Ben Abraham is a senior consultant at the Talanoa Institute and a former senior climate finance adviser at the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
COP30 must deliver a significant outcome on finance to meet its billing as an “implementation COP”. For whatever commitments Parties reach on mitigation, adaptation, or protecting nature, they will not come to pass if finance flows do not align with their implementation.
At COP29 in Baku, countries agreed a new collective goal on climate finance. By 2035, it aims to channel $300 billion a year in public climate support and $1.3 trillion in wider investment to developing nations. The announcement made headlines, but many countries in the Global South left disappointed, arguing the sums still fell far short of what is needed.
And they have a point. Estimates of climate investment needs in the Global South until 2030 are on the order of $5.1 trillion-$6.8 trillion. At a global level, the International Energy Agency estimates annual clean energy investment must reach $4 trillion – more than triple current levels – to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. At the same time, governments spent $7 trillion on global fossil fuel subsidies in 2022 alone.
The imbalance is stark. While the finance flowing in the right direction is increasing, too much continues to support high-carbon activities, and too little reaches the communities most exposed to climate impacts. For example, only a tiny share (2.5%) of global climate finance flows reach sub-Saharan Africa, despite the region’s acute vulnerabilities.
In new book, WRI chief argues for climate optimism despite obstacles
These figures illustrate the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that while there is sufficient global capital to close the investment gap for meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, urgent action is required to redirect it.
Fully delivering on the new climate finance goal agreed at COP29 will be critical to the success of the Paris Agreement and donor countries are due to make renewed climate finance commitments this year. But as the statistics show, this cannot be where the conversation on climate finance ends.
This is where Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement comes in.
Aligning finance with global climate goals
The long-term goals of the Paris Agreement envision aligning global finance flows with climate action. Article 2.1c of the pact is the goal of “Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.” It sits equally alongside the goals of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees (Article 2.1a) and adapting to climate change (Article 2.1b).
There has also already been action in the real economy towards this goal. Many major banks and investors have pledged to align their portfolios with net zero and, despite backlashes in some contexts, the majority are still committed to do so. More than 50 diverse jurisdictions are developing or using sustainable finance taxonomies, and the market for green and social bonds has expanded rapidly, reaching $6 trillion in 2025.
But valiant as these bottom-up efforts are, they are fighting an uphill battle. Without political support from the top they will continue to lack the speed and scale required.
Balance and integrity are also issues: finance flows for adaptation receive much less attention than for mitigation (measures that reduce emissions), developing countries remain on the periphery of many initiatives, and oversight of potential greenwashing is insufficient.
Meanwhile, what have the UN climate negotiations done to address global finance flows? The answer is, unfortunately, not much. But COP30 presents an opportunity to change this.
Sending political signals on green finance
Since COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, a series of workshops on Article 2.1c has created space for technical exchanges but not yet produced decisions to drive real-world change. The final workshop in this series has just taken place in Rome, and leaders will decide how to take forward Article 2.1c when they gather in Belém in November.
At the Rome workshop, the need for the UN climate process to better support the realignment of finance flows was widely recognised. Otherwise, the rules and norms shaping these efforts will remain uncoordinated and left to other institutions where climate is not prioritised and decision-making is much less inclusive and transparent.
While no COP decision can magically make all finance go green, the annual summits can send powerful political signals and leverage the Paris Agreement architecture to facilitate action and accountability.
To meet Africa’s clean energy goals, investors urged to tolerate higher risk
For Article 2.1c, this could be done by establishing a framework for tracking progress towards aligning finance with climate goals, guiding policies to redirect investment, and ensuring developing countries can access the capital they need. The framework should also support balanced attention to both adaptation and mitigation.
Political backing for the implementation of Article 2.1c would support COP30’s response to the ambition gap, with the national climate plans submitted so far still way off bringing us on track to limit global warming to 1.5C.
The importance of a COP30 decision on Article 2.1c
Properly crafted, a decision on Article 2.1c could send a powerful signal that governments understand climate action is not just about having ambition, but also about aligning the financial system with those ambitions.
For developing countries, this could signal that finance flows will finally help turn plans on paper into projects that change lives. For markets, it could provide the certainty needed to unlock greater private investment. For citizens, it can restore faith in international climate cooperation by tackling the issue at its core.
Among all the decisions Belém could produce, a strong outcome on Article 2.1c could prove the most significant. If finance continues to support fossil fuels at today’s levels, the Paris Agreement will fail. If it is equitably redirected to clean energy and resilience, there is still a chance to deliver.
While authority for the full suite of actions needed to achieve this lies beyond the remit of the UN climate regime, there is an important role for the COP process to play. Its credibility in an era of implementation depends on it.
The post How COP30 could deliver an ambitious outcome on global finance flows appeared first on Climate Home News.
How COP30 could deliver an ambitious outcome on global finance flows
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
Rearranging the deck chairs!
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES

Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.

This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.

Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE

Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE

Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Climate Change
Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Plan
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
