It is well understood that human-caused climate change is causing sea levels to rise around the world.
Since 1901, global sea levels have risen by at least 20cm – accelerating from around 1mm a year for much of the 20th century to 4mm a year over 2006-18.
Sea level rise has significant environmental and social consequences, including coastal erosion, damage to buildings and transport infrastructure, loss of livelihoods and ecosystems.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said it is “virtually certain” that sea level will continue to rise during the current century and beyond.
But what is less clear is exactly how quickly sea levels could climb over the coming decades.
This is largely due to challenges in calculating the rate at which land ice in Antarctica – the world’s largest store of frozen freshwater – could melt.
In this article, we unpack some of the reasons why projecting the speed and scale of future sea level rise is difficult.
Drivers of sea level rise
There are three principal components of sea level rise.
First, as the ocean warms, water expands. This process is known as thermal expansion, a comparatively straightforward physical process.
Second, more water gets added to the oceans when the ice contained in glaciers and ice sheets on land melts and flows into the sea.
Third, changes in rainfall and evaporation – as well as the extraction of groundwater for drinking and irrigation, drainage of wetlands and construction of reservoirs – affect how much water is stored on land.
In its sixth assessment cycle (AR6), the IPCC noted that thermal expansion and melting land ice contributed almost equally to sea level rise over the past century. Changes in land water storage, on the other hand, played a minor role.
However, the balance between these three drivers is shifting.
The IPCC projects that the contribution of melting land ice – already the largest contributor to sea level rise – will increase over the coming decade as the world continues to warm.
The lion’s share of the Earth’s remaining land ice – 88% – is in Antarctica, with Greenland accounting for almost all of the rest. (Mountain glaciers in the Himalaya, Alps and other regions collectively account for less than 1% of total land ice.)
However, it is difficult to project exactly how much Antarctic ice will make its way into the sea between now and 2100.
As a result, IPCC projections cover a large range of outcomes for future sea level rise.
In AR6, the IPCC said sea levels would “likely” be between 44-76cm higher by 2100 than the 1995-2014 average under a medium-emissions scenario. However, it noted that sea level rise above this range could not be ruled out due to “deep uncertainty linked to ice sheet processes”.
The chart below illustrates the wide range of sea level rise projected by the IPCC under different warming scenarios (coloured lines) as well as a possible – but unlikely – worst-case scenario (dotted line).
The shaded areas represent the “likely range” of sea level rise under each warming scenario, calculated by analysing processes that are already well understood. The worst-case scenario dotted line represents a future where various poorly understood processes combine to lead to a very rapid increase in sea levels.
The graph shows that sea level rise increases with warming – and would climb most sharply under the “low-likelihood, high-impact” pathway.
Retreat of glacier grounding lines
In Antarctica, the melting of ice on the surface of glaciers is limited. In many locations, warmer temperatures are leading to increases in snowfall and greater snow accumulation, which means the surface of the ice is continuously gaining mass.
Most of Antarctica’s contribution to global sea level rise is, therefore, not linked to ice melt at the surface. Instead, it occurs when giant glaciers push from land into the sea, propelled downhill by gravity and their own immense weight.
These huge masses of ice first grind downhill across the land and then along the seafloor. Eventually, they detach from the bedrock and start to float.
These floating ice shelves then largely melt from below, as warm ocean water intrudes into cavities on its underside. This is known as “basal melting”.
The boundary between grounded and floating ice is known as the “grounding line”.
In many regions of Antarctica, grounding lines typically sit at the high point of the bedrock, with the ice sheet deepening inland. This is illustrated in the graphic below.
When a grounding line is at a high point of the bedrock, it acts as a block which limits the area of ice exposed to basal melting.
However, if the grounding line retreats further inland, warm water could “spill” over the high point in the bedrock and carve out large cavities below the ice. This could dramatically accelerate the retreat of grounding lines further inland across Antarctica.
There is evidence to suggest that the retreat of grounding lines might cause a runaway effect, in which each successive retreat causes the ice behind the line to detach from the land even more quickly.
Recent climate modelling suggests that many grounding lines are not yet in runaway retreat – but some regions of Antarctica are close enough to thresholds that tiny increases in basal melting push model runs toward very different outcomes.
Whether – and to what extent – grounding lines might retreat will depend on a wide range of factors, including the exact shape of the bedrock beneath the ice. However, the bedrock on the coast of Antarctica has not yet been precisely mapped in many places.
Ice shelves
Once Antarctic ice detaches from the seabed, it floats on the ocean surface. These floating ice shelves slow the flow of ice from land towards the sea, acting as a brake as they wedge between headlands and little hills on the seafloor.
If these ice shelves break apart, the flow of glaciers towards the sea can accelerate.
The image below on the left shows a present-day ice shelf that is pinned in place by bedrock, which slows the flow of the ice into the sea.
The image on the right shows a future scenario in which ocean water continues to intrude under the ice, accelerating basal melting on the underside of the floating ice until it completely detaches from the “pinning point” that had previously held it in place.
In this scenario, the bedrock is no longer acting as a break on glaciers pushing to the sea and the ice shelf starts flowing into the sea more quickly and begins breaking up. Ice masses inland then begin to push more rapidly towards the sea.
This dynamic was directly observed during the collapse of the Larsen-B ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula in 2002, which led to accelerated glacial ice flow and is believed to have contributed to a dramatic glacial retreat two decades later.
However, the factors affecting the stability of the floating ice shelves around Antarctica’s coast are complex. The strength of ice shelves depends on their thickness, how and where they are pinned to the seafloor, how cracks grow, as well as air and sea temperatures and levels of snow and rainfall. For example, meltwater at the surface can lever cracks further apart, in a process known as hydrofracturing.
A 2024 review of the stability of ice shelves found big gaps in scientific understanding of these processes. There is currently no scientific consensus on how rapidly various ice shelves might collapse – the pace is likely to vary greatly from one ice shelf to the next.
Ice-cliff collapse
If, and when, ice shelves collapse and drift away from the coast, they will expose the towering ice cliffs that loom behind them directly to the sea. These ice cliffs can be more than 100 metres tall.
This exposure could potentially lead to those cliffs to become structurally unstable and collapse in a runaway process – further accelerating the advance of the glaciers pushing towards the sea.
The images below illustrate how such a collapse might unfold. In the top image, a floating ice shelf buttresses the ice masses behind it. In the middle image, the ice shelf has largely broken apart and melted into the sea. In the bottom image, the ice shelf has completely disappeared, leaving a steep wall of ice towering over the sea. At this point, the exposed cliffs might collapse and crash into the water below.
Researchers are still debating whether or not this “marine ice cliff instability” is likely to happen this century.
Modelling ocean dynamics
The speed at which grounding lines retreat, ice shelves collapse and ice cliffs cascade into the sea partially depends on complex ocean dynamics.
The temperature and speed of water intrusion underneath the ice depends on multiple factors, including ocean currents, winds, sea ice, underwater ridges and eddies. These factors vary from one location to the next and can vary by season and by year.
Once water reaches a given cavity, the ways in which turbulent flows and fresh meltwater plumes meet the ice can significantly affect melt levels – further complicating the picture.
In other words, predicting future melt depends on models that integrate macro-level ocean circulation with local-level turbulence. This remains a major modelling challenge that, despite ongoing progress, is unlikely to be conclusively resolved any time soon.
Planning for future sea level rise
Scientists agree that human-caused climate change is causing sea levels to rise and that the oceans will continue to rise during the current century and far beyond.
However, the combination of the complexity of modelling ice-ocean interactions and the threat of potential runaway processes means that, for the foreseeable future, there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of future sea level rise.
(While this article focuses on Antarctica, it is worth noting that Greenland’s contribution to future sea level rise is also highly uncertain.)
To complicate matters further, the ocean does not rise like water in a bathtub, creeping up equally on all sides. Instead the Earth’s surface is highly dynamic.
For example, during the last ice age, the immense mass of the glaciers that covered much of northern Europe pressed the Earth’s surface downwards. Even though most of that ice disappeared millennia ago, much of Scandinavia is still rebounding today, causing the land to rise gradually.
In contrast, the city of Jakarta in Indonesia is sinking at a rapid pace of 10cm per year due to sprawling urbanisation and extraction of groundwater for household and industrial uses. That rate may increase or decrease over the coming decades, depending on urban planning and water management decisions.
This mix of natural and human-driven factors means that, even if researchers could perfectly predict average global sea level rise, calculating how much the sea will rise in any given location will remain challenging.
Another key unknown is around future levels of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions which drive climate change.
The scientific community is working to better understand the dynamics driving sea level rise and improve predictions, including through Antarctic sea bed mapping, field observations and improved models. Those advances in knowledge will not erase uncertainty, but they could reduce the range of possible outcomes.
Nevertheless, while that range may narrow, it will not completely disappear.
Plans drawn up by policymakers and engineers to prepare society for future sea level rise should never be based on a single point estimate.
Instead, they should take into account a range of possible “likely” outcomes – and include contingency plans for less likely, but entirely possible, scenarios in which the oceans rise far faster than currently expected.
The post Guest post: The challenges in projecting future global sea levels appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: The challenges in projecting future global sea levels
For the first time in the UK, more new electric vehicles (EVs) have been sold over a 12-month period than petrol cars, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
The news comes amid a battle over the future of the UK’s “zero-emissions vehicle” (ZEV) mandate, which the car industry and some unions are pushing to water down.
The mandate sets a rising target for the share of new car sales that must be “zero-emissions vehicles” (ZEVs) each year – primarily “pure” or “battery” EVs that only run on electricity.
The car industry argues that demand for these cars is too low to meet the requirements of the ZEV mandate, despite the fact that the industry has “over-complied” to date.
Carbon Brief’s analysis of the latest data on new UK car sales, shown in the figure below, illustrates that demand for EVs has, in fact, grown consistently – and it has now overtaken demand for petrol cars for the first time.
In the 12 months to May 2026, UK consumers bought 516,490 new BEVs, against only 504,010 new petrol cars.
Note that the analysis is based on figures from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA). Figures published by the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) are based on a slightly different categorisation for hybrid cars.
All hybrids run entirely on petrol or diesel fuel, while also carrying a small battery and an electric motor. ACEA counts these cars separately to petrol and diesel models.
In contrast, the SMMT counts what it calls “mild” hybrids as petrol cars, while listing “full” hybrids – such as Toyota’s Prius – in a separate category.
The ACEA data shows that hybrids are the most popular type of car in the UK, as illustrated in the figure below, but also shows that their sales are relatively stagnant.
Some 56,321 hybrids were sold in May 2026, the most recent month with data from ACEA. This is an increase of 1,181 year-on-year, or just 2%.
In contrast, EV sales grew 34% to reach 43,931, while petrol cars were down 14% to 35,068.
Plug-in hybrids, which can be run on electricity from the grid or from a petrol engine, are also seeing relatively rapid sales growth, up 24% year-on-year in May 2026 to 22,167.
(In the UK, numberplates for “pure” EVs that only run on electricity are marked out by a distinctive green stripe on the left-hand side. These stripes are not used for any type of hybrid.)
The new analysis for the UK follows a similar milestone for the EU, with more BEVs having been sold in the month of December 2025 than petrol cars.
The UK first saw more sales of BEVs than petrol cars in a single month in December 2022, but this pattern has only been repeated on a consistent basis over the past year.
Globally, EV sales grew by 20% in 2025 and accounted for one in every four new cars sold, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The agency said that global EV sales were set to grow by another 15% in 2026.
The post Analysis: UK sales of electric vehicles just overtook petrol cars for the first time appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK sales of electric vehicles just overtook petrol cars for the first time
This could be a big year for the circular economy.
In autumn, the European Commission is due to adopt the Circular Economy Act (CEA), aimed at supporting the EU in its stated aim to become a world leader in circularity by 2030.
There is a clear environmental imperative behind the legislation, but also a geopolitical one. Europe imports the vast majority of all its critical raw materials; for example, 100% of its heavy rare earth metals come from China and 71% of its platinum from South Africa.
The bloc is seeking to reduce its dependency on imports of key commodities, energy and materials, and as a result achieve greater self-sufficiency. Circular products are one route to achieving that.
Circular ambitions
Whether the EU’s aim is achievable, or not, brings into sharp relief the current state of the circular economy. According to the European Environment Agency, in 2024, secondary recovered materials made up 12% of total material use across Europe. This was only 1.5% higher than in 2010.
But, by some estimates, the global circular economy is already worth around $700 billion and could reach several trillion within the next decade. This rate of growth would take considerable support from national governments, starting with something akin to the CEA, which aims to double the EU’s circularity rate to 24% and create a single market for secondary raw materials. The hope is that this will stoke demand from businesses to adopt more circular practices.
Carsten Wachholz, business-policy engagement lead at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, described the forthcoming act as “a critical opportunity to turn circular solutions from a niche proposition into a mainstream market choice,” adding that by harmonising rules across the single market the EU can allow the circular economy to “scale across borders”.
From there the argument runs that rules created in Europe will be copied in other markets, shaping global supply chains and standards elsewhere. “The EU can work towards shared international ambition, reducing protectionism risks, and unlocking large-scale investment globally,” he added.
Making two ends meet
Raising awareness of what is meant by circularity, and being able to identify and treat circular products correctly, is one of the challenges the sector faces.
The global economy has been built on a simple linear structure where we source a material, create something out of it, sell it on and then throw it away. This process, sometimes called ‘take, make, use, dispose’ is the opposite of the principles of circularity.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation defines the circular economy as a system where “materials never become waste”. In such a system, products and materials are “kept in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling and composting”.
Circularity is about the whole life cycle of a product, seeing how it can be used for longer, upgrading when possible, and then potentially using that product to create something else afterwards. The intention with circularity is to increase the use of non-virgin materials, reducing the need to extract more from the ground.
Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now”
Thomas Marinelli, head of sustainable innovation and design at Signify, a global lighting company, said: “I once explained it to a child with Lego. You put Lego blocks together and you can pull them apart again and make something new.”
Circular practices also lead to more products – phones, washing machines, lighting – being leased instead of created from scratch. These services cut the need for large upfront investments and reduce environmental impacts.
How business is responding
The next step is to convince businesses it is the right thing to do, from a financial, environmental and product perspective.
“Using products for longer and using less material and energy is a topic of interest in our markets,” added Marinelli, while at the same time acknowledging that part of the challenge is “awareness creation”.
“We need to prove that products made from non-virgin, or bio-circular materials are at least as good. And that a business’s environmental footprint is much lower when you use non-virgin materials,” he said.
Part of the awareness-raising piece is showing that older products can be repaired, refurbished and remanufactured, depending on their condition. Signify takes lighting systems that are up to 10 years old, and makes them new again, saving on material waste and cutting emissions, often at a lower cost than buying a new product.
A growing number of companies are already sold on the benefits of going circular. A recent survey from the World Economic Forum found that out of 491 manufacturing executives, 79% said circularity is crucial to their business, and 95% said it will be important within three years.
Carrefour, the French retail giant, has adopted circular practices in some of its stores as a way of driving down energy costs and cutting carbon emissions. In one of its Belgian stores, the company installed 3D-printed light fixtures made from recycled water bottles. Lighting systems were made from recycled materials that can be fully dismantled and used to make new ones after they reach the end of their natural life.
A separate example comes from Denmark where the area of Tuborg Havn in Copenhagen chose to upgrade its historic street lamps with efficient LEDs instead of replacing them. More than 80 light fixtures were cleaned, upgraded and reinstalled as part of the new initiative, and the new lights will be 3.5 times more efficient than the old ones. The initiative has allowed the harbour to retain its historic character while reducing energy consumption and modernising the area.
Overcoming barriers
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation recently coordinated an open letter to the European Commission – signed by 12 global brands including The LEGO Group, H&M and Philips – calling for lawmakers to support new reforms that address common barriers facing circular products.
These include simplifying EU-wide rules, creating tax incentives and stronger financial support for the burgeoning sector. Current VAT rules, for example, can mean secondhand goods are repeatedly taxed across their lifetime, something the charity is seeking to change.
“Capital is not lacking,” said Wachholz, “but the risk profile of circular economy projects keeps too many ventures stuck at pilot scale rather than reaching industrial deployment.”
The letter calls for the creation of a secondary materials platform to improve price transparency, digital product passports to track material flows, and the creation of new industrial hubs to provide the infrastructure and technology the sector needs in order to scale up.
Those measures, coupled with fossil energy price spikes, will help circular products compete on cost with the extractive economy, experts say. “Using recycled materials or non-virgin alternatives can become competitive in the long run,” said Marinelli, pointing to the volatility in the price of raw materials. “If you look at plastics, when oil is a problem, the price of plastics goes up. But recycled plastic stays at the same level.”
“And it’s not only about materials but production as well. When volumes of recycled materials go up, then the price remains stable or goes down,” he added.
Opportune moment
The current geopolitical environment could serve to support growth in the circular economy. Supply chain constraints caused by the war in Iran have caused commodity prices to skyrocket. This has led many companies – and countries – to seek ways to protect themselves against future shocks.
In that context, new circular policies and products could receive a favourable hearing from businesses looking to build resilience, cut costs and protect nature. A future where circularity is fully embedded across society will need time and support to grow, but may well be on its way.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance journalist based in Brighton, UK
The post Can the circular economy win over big business? appeared first on Climate Home News.
A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific advocates for a Pasifika-led transition toward a future free from coal, oil, and gas. It emphasises that while Pacific island nations contribute minimally to global emissions, they face existential threats from rising sea levels and coral reef destruction.
Leadership from the frontlines
Three decades ago, the world united to confront the greatest challenge of our age: climate change and transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The Pacific has been there at every step, playing a central role in shaping the global climate regime. We have defended science, been a voice for ambition and justice, and delivered successive breakthroughs — from securing the 1.5°C goal in the Paris Agreement to taking the world’s biggest problem to the world’s highest court. Today, we are spearheading efforts — both inside and outside the formal process of UN climate negotiations — towards a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels.
Timeline
| 1980s | Pacific island countries first warn of the threats to physical and cultural survival from climate change. |
| 1990 | Together with island nations of the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, the Pacific forms the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). |
| 1991 | Vanuatu makes the first proposal for what we now call loss and damage finance. |
| 1994 | Nauru puts forward the first draft of what became the Kyoto Protocol. |
| 2009 | Pacific island countries press for a binding agreement that would limit warming to 1.5°C, with Tuvalu and AOSIS offering text for a new legal protocol. |
| 2015 | The Pacific plays a pivotal role in securing the Paris Agreement — including the all-important goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and a stand-alone article on addressing loss and damage from climate change. |
| 2022 | Vanuatu is the first country in the world to support a Fossil Fuel Treaty, followed shortly by Tuvalu. |
| 2023 | Pacific island countries help secure the first ever reference to fossil fuels in a UN climate decision, with COP28 calling on countries to “transition away from fossil fuels”. The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage becomes operational. |
| 2024 | Following a request by Pacific and Caribbean island countries, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea clarified states’ obligations to protect the world’s oceans from the impacts of climate change. |
| 2025 | Following a campaign led by Pacific island students, a historic ruling from the International Court of Justice affirms that countries are legally obliged to limit warming to 1.5°C, and that continuing down the path of fossil fuels may be an internationally wrongful act. |
| 2026 | Pacific Ministers and civil society gather in Vanuatu to set the ongoing course of Pacific leadership towards a fossil fuel free future. The Tassiriki Call reaffirms the vision of a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific and agrees to establish an Inter-Governmental Taskforce. |
1.5°C and the transition away from fossil fuels
By the 2000s, it was clear that warming beyond 1.5°C posed a profound threat to communities in the Pacific and worldwide.
Rising seas, destructive storms, extreme heat, shifting rainfall patterns, ocean acidification… no level of warming is ‘safe’. Every fraction of a degree increases the risks to our food and water supply, our physical and mental wellbeing, our cultures, and our sovereignty.
Only when you have seen sacred land swallowed by the rising ocean and the graves of your ancestors washed out to sea, cared for elders suffering through extreme heat, watched the familiar rhythm of the seasons change before your eyes, or lied awake at night worried whether your children will still have a nation to call home, do you truly understand what is at stake. For some people and communities, 1.5°C is a point of no return.
In Paris, we held the line, and refused to negotiate away our futures. The result — a universal agreement to strive to limit warming to 1.5°C — became a lifeline for Pacific communities, and a gift to the entire world.
In the decade since Paris, the case for limiting warming to 1.5°C has only grown stronger. Beyond 1.5°C, the risks grow from highly destructive to truly existential. How? The impacts of climate change do not merely increase in a linear fashion as the global temperature climbs. At a certain point we start to trigger far more severe and abrupt changes — such as the destabilisation of polar ice sheets, committing the world to much faster sea level rise, or the mass death of critical ecosystems we depend on for our sustenance.
Cross these ‘tipping points’ and we will set in motion changes at a pace to which it may be impossible to adapt, and which will continue to play out for millenia. We will have left behind the relatively stable climate of the last 11,000 years, in which today’s modern civilisations evolved, and which is the only Earth they have known. We will have tipped our Earth into a far more chaotic state, and our survival as a species will be by no means assured.
“The salt spray of the Pacific Ocean is in my blood; I grew up watching the tides shape the shores of the islands of Tuvalu. But now, those tides are rising relentlessly, eroding lands, swallowing homes, decimating livelihoods and washing away the futures of communities.
— Dr Maina Talia, Minister for Home Affairs, Climate Change and Environment, Tuvalu
We now know that even at today’s level of global warming, of just below 1.5°C, we may have crossed tipping points for the tropical coral reefs upon which millions of people in the Pacific and worldwide depend for their food and livelihoods, and for some of the world’s major ice sheets. At warming of beyond 1.5°C, crossing these and many other tipping points becomes not merely possible but a greater and greater certainty.
Let us make this urgent reality even clearer by speaking more about the ocean — the big blue beating heart of our planet. Like the blood in our veins, ocean currents distribute nutrients, oxygen and heat around the planet. Without this planetary pulse, life simply would not exist. As the world warms, these ocean currents are slowing. The planet’s pulse is becoming fainter. Ignore these planetary health warnings, and push our ocean currents beyond a tipping point, and that pulse may stop — unable to be resuscitated — with consequences for all life connected to the ocean, including our own. The ocean that raised us is now carrying a stark warning.
We are already deep in the danger zone, and it is going to take all of us pulling in the same canoe to get back to safer shores.
Course correction
Our world is changing rapidly. Around the globe, solar panels now adorn millions of roofs and windfarms dot the landscape. Growth in renewable energy has outstripped all projections.
But here’s the rub: despite remarkable progress with renewable energy, we have seen no slowdown in the burning of coal, oil and gas. Globally, our hunger for energy has been growing fast, and with it our consumption of fossil fuels, even as renewable energy has grown alongside. We are on track to be producing double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.
The lesson? We need, as a global community, to be far more proactive about transitioning away from fossil fuels. Merely betting on growing renewable energy is not going to save us. It is like trying to mop up a flooded floor while leaving the tap running — unless we turn down fossil fuel production, the flood only rises. In the decade since Paris, and in the three years since the world agreed explicitly to transition away from fossil fuels, consumption has reached dangerous new highs, bringing us to the brink of all-out climate catastrophe.
We need roadmaps that help us remove the barriers to action, overcome technical obstacles, and help us finally break away from fossil fuels.
But we must also ask ourselves what we truly value. Today, so much growth in energy demand is coming not from meeting our basic needs, but from material excesses and overconsumption of energy among wealthy nations and corporations, or powering artificial intelligence and technologies that only separate us further from each other and the land and oceans that sustain us. Is this really the world we want?
The Pacific has much to remind the world about what truly matters — family, connection, reciprocity, and living in harmony with our shared home.
The course ahead
The Paris Agreement, its underlying Convention, and the ongoing process of negotiations on its implementation, provide legitimacy, universality and accountability. They offer the only forums where every country has a seat at the table. They provide the legally binding framework for our common but differentiated responsibilities, and the obligation of advanced economies, whose wealth was built off the back of fossil fuels, to support the majority world in transitioning to renewable energy, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage from climate change.
But we now know that this is not enough. The greatest strength of this all-in process is also its weakness. The process of consensus decision-making provides legitimacy and durability, but also puts a brake on ambition. At best, it offers the lowest common denominator. At worst, it allows the process to be held hostage by one or more regressive forces.
Alongside the formal process of UN climate negotiations, we must continue to grow and strengthen the coalition of committed nations already getting on with the work of building a vibrant future beyond fossil fuels. We must carry forward the momentum generated by the landmark conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta, as we voyage towards the second conference in Tuvalu next year. We will build a fossil fuel free Pacific, shaped by Pacific values. We will continue to be a voice of science, ambition and conscience, and we will seek justice and accountability through the full implementation of the historic ruling from the International Court of Justice.
Recommendations
1.5°C as our guiding star
The transition away from fossil fuels must be anchored to the fundamental scientific, moral and legal imperative of limiting warming to 1.5°C. This means timelines, targets and trajectories that minimise the duration and extent of any overshoot, and return the long-term average temperature rise to 1.5°C as soon as possible.
Strengthening global cooperation
The COP31 Presidency of Negotiations, to be held by Australia, must be a meaningful partnership with the Pacific. This means elevating the voices of our leaders, backing Pacific-led solutions, and maximising the opportunity of the Pacific pre-COP to ensure the 1.5°C imperative and the transition away from fossil fuels are central to the agenda at COP31 in Antalya.
COP31 must operationalise and accelerate the commitment to transition away from fossil fuels, building on the momentum from COP30 and the Santa Marta conference.
Alongside and complementary to the UN climate negotiations, willing countries should work to accelerate implementation through parallel initiatives such as the Brazilian COP30 Presidency-led roadmap, the follow-up to the Santa Marta conference, bilateral and regional collaborations, and implementation of the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.
National roadmaps that promote justice
All governments should develop national roadmaps for a just transition away from fossil fuels, aligned with their fair share of the global action needed to limit warming to 1.5°C, and identify needs for international support.
National roadmaps should include an immediate commitment to no new fossil fuel expansion, rule out false solutions, set timelines to phase out production and consumption — with developed countries moving fastest — and maximising the opportunities for increasing energy sovereignty, access and security.
From extraction to regeneration
The transition away from fossil fuels must also aim to reduce future energy use and demand for transition minerals. This means focussing on energy efficiency, a return to regenerative approaches, and reorienting our energy, transport, food systems and built environments away from material excesses and over-consumption, aligning instead with the values, wellbeing and long-term interests of our communities.
The transition must not lead to new industries that harm our environment and communities, and that repeat and compound the injustices of past extractive models. In particular, governments should put a permanent ban on deep sea mining.
Funding
Developed countries must provide adequate and accessible finance for transitioning away from fossil fuels, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage. This should include an increase in grants and direct budget support, be accompanied by debt relief, and be enabled through taxing polluters and ending fossil fuel subsidies.
Authored by the Pacific team at Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Words by Simon Bradshaw, Shiva Gounden, Moemoana Schwenke. Edited by Kate O’Callaghan.
Photos curated by Olivia Louella.
REPORT: Where the Ocean leads us, A Pacific way to a fossil fuel free future
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 months 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”
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测