Nations are gathering in Baku, Azerbaijan, for the latest round of UN climate talks, where they will be tasked with setting a target for channelling climate finance into developing countries.
Intense discussions around this contentious topic are set to dominate at COP29.
Nations are divided over who should provide money, how much there should be and what form that support should take.
But this is just one part of the negotiations.
As ever, diplomats and ministers will have a packed agenda that will see them discuss the finer points of climate adaptation, carbon markets and scaling up emissions reductions, among many other issues.
There will also be debate over how best to carry forward the outcomes of last year’s COP28, including a global agreement to “transition away from fossil fuels”.
This will come as nations face a deadline to launch new climate plans under the Paris Agreement.
Carbon Brief has conducted its annual assessment of priority issues for various parties, compiled into the interactive table below. This is based on submissions to the UN, public statements and wider research conducted by Carbon Brief.
The first column shows the countries and UN negotiating blocs, the second column shows the topics up for debate and the third column indicates specific issues within those topics.
The final column indicates the position that each grouping is likely to take on each particular issue at the summit. This ranges from “high priority” – meaning the grouping is likely to be strongly pushing the issue – to “red line”, which means the grouping is likely to oppose this issue and show no room for compromise.
This is a “living document” that will be updated during the course of COP29. Please get in touch if you would like to offer additions to the table, by emailing policy@carbonbrief.org.
Explanations of the overarching issues and jargon-filled language that permeates the talks can be found below the interactive table.
Finance
The biggest issue at COP29 will be the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG) for climate finance. Nations have been deadlocked for months in discussions over the details of this target, which must be agreed this year.
This is set to replace the existing target – agreed in 2009 – for developed countries to provide $100bn annually from 2020 to developing countries, in order to help them cut emissions and prepare for climate change.
Following this initial target, when the 2015 Paris Agreement was decided, nations also committed to scaling up climate finance provisions for developing countries “from a floor of $100bn” from 2025.
Multiple assessments have concluded that developing countries will need support to invest many trillions of dollars in the coming years in order to achieve their climate commitments.
Many developing countries have suggested a target in the region of $1tn a year or more, but developed countries – who have so far been responsible for providing climate finance – have been hesitant to suggest any numbers.
Yet the number, or “quantum”, attached to the target is just one of the issues at stake. Negotiators at COP29 must also reach a decision on who is responsible for providing climate finance, where it should come from and how it should be defined.
Broadly speaking, developing countries would like to see the money coming largely from public funds provided by developed countries. Meanwhile, developed countries would like to see wealthy, emerging economies share some of the burden, as well as a greater emphasis on other sources, such as private investment and development bank reforms.
(For more information about the different issues at stake in the NCQG negotiations, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth Q&A on the topic.)
Article 6
Another issue that the COP29 presidency has highlighted as one of its “main priorities” is the full launch of Article 6 carbon markets.
This includes the full “operationalisation” of both direct country-to-country trading under Article 6.2 and an international carbon market under Article 6.4, known as the “Paris crediting mechanism”.
This area has been unresolved for years and discussions at COP28 that sought to sort out outstanding technical issues ended with a lack of agreement.
This failure means that, for example, it has been unclear what kinds of projects could generate credits to trade under the Article 6.2 and 6.4 systems.
There was movement on some of the minor issues under Article 6 at the climate talks in Bonn earlier this year, but much remains to be decided at COP29.
Outstanding topics include whether or not parties can reserve the right to revoke authorisation of credits they have issued, as well as how confidential parties can be about trades they make with other countries.
Ahead of COP29, the Article 6.4 supervisory body agreed on a mandatory “sustainable development tool”, as well as on two key standards for projects that want to generate carbon credits for sale under the new market.
The first standard is on methodologies for calculating how many credits each carbon-cutting project will be able generate, while the second is on what counts as “carbon removal” and how to deal with reversals – for instance, when a reforested area is lost to wildfire.
The way in which the supervisory body adopted these standards was somewhat controversial and may or may not be approved at COP29.
While parties at COP29 will still be able to raise issues with the package produced, this could make the path to an outcome at the summit more streamlined.
Global stocktake and mitigation
Following COP28, parties have clashed over how to carry forward the outcomes from the summit, including its headline-grabbing call for all countries to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” and reaching global net-zero by 2050.
This pledge emerged from the “global stocktake”, which also included contributing to tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvements globally by 2030.
Countries were asked to continue discussions under the “UAE dialogue on implementing the global stocktake outcomes”.
However, there has been disagreement over what this dialogue should cover. Developed countries and small islands are among those seeking to include a focus on efforts to cut emissions, as well as all the other stocktake outcomes.
For example, the EU says the dialogue should “keep track of…implementation” across all stocktake issues, including mitigation, finance, adaptation and so on.
The EU wants the global stocktake outcomes to be incorporated into “all relevant work programmes and constituted bodies”, including in particular the ongoing “mitigation ambition and implementation work programme” (MWP).
This comes as nations are expected to launch new climate plans – known as “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) – by February next year.
The stocktake “encouraged” countries to ensure that this new round of NDCs is “aligned” with the Paris Agreement’s stretch target of limiting global warming to 1.5C – although the meaning of “aligned” is unclear
Yet some developing nations, including the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) groups – which includes China, Saudi Arabia and India – argue that the UAE dialogue should be “solely focused on finance”.
Moreover, they argue there is “no mandate for any activities which ‘take stock’ of progress of the implementation of the Paris Agreement” outside of the five-yearly stocktake process.
Adaptation
At COP28, countries agreed on a “framework” to guide countries’ adaptation actions under the “global goal on adaptation”. As part of this, they set up a work programme to develop a set of universal “indicators” that can be used to track countries’ progress on adaptation.
Negotiators will continue this work programme at COP29, following slow progress at the earlier talks in Bonn back in June.
Climate finance has been a constant issue in adaptation negotiations. Developing countries frequently argue that any discussion of the topic must involve money, due to the shortfall in funding for adaptation projects.
Negotiators have also disagreed over the adaptation indicators themselves and which organisations should be charged with “mapping” them.
Meanwhile, following guidance from the global stocktake, nations must also have national adaptation plans in place by 2025, so they are ready to implement them by 2030.
Discussions will continue around this topic including, again, questions of providing the necessary finance to support these plans.
Loss and damage
The long-anticipated loss-and-damage fund was officially launched at COP28, in what was widely seen as a diplomatic triumph for the United Arab Emirates presidency.
So far, the fund has depended on the generosity of donors to fill it, as nations are not obliged to do so.
Many countries have pledged money for the fund, but these amounts are tiny compared to the amount of money developing countries need to respond to climate-driven disasters.
Loss and damage will not be as high profile at COP29 as it has been at recent UN climate summits. However, there will likely still be a push from developing countries to provide more funds for it, including a separate sub-goal under the NCQG.
The post Interactive: Who wants what at the COP29 climate change summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interactive: Who wants what at the COP29 climate change summit
Climate Change
“Sink or swim”: WA Gov hugely underestimating decline in regional gas demand while sleeping on green exports, new report finds
PERTH, Tuesday 13 October 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, while offering a genuine solution for decarbonising Asia.
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State is a comprehensive analysis of the declining gas market in Asia, and the untapped economic opportunity for WA to become a global leader in green commodity exports while driving the regional shift away from fossil fuels.
The report offers key recommendations for the WA Government to support regional decarbonisation through an orderly phase out of gas exports in favour of green iron and other green exports. It comes as global climate leaders from across business, politics and advocacy prepare to meet for the Global Citizen Now: Perth event focused on decarbonising WA.
Key findings:
- Gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia: Gas demand fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns.
- Policy shifts in key markets since the war on Iran now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas: Japan, South Korea and China have legislated energy plans that prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- New WA gas would arrive in a saturated, uncertain Asian market filled with cheaper gas: The US is now the world’s largest liquefied gas producer and plans to double its capacity as it also targets Asian markets.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to sustain WA’s economy: WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars.
- Exporting more WA gas is likely to delay or impede Asia decarbonisation: Despite claims by the gas industry, there is no evidence that WA gas is displacing coal in Asia, and in fact diverts resources from genuine decarbonisation options.
Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA Government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise.
“The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.
“This report clearly shows that the WA Government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.”
Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory: “Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
A report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals the untapped green economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, which also offers a genuine solution for decarbonisation in Asia.
Is Western Australia clinging to a fading gas industry while a thriving green future passes it by? As major Asian trading partners rapidly pivot away from volatile gas imports toward cheap solar and battery storage, this report exposes a high-stakes choice: risk becoming stranded in an oversupplied fossil fuel market, or harness WA’s unmatched sun and wind to lead the global clean energy transition.
Summary
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State reveals that Western Australia (WA) faces a critical juncture as falling Asian gas demand, geopolitical gas supply volatility and accelerating renewable energy deployment undermine the long-term economic viability of gas exports. By harnessing its world-class wind and solar resources, the report demonstrates that WA can execute an orderly phase-out of gas and pioneer a green commodity export economy that could generate $987 billion in economic value by 2060, create 24,000 ongoing jobs, and drive a 9.6% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Findings
- Gas demand is falling in Asia – WA can no longer rely on gas exports: Gas demand in core Asian markets fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline in 2026. Legislated energy plans in Japan, South Korea, and China now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- Asia is increasing renewables, importing gas just gets in the way: Evidence from markets like Thailand suggests that gas imports are increasingly crowding out cheaper renewable energy investments and battery storage rather than displacing coal, locking in more emissions over time.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to decarbonise Asia – this is a major win for WA: With world-class renewables, WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars ($987 billion) and support a genuine 9.6% reduction in global emissions.
Recommendations to WA government
Recommendation 1: Plan an orderly gas phase-out aligned with a trading partner pivot plan
Implement a managed, orderly phase-out of gas exports aligned with trading partners’ decarbonisation pathways, rather than waiting for demand to collapse, by:
- Developing and implementing a staged phase-out of gas facilities aligned with feedstock supply expiry or typical end of facility lifespans.
- Committing to no new gas development for gas expansion, including Browse and Kimberley fields.
- Developing new, reciprocal trade relationships with existing gas trade partners, structured to progressively replace gas exports with green commodities – integrated with recommendation 2.
Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated green commodity export strategy, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub
Establish an integrated green commodity export strategy that immediately prioritises green iron development, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub, by:
- Committing to green commodity export targets to give industry and investors a clear demand signal.
- Prioritising green iron as the lead sector within the broader green commodity strategy, given WA’s iron ore endowment and first-mover potential.
Recommendation 3: Reject false solutions such as carbon dumping (CCS) and blue hydrogen
Reject carbon dumping (also described as carbon capture and storage, or CCS) and blue hydrogen as viable decarbonisation technologies, and prioritise green hydrogen and proven renewables for clean energy and fuel production by:
- Excluding blue hydrogen projects (and CCS-dependent projects) from all government support programs.
- Requiring existing hydrogen-based production (including ammonia, methanol, synthetic fuels) to have clear, near-term transition timelines to switch to green hydrogen production.
What you can do
Together, we can push for a prosperous green future.
You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
REPORT: “From Gas to Green” Building Western Australia’s Future State
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsets
