Connect with us

Published

on

Since its head office opened in Johannesburg 16 years ago, the African arm of environmental campaign group Greenpeace has made a name for itself, battling governments and corporations to defend forests, protect oceans and tackle climate change. It was an organisation staff said they were proud to work for.

But an internal restructuring – which Greenpeace Africa’s board asked newly-appointed executive director Oulie Keita to implement in June 2023 – has left management fighting affected employees as well as the planet’s foes. 

Climate Home spoke to former staff and has seen leaked documents, meeting recordings and email correspondence that expose the disarray caused by the drive by Greenpeace Africa’s management to lay off around 40 people – about half of its total staff – at three of its five offices, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Africa and Senegal. The organisation cited financial and security reasons in justifying the job cuts. 

Some ex-employees interviewed by Climate Home, however, expressed doubt about those motives, saying they felt unfairly targeted for dismissal. They also criticised the new management’s approach to interaction with African governments, as well as Greenpeace Africa’s stance on LGBT+ rights and trade union representation.

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

In a written response to those grievances, Climate Home was told that Greenpeace Africa “values the rights and voices of our employees and fosters an inclusive and collaborative work environment”. “Our policies align with the legal requirements in each country,” it added.

As one of the highest-profile environmental organisations on the African continent, Greenpeace has an ambitious vision to bring about “an Africa where people live in harmony with nature in a peaceful state of environmental and social justice”. The internal turmoil uncovered by Climate Home raises questions about its ability to meet that goal.

The terms of reference for a three-month operational review of the organisation, which was due to start in August 2023, cited a need for cultural change as a key reason for the restructuring. It said collaborative processes intended to boost productivity and accountability had failed, slowing down the delivery of a 2022-2025 strategic plan.

As COP Troika dithers on 1.5C-aligned climate plans, experts set the bar high

That four-year strategy “aimed to transform Greenpeace Africa, to be a viable organisation working on campaigns delivering systemic impacts in Africa, with an operating model that is fit for purpose and responsive to the challenges facing the continent”, the document added.

It also showed that Greenpeace Africa wanted to ensure it had enough of a presence in richer African nations to improve fundraising – an argument that was later used by management as a justification for downsizing offices in poorer nations like DRC.

Greenpeace told Climate Home this shift was “part of a broader effort to ensure that Greenpeace Africa remains financially sustainable. This approach strengthens our capacity to promote environmental justice in all regions, including those with fewer resources.” 

Following the shake-up, Climate Home understands that more than 10 former employees have launched legal action against Greenpeace Africa in labour courts in South Africa and Senegal, alleging unfair treatment by the organisation. Greenpeace Africa did not respond to questions on the cases, which are ongoing. 

It said, however, that its 2023-2024 restructuring was conducted “with the utmost care”, and “in accordance with all relevant labour laws in each of our countries and ethical guidelines”.

New strategy

On March 1, 2023, the Greenpeace Africa board announced that, after a series of interim bosses, Keita had been appointed as executive director. 

In a statement, it said she would “lead the implementation of the organisation’s new strategy which, grounded in African consciousness, seeks to dismantle systems which have historically served only to benefit the colonial powers, still plundering Africa for its resources”.

Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”

Then board chair Oury Traoré, a fellow Malian who resigned this year, said in the statement that it was “critical to build a movement led by women and youth”. As a woman joining from the United Nations youth platform YouthConnekt Africa, Keita seemed well-placed to do that.

She had studied law, sociology, international development and human rights at universities in Morocco, the US and Austria and then worked as a trainer, facilitator and consultant for NGOs and Western embassies across Africa. She joined the Greenpeace Africa board in April 2012.

Staff were initially pleased with Keita’s appointment as executive director, which ended the long hunt for a permanent leader. “We were very excited,” said one then staff member in Senegal. “We had the sense that the organisation would become more stable.”

But that did not happen. Just a week later, an email landed in the inbox of Greenpeace Africa’s people and culture director Paul Ngugi and its then lead campaigner on climate and energy Melita Steele, flagging earlier support by Keita for Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

Sent by the head of Greenpeace Africa’s Congo rainforest campaign at the time, and signed on behalf of “the Congo Basin team”, the email raised “serious concerns” about Keita’s appointment, due to her alleged “very high admiration of Paul Kagame and her public communication to praise and admire him”.

The email, seen by Climate Home, included 15 posts by Keita on X (formerly Twitter), sent between November 2020 and October 2022. They praised Kagame’s “exemplary leadership”, calling him a “visionary”, “rare jewel” and “my Favourite President in the world”. Keita said she had moved to Rwanda “because of the admiration and respect I have for this man!”

A post on Oulie Keita’s X account on November 14, 2020 (Screenshot)

Commenting on this, the email from the Congo Basin team said that having a leader of Greenpeace Africa with that kind of admiration for Kagame was a serious problem for them and their work. 

The United Nations has accused the military forces of Rwanda, governed by Kagame since 2000, of sending 4,000 troops to invade parts of neighbouring DRC and of backing Congolese rebel group M23. The violence has displaced millions of people in the DRC, which is home to large swathes of the world’s second-largest rainforest – a huge carbon store whose protection is regarded as vital to curbing global warming.

The email noted that the Congo Basin team had been preparing a statement on the DRC conflict for Greenpeace Africa’s leadership to endorse, “as for us our organisation’s silence on this conflict is no longer acceptable”. It added that the DRC office now believed “our new ED [Keita] would never accept such a statement”.

A mourning ceremony for the victims of the DRC conflict took place in the city of Goma on September 2, 2024. (Photo: Arlette Bashizi/Reuters)

Internal “smear campaign”

The email led to frantic activity at the top of Greenpeace Africa. The organisation’s engagement director brought forward training on social media use and prepared what she called a “risk mitigation comms plan for this particular concern”. 

On March 16, 2023, Greenpeace Africa’s then head of communication, Johannesburg-based Mbong Akiy Fokwa Tsafack, sent an email to staff on the subject of “the smear campaign” against the new executive director.

Greenpeace Africa, it said, wanted “to express its ultimate concern and disgust at the onslaught”. It accused unnamed people of using a “colonial approach, of divide and rule, taking advantage of the fragile political situation in the DRC to drive their agenda” and to “resist the transformation that is required to bring credibility to the presence of Greenpeace in Africa”. 

UN climate chief warns of “two-speed” global energy transition

Shortly afterwards, Keita herself sent a conciliatory email with no reference to Tsafack’s message. Keita said she had “heard with distress, yet with solidarity, the cries of the staff in the DRC who are rightfully disturbed about tweets on my social media handle”.

The posts, she noted, were made while she led YouthConnekt, which was chaired by Rwanda. “Cheering, supporting and celebrating the political will of these African leaders towards investing in the youth of Africa, including the main Champion the President of Rwanda as the co-initiator of this continental initiative was a big part of the job,” she wrote.

Keita added that she had “no personal political affiliations with any African countries”, thanked colleagues for raising “valid” concerns, and appealed for unity “to build the Africa we all want to live in”.

Keita did not respond to a request for comment for this article. Greenpeace Africa’s website states that the organisation “does not take sides in conflicts and wars on the African continent”, in line with Greenpeace’s global policy on peace. 

Congo office closure

About seven months later, in October, Greenpeace Africa’s finance director, South African Gerhard Combrink, held a video call with the DRC office to tell staff there that management had decided “to close down” their office and centralise activities for the Congo Basin in Cameroon.

The announcement seemed to come as a surprise to those attending, many of whom criticised the decision. Combrink said the Greenpeace Africa board had “consulted widely with Greenpeace International and with other [national or regional offices], especially Belgium”, the DRC’s former colonial ruler. But staff in the DRC said on the call they had not been included.

The then lead for the Congo Basin team said that, as three-fifths of the Congo rainforest is in the DRC, losing the office there would be a “historical error” and would damage the organisation’s credibility globally. 

The forest – and its central role in keeping climate change in check – is threatened by government-backed efforts to drill for oil and by industrial logging.

“It’s like closing an office in Brazil, and you say you’ll be campaigning from somewhere else to try to save the Amazon forest. It doesn’t work,” the team lead said. “Closing it will send a signal to many other African countries saying that no, this Greenpeace is not an organisation that we can count on,” she warned.

Environmental activists, with a banner co-signed by Greenpeace Africa, protest in Kinshasa, DRC, on November 29, 2019. (Photo: Hereward Holland/Reuters)

Combrink said one “fundamental” reason for the decision was “the security issues we face and our inability to openly confront the government without placing our staff at risk”. He noted that the organisation had evacuated staff to safeguard them against threats. The campaigner, who did not respond to Climate Home’s request for comment, replied that these evacuations had only been “preventive” and no DRC employees had been arrested.

Fundraising prioritised

Combrink said another reason for shutting the DRC office was that, due to the war in Ukraine, funding from Germany – a key source of income for Greenpeace Africa – was drying up. He said that “the [Greenpeace Africa] board is adamant that if we do have activities, it is necessary that we focus on fundraising within those countries”, adding it was not possible to “substantially” raise funds in the DRC, one of Africa’s poorest countries.

In the terms of reference seeking an external consultant to conduct the review – to be hired in August 2023 and reporting to Combrink and Keita – Greenpeace Africa stipulated that its future footprint should “reflect adequate presence in countries affluent enough to raise income for the rest of the organisation”. 

In its earlier June 2023 letter to Keita, mandating her to carry out the restructuring, the Greenpeace Africa board had noted that Greenpeace’s global revenue was decreasing against inflation, with the war in Ukraine negatively affecting its donor base and leading to a reduction in grants to regional offices including Africa.

It said staff alone accounted for almost two-thirds of Greenpeace Africa’s total annual projected costs, leaving it “poorly equipped to reduce its expenditure in the short term when its income streams diminish”.

“Given the large fixed overhead costs required to maintain a formal office within a country, it is crucial that we utilize current grant income streams to grow within geographical areas that can provide future donor income streams,” it added.

Several months later, on the call with DRC staff, Combrink said the review had identified Ghana, Nigeria and Mauritius as good targets for expansion, adding that fundraising in Kenya had “started to pick up”.

Responding to his comments, Greenpeace’s then Congo Basin lead argued that, while decisions on where to locate offices should be based on more than finances, DRC was “getting a lot of money compared to other offices”, particularly for its campaign to save the country’s huge rainforest.

A PhD student measures the circumference of a tree in a forest reserve near the village of Masako in the DRC on August 8, 2012. (Photo: Ollivier Girard/CIFOR)

In spite of the subsequent restructuring, which led to most of the DRC office staff leaving, Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home its operations in the country had not ceased and had been strengthened in 2024. 

During its latest mission to the DRC in August, to engage with “key stakeholders”, including the government, Greenpeace Africa said the Hydrocarbons Minister confirmed his government’s commitment to remove oil concessions overlapping protected forest areas, including in the Virunga National Park, and invited Greenpeace Africa to help identify the areas threatened by the concessions.

“Such political dialogue provides us a platform to campaign to achieve positive outcomes for the environment and the people in Africa,” Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home by email.

It added that the board’s decision to conduct a “geographic footprint” exercise to consider fundraising potential across the continent also supported this objective – and was not a threat to its activities in poorer countries like DRC.

“This approach does not diminish – in fact it strengthens – our capacity to promote environmental justice in all regions, including those with fewer financial resources,” it told Climate Home.

Union members sue in South Africa

As part of the broader restructuring of the organisation, further job cuts were announced at Greenpeace Africa’s offices in Senegal and South Africa.

Sources who worked at Greenpeace South Africa at that time said unionised staff members were affected by the retrenchment.

A document put together by trade union members, seen by Climate Home, lists 34 union members in Greenpeace Africa’s head office in Johannesburg. Of these, ten were in the fundraising department which trade union sources said was excluded from the restructuring.

Of the remaining 24, 15 were deemed “not suitable” for their positions and were laid off, as were several non-union staff, out of an overall headcount of around 50 employees.

Chart: Climate Home News

A legal document seen by Climate Home, dated May 2024, shows that lawyers acting for affected union members filed a case against Greenpeace Africa with the Labour Court of South Africa in Johannesburg alleging unfair dismissal and failure to follow due process.

It said court-ordered efforts at consultation between the employees and Greenpeace Africa had not resulted in any agreed selection criteria for retrenchment, but their contracts were terminated nonetheless. The case is pending and if not resolved in arbitration, will be heard by the court. Greenpeace did not comment on the proceedings.

Sources also raised questions about whether new staff, brought in after the restructuring, were permitted to unionise in the workplace.

A Greenpeace Africa employment contract from the end of 2023, seen by Climate Home, asked a potential employee in South Africa to “acknowledge that Greenpeace Africa is a non-unionised employer due to the nature of its operations, being a Non-Governmental not-for-profit institution relying on external grants for its survival”.

It requested that the employee “acknowledge that any [trade union] recognition agreement signed before 1 January 2024 is deemed cancelled and should a recognition agreement be required under local labour law, a new agreement will need to be signed in line with Greenpeace Africa’s new policies”.

Senegalese banker Ibrahima Cheikh Diong picked to lead new loss and damage fund

It is not known whether this is a standard clause in employment contracts for Greenpeace Africa staff. The organisation did not respond directly to Climate Home’s questions on this issue, or provide information on its unionisation policy, as requested.

In Senegal too, Climate Home understands that three former staff members have taken Greenpeace Africa to the local labour court. They are seeking damages and a declaration that their dismissals were unfair after they were accused of financial irregularities and other misdemeanours – which they deny. Greenpeace Africa declined to comment on the case, which is at a pre-trial stage pending conciliation efforts.

While Greenpeace’s management have insisted the job losses across their African offices were necessary to keep the organisation financially sustainable, many former staff members told Climate Home the restructuring was used as a way to ram through the changes wanted by the board in the face of internal opposition.

“It’s just a way to kill [the influence of] some activists who do not agree with what they say,” said a former staffer in Senegal “They want people who are very docile.”

Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it recognised that “some people may not be happy with the growing success of the new management”.

“We understand that organisational changes can be challenging, and we made sure that the change management process was carried out legally, fairly and transparently,” it added.

Row over LGBT issues

During the restructuring period, Greenpeace Africa management also took issue with staff members’ criticism of its approach to LGBT+ rights.

In June 2023, Greenpeace Africa debated internally how to mark Pride month and how to respond to the Ugandan government’s new Anti-Homosexuality Act.

Ugandan LGBTQ activists protest against their government in the South African city of Pretoria on March 31, 2023. (Photo: Alet Pretorius/Reuters)

Some LGBT+ employees criticised a plan to hold an all-staff meeting in Johannesburg to discuss these issues, where LGBT+ workers were going to be asked to share their experiences.

In a letter to Greenpeace Africa management, they said this would require them to out themselves and “identify us for further victimisation later”. 

Instead, they proposed that external experts on South African labour law, discrimination and gender sensitivity should be brought in to educate staff. 

They accused management of “a refusal to maintain professional standards” and of not following South African labour and equality law.

Their email elicited a strongly worded response from Greenpeace Africa governance officer Eugene Perumal, who wrote that they did not represent all of the organisation’s LGBT+ employees. He added that it was “disingenuous and disrespectful to insinuate that Greenpeace Africa Management paid no attention to this particular area”.

He then warned them: “You need to revise the disrespectful manner you engage with Greenpeace Africa senior management, the defamation, false statements and undermining are unacceptable behaviour patterns and [Senior Leadership Team] will take action accordingly.”

COP29 aims to boost battery storage and grids for renewables, as pledges proliferate

Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it had engaged external experts to provide LGBT+ education and support, and ensured that “all staff feel safe and respected during these discussions”. A training workshop in March on this issue “proved very successful”, it added.

The organisation, it said, is “firmly committed to promoting the principles of Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Safety (JEDIS) across all aspects of our work”, including by fostering and maintaining “a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment for all employees, including our LGBTQ+ colleagues”.

More government “collaboration”

The organisational strife and contentious reforms inside Greenpeace Africa have been accompanied by a shift in external strategy, according to documents seen by Climate Home.

An internal report on Greenpeace Africa’s activities at the COP28 UN climate summit in Dubai last December, said that, during meetings, ministers from the Republic of Congo and Cameroon “expressed their strong displeasure with Greenpeace’s confrontational approach in trying to address the issues around climate change”.

A screenshot of Greenpeace Africa’s internal report on the COP28 climate summit

The report did not describe what they objected to, but said that Keita “reassured [the ministers] of a new approach of collaboration” and noted they “were willing to reset the relationship with [Greenpeace Africa] under the new leadership and map out areas of collaboration in the near future”.

This approach was criticised by former staff members. “It’s not the DNA of Greenpeace,” one said. “How can you be friendly with the government and it is killing people?” Another said, “it felt like we were being neutered.”

Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home that, under its current management, it “supports the building of a climate justice movement across Africa to hold the extractive industries and governments to account”. It had launched its first such movement in the DRC, Cameroon and Ghana, with plans to expand into the Republic of Congo and Nigeria in 2025, it added.

In addition, Greenpeace Africa pointed to its lobbying work against the oil industry and its impacts on the continent, as well as its advocacy calling for plastic waste to be cleaned up in Kenya, and more protection for oceans and the livelihoods of African fishing communities, among other campaigns. 

Greenpeace International silent

Despite the apparent turmoil experienced at Greenpeace Africa over the past 18 months, Climate Home understands that its parent organisation Greenpeace International has not intervened to help resolve the documented issues. Greenpeace did not respond directly when asked about this. 

Greenpeace Africa is one of 26 Greenpeace branches around the world, known as national/regional organisations or NROs. They all have some independence but are overseen by Greenpeace International, which is based in the Dutch city of Amsterdam. 

Nairobi-based development officer Yvonne Muyoti, who is in charge of monitoring Greenpeace Africa for Greenpeace International, was copied on the emails from Keita and Tsafack about DRC staff concerns over Rwanda.


Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it is an independent NRO guided by its board of directors but collaborates closely with Greenpeace International. “We value the support and oversight provided by Greenpeace International,” it said.


Some former staff members of Greenpeace Africa, however, are concerned that a lack of racial diversity in the upper levels of Greenpeace international – whose senior executives are mostly white and from rich countries – is preventing the global parent organisation from intervening in the African disarray. 


One black female former Greenpeace Africa staff member told Climate Home she believed Greenpeace International was reluctant to challenge Keita over her leadership style: “I think they are worried about how it will look – a Eurocentric organisation taking on a black woman.” 


Another former employee described Greenpeace Africa as his “baby”, but said those now in charge “don’t know the DNA of the organisation”. 


“People in Greenpeace have to be strong and be up against all the injustice they are facing in the organisation,” he said. “The fight must start inside before it goes outside.”

_

Nairobi-based development officer Yvonne Muyoti, who is in charge of monitoring Greenpeace Africa for Greenpeace International, was copied on the emails from Keita and Tsafack about DRC staff concerns over Rwanda.

Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it is an independent NRO guided by its board of directors but collaborates closely with Greenpeace International. “We value the support and oversight provided by Greenpeace International,” it said.

Some former staff members of Greenpeace Africa, however, are concerned that a lack of racial diversity in the upper levels of Greenpeace International – whose top executives are mostly white and from rich countries – is preventing the global parent organisation from intervening in the African disarray.

One black female former Greenpeace Africa staff member told Climate Home she believed Greenpeace International was reluctant to challenge Keita over her leadership style: “I think they are worried about how it will look – a Eurocentric organisation taking on a black woman.”

Another former employee described Greenpeace Africa as his “baby”, but said those now in charge “don’t know the DNA of the organisation”.

“People in Greenpeace have to be strong and be up against all the injustice they are facing in the organisation,” he said. “The fight must start inside before it goes outside.”

(Reporting by Joe Lo; fact-checking by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Megan Rowling, Sebastian Rodriguez and Matteo Civillini)

The post Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance appeared first on Climate Home News.

Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Germany election 2025: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change

Published

on

A federal election is taking place in Germany on 23 February, following the collapse of the coalition government at the end of last year.

Germans will vote to elect 630 members of the nation’s parliament.

Polling suggests there will be a political shift to the right, with the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the lead and far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) set to make significant gains.

A “traffic light” coalition of parties has ruled since 2021, led by the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), alongside the Green Party and the Free Democratic Party (FDP).

However, successive crises led to its breakup at the end of 2024, when the liberal, free market-oriented FDP split from the rest.

This prompted a vote of no confidence by the German parliament, which, in turn, triggered a snap election several months earlier than previously scheduled.

The coalition government has been plagued by ideological differences, particularly between the FDP and its two centre-left partners.

Climate policies were at the heart of many of the disputes. 

The centre-left SPD and Greens have broadly favoured more public spending on climate issues, while the FDP is opposed to state intervention of any sort.

In the interactive grid below, Carbon Brief tracks the commitments made by each of the main parties in their election manifestos, across a range of issues related to climate and energy.

The parties covered are:

  • Christian Democratic Union (CDU)/Christian Social Union (CSU): The centre-right CDU and its regional Bavarian “sister party”, CSU, has been the dominant political force in modern Germany and is currently polling highest ahead of the election.
  • Social Democratic Party (SPD): The centre-left SPD has led the ruling coalition in Germany since the last election in 2021 and has traditionally been the other dominant party in the nation’s politics.
  • Green Party: The centre-left and environmentalist Greens have been part of the coalition government since 2021.
  • Free Democratic Party (FDP): The FDP is an economically liberal party that prioritises free markets and privatisation. It was part of the coalition government, but its departure at the end of 2024 ultimately triggered the federal election.
  • Left Party: In recent years, this left-wing, democratic-socialist party has lost much of its support base in the east of the country.
  • Alternative for Germany (AfD): The far-right party has become a major force in the country’s politics over the past decade, particularly in eastern Germany.
  • Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW): The party was only founded last year, as an offshoot of the Left Party, but it has rapidly risen in popularity with a left-wing economic message and a conservative approach to some social and cultural issues.

Each entry in the grid represents a direct quote from a manifesto document.

Net-zero and climate framing

Climate action has become a divisive topic in German politics.

This is evident in the major parties’ manifestos, which range from supporting more ambitious net-zero goals to outright climate scepticism.

Germany is currently aiming to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, with interim targets including a 65% cut by 2030.

Government climate advisors on the Council of Experts on Climate Change have stated that the nation is on track to miss the 2030 target.

Despite starting out with ambitious aims, the coalition’s climate progress has faltered, with the FDP successfully pushing for weaker climate policies. Moreover, a major court ruling curtailed the government’s climate spending by enforcing Germany’s limit on debt. 

Amid these wider tensions, Germany’s two traditionally dominant parties still want to retain the nation’s headline climate target. The CDU, which is leading the polls in the run-up to election day, commits to meeting the Paris Agreement goals in its manifesto, saying its sights are “firmly set” on net-zero by 2045.

The SPD, which is currently third in the polls and likely to end up in coalition with the CDU, also supports the 2045 net-zero target, as well as the interim goals.

However, the two parties differ substantially in their approach to meeting the 2045 target. The CDU prioritises carbon pricing and rejects the tougher policies to decarbonise heating and transport favoured by the SPD. (See: Heating dispute and Combustion engine phaseout.)

Meanwhile, the AfD manifesto repeatedly questions the “supposed scientific consensus” on “man-made climate change”. The party, which is currently second in the polls, “therefore rejects every policy and every tax that is related to alleged climate protection”.

Mainstream German parties across the spectrum have long agreed to a “firewall” against far-right groups, meaning they will not form coalitions with the AfD. However, the CDU recently sparked controversy when it backed an anti-immigration policy with the AfD.

The Green Party also supports the 2045 net-zero target in its manifesto, emphasising Germany’s status as the EU member state with the highest emissions. The Left Party goes further, calling for a 2040 net-zero goal.

As for the FDP, its manifesto argues for the 2045 net-zero goal to be pushed back to 2050, stating that this would align Germany with the EU target. Prior to exiting the coalition government last year, the party had demanded this policy change, claiming that it would be a way to boost the German economy.

(Germany already revised its net-zero target, bringing it forward by five years, following a supreme court ruling in 2021 that its 2050 goal was insufficient. Moreover, even with a later goal, Germany would still need to align with wider EU targets, meaning its climate policies may not change much due to its “effort sharing” obligations.)

Finally, the BSW is not specific about when the net-zero goal should be achieved, but pushes for a “departure from the wishful thinking of quickly achieving complete climate neutrality”.

It does not reject climate policies outright, stating that climate change should be “taken seriously”. However, it frames many climate policies as being “extremely expensive and often unrealistic”.

Heating dispute

Home heating has become a major political issue in Germany. Along with transport, buildings make up one of the key German sectors that have repeatedly missed their decarbonisation goals, prompting the coalition government to take action.

Towards the end of 2023, the German parliament passed an amendment to the Building Energy Act, meaning that newly installed heating systems had to be powered by at least 65% renewable energy. 

This covered heat pumps, “hydrogen-ready” gas boilers and other low-carbon systems. There are caveats to ensure the law is phased in gradually in different areas and types of homes, starting with new builds.

The amendment had been watered down compared to the coalition’s initial proposal, with allowances for people to keep gas boilers for longer. This followed relentless campaigning by the AfD and the right-leaning tabloid newspaper Bild, which dubbed the policy the “heizhammer” – or “heating hammer”.

There were also attacks from within the coalition, with the FDP criticising the law proposed by its partners in the Greens and SDP. Opponents framed the policy as an excessive burden on consumers.

These disputes are reflected in the election manifestos, with many parties outright rejecting the amended law. The CDU, FDP and AfD all say they would abolish it, as does the populist left BSW.

Meanwhile, the Green Party pledges to provide more government support for the installation of new heating systems by covering up to 70% of the price. The Left Party commits to covering 100% of the cost for low-income households.

(The current law covers 30% of the cost as a starting subsidy, with more available for low-income households and people who replace their boilers before 2028.)

Combustion engine phaseout

Several German political parties are pushing back against the EU-wide ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, which is set to come into effect in 2035.

The CDU says the “ban on combustion engines must be reversed”, while the AfD says the “one-sided preference for electromobility must be stopped immediately”.

(EVs are “likely crucial” for tackling transport emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC].)

The FDP and the BSW also argue that the 2035 phaseout date should be dropped, with less focus on the transition to electric cars. (This is in spite of Germany being the second-biggest manufacturer of electric cars in the world.)

These parties also favour getting rid of supposed “anti-car” policies. For example, they oppose speed limits on the German “autobahns” and support funding for alternative fuels, such as synthetic fuels.

The issue with ending the 2035 ban on new combustion-engine cars is that this policy is set at the EU level. Far-right and centre-right coalitions within the EU, including German parties, have been pushing hard to weaken the ban across the bloc. 

However, the centre-left parties that may end up forming a coalition with the CDU, notably the SPD, stand by the 2035 phaseout date.

There is growing pressure on Germany’s car industry, linked to global competition and slow economic growth. Some German industry figures have stressed the need for consistent policy signals from the government, regarding the transition to electric vehicles.

Clean energy and fossil fuels

Broadly speaking, German parties on the left tend to be more supportive of renewables, while strongly opposing nuclear power. Those on the right are generally more open to nuclear and in some cases coal power.

Germany, which uses more coal than any other EU member state, has a coal power phaseout date of 2038. This is supported by the CDU and the FDP, but the Greens and the Left Party want a quicker phaseout by 2030.

(When the coalition government formed in 2021, the parties agreed to “ideally” move the coal phaseout date to 2030, but this has not happened formally. The SPD manifesto does not include any mention of coal power,)

Only the AfD advocates for the construction of new coal power plants, framing them as filling a gap until new nuclear plants are built.

Last year, Germany closed down its final nuclear reactors, bringing an end to a long-term plan to phase out the power source. However, nuclear power continues to be a politicised topic, with some arguing that its continued use is necessary to ensure the nation’s energy security.

Notably, the CDU suggests in its manifesto that it is open to reviving nuclear power in the future. It proposes an “expert review” around restarting closed plants and advocates for research on advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors.

Despite this wording, CDU leader Friedrich Merz has conceded that it is unlikely any old reactors will be restarted. This echoes views expressed by German utility companies and energy experts.

Both the CDU and the SPD support the expansion of renewables in their manifestos. The Greens include a specific target to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. By contrast, the AfD calls for an end to wind power expansion, in favour of other technologies.

Finally, both the far-right AfD and the BSW say the German government should repair the damaged Nord Stream pipelines in order to import what the BSW refers to as “cheap” gas from Russia. (The Baltic Sea pipelines were blown up in 2022 under mysterious circumstances.)

Germany has tried to wean itself off Russian gas since the country’s invasion of Ukraine, with considerable success. However, both the AfD and the BSW are more open to cooperating with Russia, and less supportive of Ukraine, than mainstream German parties.

The post Germany election 2025: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Germany election 2025: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Guest post: How atmospheric rivers are bringing rain to West Antarctica 

Published

on

“Atmospheric rivers” are bringing rain to the frozen slopes of the West Antarctic ice sheet, hitting the ice shelves that play a major role in holding back rapidly retreating glaciers.

In a new study, my colleagues and I show how rain is occurring in sub-zero temperatures due to these “rivers in the sky” – long, narrow plumes of air which transport heat and moisture from the tropics to the mid-latitudes and poles.

Rain in Antarctica is significant, not only because it is a stark indicator of climate change, but because it remains an under-studied phenomenon which could impact ice shelves.

Ice shelves in Antarctica are important gatekeepers of sea level rise.

They act as a buffer for glaciers that flow off the vast ice sheet, slowing the rate at which ice is released into the ocean.

In the study, we explore the causes of rain falling on ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea embayment region, which stand in front of the critically important Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers.

Researchers have warned the collapse of ice shelves in this region could trigger the loss of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet over several centuries.

Rivers in the sky

Atmospheric rivers are typically associated with bringing extreme rainfall to the mid-latitudes, but, in the frigid Antarctic, they can deliver metres of snow in just a few days. 

In West Antarctica, atmospheric rivers deliver a disproportionate quantity of the year’s snowfall. Research shows they account for around 13% of annual snowfall totals, despite occurring on just a few days per year.

But what makes atmospheric rivers in Antarctica so interesting is that snow is only part of the story. In extreme cases, they can also bring rain.

To explore how extreme precipitation affects the Amundsen Sea embayment region, we focused on two events associated with atmospheric rivers in 2020. The summer case took place over a week in February and the winter case over six days in June.

We used three regional climate models to simulate the two extreme weather events around the Thwaites and Pine Island ice shelves, then compared the results with snowfall observations.

During both the winter and summer cases, we find that atmospheric rivers dumped tens of metres of snow over the course of a week or so.

Meanwhile, the quantities of rain driven by these events were not insignificant. We observed up to 30mm of rain on parts of the Thwaites ice shelf in summer and up to 9mm in winter.

Amundsen sea, map.
A map of the Amundsen Sea embayment region in West Antarctica. Source: Produced by the British Antarctic Survey’s Mapping and Geographic Information Centre, 2025.

A mountain to climb

Antarctica’s cold climate and steep, icy topography make it unique. It also makes the region prone to rain in sub-zero temperatures.

The first reason for this is the foehn effect, which is when air forced over a mountain range warms as it descends on the downward slope.

Commonly observed across Antarctica, it is an important cause of melting over ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula, the northernmost point of the continent. 

When air passes over the mountainous terrain of the West Antarctic ice sheet during atmospheric river events, temperatures near the surface of the ice shelves can climb above the melting point of 0C.

This can accentuate the formation of rain and drizzle that stays liquid below 0C – also known as “supercooled drizzle”.

Another factor which leads to liquid drizzle, rather than snow, in sub-zero conditions is a lack of dust and dirt – particles which are usually needed to trigger the formation of ice crystals in clouds.

In the pristine Antarctic, these particles – which act as “ice nuclei” – are few and far between. That means that pure liquid water can exist even when temperatures are below 0C.

The origins of rain over ice shelves

It is easy to assume that rain that reaches the surface in Antarctica is just snow that has melted after falling through a warm layer of air caused by the foehn effect. Indeed, this is what we initially supposed.

But our research shows that more rain reaches the surface of Antarctica when the air near the ground is within a few degrees of freezing.

At times when the foehn effect is strongest, there is often little or no rainfall, because it evaporates before it gets a chance to reach the surface.

However, we saw rain falling well above the warm layer of air near the surface, where temperatures were universally below 0C – and, in some cases, as low as -11C.

Rare rain

Rain in Antarctica is a rare occurrence. The region’s normally frigid temperatures mean that most precipitation over the continent falls as snow.

However, exactly how rare rain is in the region remains relatively unknown, because there are virtually zero measurements of rainfall in Antarctica.

There are a number of reasons for this – rain falls infrequently, and it is very difficult to measure in the hostile Antarctic environment.

Our results show that extreme events such as atmospheric rivers can bring rain. And it is likely that rain will become a more common occurrence in the future as temperatures rise and extreme weather events occur more frequently.

However, until rain starts being measured in Antarctica, scientists will have to rely entirely on models to predict rain, as we did in this research.

It is also not yet known exactly how rain could impact ice in Antarctica.

We do know that rain falling on snow darkens the surface, which can enhance melting, leading to greater ice losses. Meanwhile, rain that refreezes in the snowpack or trickles to the base of the ice can change the way that glaciers flow, impacting the resilience of ice shelves to fracture.

So, if we want to understand the future of the frozen continent, we need to start thinking about rain too. Because while rain may be rare now, it may not be for long.

The post Guest post: How atmospheric rivers are bringing rain to West Antarctica  appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Guest post: How atmospheric rivers are bringing rain to West Antarctica 

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Colombia’s COP16 presidency in suspense as minister resigns

Published

on

Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s minister of environment since 2022 and president of the COP16 UN biodiversity negotiations, has announced she will step down from government, but has asked President Gustavo Petro to let her stay in her post to conclude the UN nature talks later in February.

In her resignation letter, addressed to the president and dated February 8, Muhamad said she was quitting as a minister but urged him to consider “the need to conclude COP16” – the summit left unfinished in Colombia last year and now scheduled to resume from February 25 to 27 in Rome.

“I’ve led the complex negotiations in progress and I exercise the role of president (of the COP). Therefore, if you so decide, this resignation could be made effective from March 3,” the letter reads.

Muhamad has been one of the most vocal opponents of the recent appointment of former senator Armando Benedetti as Petro’s chief of staff. Benedetti has faced allegations of domestic abuse and corruption, and was previously fired as ambassador to Venezuela by Petro himself.

In a televised session of the council of ministers held last week, Muhamad heavily opposed Benedetti’s appointment and threatened to resign if he remained in the cabinet. “As a feminist and as a woman, I cannot sit at this table of our progressive project with Armando Benedetti,” she told Petro.

According to Oscar Soria, veteran biodiversity campaigner and CEO of think-tank The Common Initiative, the Colombian government is likely to keep Muhamad as COP president, but her resignation could have a negative impact on the talks.

“To have a good result in Rome, proactive and energetic diplomatic work by the presidency was needed in the last months. However, some key issues have not been discussed recently. The internal political crisis (in Colombia) has likely been a great distraction,” Soria told Climate Home.

Since Muhamad’s announcement, several other ministers have also resigned, leading Petro to place all of his cabinet on hold and asking for “protocolary resignations” from every member.

“It’s not clear how much support from the president and ministers (Muhamad) can count on when her counterparts from other countries need to be approached by the Colombian foreign service,” Soria added.

Upcoming nature talks

The COP16 biodiversity negotiations are set to resume later this month, with important decisions coming up on finance for nature and a monitoring framework to track progress on nature restoration. These decisions were left pending after negotiators ran out of time in Cali, Colombia, last year.

One of the most pressing issues is the future of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), which currently sits under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) until 2030. Some developing countries have called for the creation of a new fund, citing barriers at the GEF to access the funds.

Observers said COP16 could play an important role in the future of biodiversity finance, especially as the new US president, Donald Trump, cuts development funding for climate and nature projects.

“In Rome, countries must give a firm response to the measures and visions promoted by the Trump administration, reaffirming [their] commitment to protecting biodiversity,” said Karla Maas, campaigner at Climate Action Network (CAN) Latin America.

“This implies guaranteeing public resources for conservation instead of depending on the will of private actors or philanthropy,” Maas added.

(Reporting by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Colombia’s COP16 presidency in suspense as minister resigns appeared first on Climate Home News.

Colombia’s COP16 presidency in suspense as minister resigns

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com