibrant vegetables, from kale and tomatoes to corn. Sensing my interest, the farmer came over and we bonded by strolling the rows and appreciating each plant. We talked about the biofertilizer he used that was produced from chicken manure at the farm’s primary location, an hour from Dubai. I asked why he mounded his rows, because I had seen a waffle method used in the arid climate of Arizona to retain water. He explained that the irrigation system along each plant stem could water roots more easily when they were raised. Along our walk, he told me that he was originally a wheat farmer from Syria, had lost everything in the war, and was starting over as a farmer in Dubai. When we passed the hydroponics building, he shrugged and said, it’s only good for growing leaves. What he really meant was that you can’t grow wheat in hydroponics. He added, even if we go to the moon, we need to build soil. And that formed the second small epiphany of my day, that I want to focus on soil as one of the relatives that I care for by improving the health of the soil in my garden. There’s no better way to learn than by getting your hands dirty. By building soil in my own garden, I can extend that understanding to Minnesota’s agricultural issues (5th in emissions!), building food sovereignty on reservations, and to the challenges facing small farmers globally.
I also wanted to connect one last time with the Indigenous Peoples pavilion so I attended a presentation by NDN about their work to establish LandBack as an international movement. Four incredibly smart, passionate, and dedicated Indigenous women spoke eloquently about the critical importance of reclaiming Indigenous land as the keeper and foundation for place-based Indigenous knowledge. One of them, an NDN grantee, spoke about the seed sovereignty work she was engaged in back on her Haudenosaunee reservation. I approached her afterwards to thank her for speaking on behalf of the seeds. As we talked, she told me that her mentor, Terry Lynn Brant, had just passed a few days earlier. I was shocked by the news as I had worked with Terry Lynn and was indebted to her for the seed knowledge she had shared with me. It was such a poignant reminder that we only have so much time on this earth to do our work. Terry Lynn will be remembered as a generous and brilliant, traditional leader.
At the end of the afternoon, my last official stop was the press conference for the Rights of Plants, hosted by WECAN. The Rights of Nature Movement offers a systemic framework for defending biodiversity, communities, and our climate. This growing movement challenges the dominant society perception of nature as a resource to be owned and exploited. Supporters feel that legal protections for Nature, similar to human rights, will persuade humanity to take care of their relatives, recognizing that we are all interconnected. To me, this is a fundamental expression of Indigenous thought, or as the Dakota say, Mitakuye Owasin, we are all related. This is why Indigenous people need to be at the forefront of the climate change movement, leading the way with traditional ecological knowledge.
And finally, as I continue to think about the ways in which I can weave these various threads of change more deeply into my life–bees, soil health, seed sovereignty and LandBack, and the Rights of Plants—I am also grateful for the open-ended process and creative space provided by Climate Generation.
By not imposing burdensome or rigid expectations, they allowed room for exploration and learning, allowing us to move within a creative process.
The deadlines we did have provided structure for reflection, which was also appreciated, given the overwhelming nature of the experience. I felt respected as an artist and given the room I needed to forge my own relationship to climate change and COP 28. This experience will continue to ripple through my writing, my garden, and my community. Pidamaye ye!
Diane Wilson is a Dakota writer, educator, and bog steward, who has published four award-winning books as well as numerous essays. Her novel, The Seed Keeper, received the 2022 Minnesota Book Award for Fiction, and her memoir, Spirit Car: Journey to a Dakota Past, won a 2006 Minnesota Book Award and was selected for the 2012 One Minneapolis One Read program. She has also published a nonfiction book, Beloved Child: A Dakota Way of Life, a middle-grade biography, Ella Cara Deloria: Dakota Language Protector, and co-authored a picture book—Where We Come From. Wilson is a Mdewakanton descendent, enrolled on the Rosebud Reservation. She is the former Executive Director for Dream of Wild Health, an Indigenous non-profit farm, and the Native American Food Sovereignty Alliance, a national coalition of tribes and organizations working to create sovereign food systems for Native people.
Diane is a Climate Generation Window Into COP delegate for COP28. To learn more, we encourage you to meet the full delegation and subscribe to the Window Into COP digest.
The post FOOD FOR THOUGHT appeared first on Climate Generation.
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
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.
-
Big banks’ lending to coal backers undermines Indonesia’s green plans
Foreign banks involved in Indonesia’s $20-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership have also funded companies working on coal power expansion, a TBIJ and Climate Home News investigation reveals -
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Renewables developers need reliable electricity infrastructure and stable policies to help the region meet climate goals and surging demand for power
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.
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.
-
Nickel mining for electric vehicles is destroying lives in Indonesia
Indonesia’s abundant nickel reserves are crucial for a low carbon world. But extracting them is ruining local peoples’ lives and causing rampant deforestation -
Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone
Indonesia supplies the EV industry with critical battery materials but the sector’s rapid expansion is infringing the rights of Indigenous peoples -
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
The government has abandoned its plan to shut down a major coal plant, which was a key part of the deal, raising doubts about the donor-backed approach
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
Climate Change
Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans
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
-
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