This week, the international court of justice (ICJ) opened two weeks of hearings on states’ climate-related legal obligations – and the consequences, if “significant harm” is caused.
The case stems from a unanimous UN general assembly (UNGA) request for an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ.
It is taking place against a backdrop of rapidly escalating climate impacts. Emissions continue to rise, rather than falling rapidly, as needed to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.
It is the ICJ’s largest ever case, with more than 100 countries and international organisations making interventions, deploying a wide variety of legal arguments.
Ralph Regenvanu, climate envoy for Vanuatu, which led the campaign for the ICJ hearings, said in his opening address: “[T]his may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity.”
Below, Carbon Brief interviews leading international law scholar Prof Philippe Sands – who drafted the pleadings for Mauritius, but is speaking here in a personal capacity – to find out more about the legal issues at stake and the wider significance of the ICJ case.
- On the significance of the case: “It’s the first time the ICJ has been called upon to address legal issues relating to climate change.”
- On the key legal arguments: “There’s just a huge number of issues that are coming up.”
- On climate obligations under the UN: “Will the court open the door to the situation that the 1992 [UN climate] convention … [is] not the be all and end all?”
- On where outcomes could come from: “Essentially, it’s the whole of international law!”
- On the responsibility of states: “The question at the beating heart of this case, really, is the consequences of emissions over time.”
- On historical emissions: “The big issue is, are you liable for the continuing consequences of your past emissions?”
- On applying international law: “When drafting the climate treaty regime, [did] states…exclude the application of general international law?”
- On expectations for the case: “What I’m interested in, really, is an advisory opinion that is capable of having hard, practical application.”
- On the state of the science: “A procedure in which the judges hear privately from any person…is unusual. It’s unorthodox.”
- On the significance of the submissions: “The oral phase is very important, because it basically concentrates the issues down to the most significant and narrow set of issues.”
- On the question of the UN or wider law: “It’s a tough situation for the judges.”
Carbon Brief: Would you be able to start by just situating this case in its wider legal context and explaining why it could be so consequential?
Philippe Sands: Well, it’s the first time the international court of justice has been called upon to address legal issues relating to climate change. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and, although the advisory opinion that it hands down will not be binding on states, it is binding on all UN bodies. The determinations that the court makes will have consequences that go very far and that will have a particular authority, in legal and political terms. Of course, everything turns on what the court actually says.
CB: Would you be able to summarise the key legal arguments that are being fought over in this case?
PS: No! I mean, there’s just a huge number of issues that are coming up. But, essentially, the court has been asked two questions by the UN General Assembly – the first time, I believe, that a request from the General Assembly has been consensual, with no objections. The two questions are, firstly, what are the obligations for states under international law to protect the climate system? And, secondly, what are the legal consequences under these obligations, where, by their acts and emissions, [states] cause significant harm to the climate system? So, there are two distinct questions – and about 100 states and international organisations of various kinds have made submissions on the vast range of issues that are raised by these two questions. The questions are very, very broad and that signals to me that the court’s response may be quite general. But, for me, the crucial issues are, firstly, what the court says about the state of the science: is it established, or is there any room for doubt? Secondly, what are the obligations of states having regard to the clarity of the science? Thirdly, are there legal obligations on states in relation to the climate system that exist and arise outside of the treaty regime – the 1992 [UN Framework] convention [on climate change], the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and so on and so forth. And, related to that, fourthly – this is the most intense, legally interesting aspect – what are the responsibilities of states for historic emissions under general international law? And, in particular, are the biggest contributors liable under international law to make good any damages that may arise from their historic actions? But, I mean, there’s just such a vast array of questions that are addressed, it’s impossible to summarise briefly.
CB: This is the challenge I found when I was trying to write questions!
PS: To be honest, the questions [put by the UN General Assembly] are rather general, so I have concerns about the burden that has been imposed on the court. My general approach has been that, with advisory opinions, the best questions are those which require a yes or no answer. But the moment you have questions of such generality, you impose on the 15 judges an especially onerous burden, because the questions are open to interpretation.
CB: Some countries are arguing, effectively, that states’ climate obligations start and finish with the UN climate regime, as you’ve already mentioned.
PS: Exactly. Well, that’s a central aspect of what’s coming up. Will the court open the door to the situation that the 1992 [UN climate] convention and the subsequent agreements [Kyoto, Paris] are not the be all and end all, and that the rules of general international law [also] apply? And, if so, what are those rules? And what are the consequences of breaching those rules? Some states say there can’t be any liability under general international law because the whole matter is governed by the treaty regime. Other states say that’s not right, that, although the treaty regime is a distinct “lex specialis” – a specialised area of law – that does not preclude the application of the general principles of international law. So that may be a really interesting issue for the court to determine.
CB: Could you say a bit more about the other areas of international law, where obligations could come from, whether it’s human rights, or customary law, or whatever it might be?
PS: The difficulty, if you look at the first part of the question [put to the court]…the drafters of the question invite the court to have regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, human rights law, the principle of prevention, and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment. That is a vast array of international legal obligations and it’s not exhaustive. It says, having particular regard to, so, essentially, it’s the whole of international law! So the court is being asked to address the application of the whole of international law to the issue of climate change and, in particular, issues of legal consequences, and in particular, the issues of state responsibility. So, it’s vast, vast.
CB: Another set of arguments that I’ve seen…is around the idea of the “responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts”, which might lead to a requirement for cessation of the acts and reparation of the harm done. Can you just say a bit more about what that idea means and where it comes from?
PS: There’s an area of international law called the law of state responsibility. That law of state responsibility says that when you have committed a wrongful act and violated a rule of international law, you are liable for all of the consequences. That rule has not been incorporated, as such, or at all, into the treaty regime [on climate change]. So, essentially, by raising those issues, there are a number of legal issues that arise – but there are two of particular interest. Firstly, in relation to damage that is caused by climate change, are those states most responsible, liable for the consequences of that damage in, let us say, for example, in financial terms? And, secondly – and this relates to something called the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” – does the fact that certain states have historic emissions going back 200 years mean that their entitlement to the remaining “carbon budget” is reduced. So, the question, I think, at the beating heart of this case, really, is the consequences of emissions over time, looking back and looking forward. That’s one aspect the court may have at the forefront of its mind.
CB: Historical greenhouse gas emissions, but also the rights of future generations, have both come up quite a lot in some of the submissions. Can you just say a bit more about the legal arguments around these?
PS: The big issue is: are you liable for the continuing consequences of your past emissions? And does the nature and extent of your past emissions affect your ability to generate emissions in the future? Those are really the two issues and the treaty regime does not, as such, explicitly address [them]. The practicalities are that islands are disappearing with sea level rise. Are historic polluters of greenhouse gases responsible for the consequences of those disappearances? Or, if states are required to build sea walls to protect themselves, can they bring a case against the biggest polluters for the consequences of sea level rise? That’s the kind of complex issue the court may have in the back of its mind, because that’s essentially what’s being asked.
CB: In terms of how they will decide whether these other potential areas of law could give rise to obligations on states – and, therefore, potentially further consequences – how are they going to decide? To decide whether those [areas of law] do apply, or whether it is only the UN climate regime that gives rise to obligations.
PS: They are going to have to address whether, when drafting the climate treaty regime, states intended to, or did as a necessary consequence, exclude the application of general international law. That is an issue that they will do by looking at the climate regime and determining whether, by adopting it, there was an intention to exclude the application of general international law. So, that is a classical job for lawyers, for judges: to interpret the law, to interpret what the drafters of the treaty regime have done and what they intended, and to then form a view in applying the general rules of international law, whether a space is left which allows those general rules to apply. That’s classically what international judges will do.
CB: You’ve already said a little bit about this, but what would your expectations be for this advisory opinion, which I gather is expected next year?
PS: Normally, it takes six months from after they’ve done the hearings for an advisory opinion to come up. I don’t really have any expectations. There’s been a previous advisory opinion in relation to the Law of the Sea proceedings. The Tribunal for the Law of the Sea came up with an advisory opinion which, in a sense, was rather general. What I’m interested in, really, is an advisory opinion that is capable of having hard, practical application, as happened, for example, in the advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago, where the court was asked two questions, essentially, “yes/no” questions, and the court gave a very clear advisory opinion, which has had significant political and legal consequences. The difficulty with asking very general questions is you get very general answers, and very general answers are less easily capable of practical application. So, the best-case scenario for me, is that the court comes up with an advisory opinion of sufficient clarity on the facts, which is basically the state of the science and on the applicable legal principles, which then allows other courts and, in particular, national courts, to take the advisory opinion, in interpreting and applying domestic law, which is, ultimately, going to be where the rubber hits the road. So my expectations turn on the nature and generality of the opinion that the court is able to give. But where the questions posed are so general, I would be concerned that the answers may also be rather general and that limits my expectations.
CB: You mentioned the state of the science as being very important. We know that the court met with a delegation of IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] authors and I gather there’s some sort of question mark about the procedure used to do that?
PS: The normal process is that if scientists are going to provide information to the judges, it would be in the form of submissions made in writing, or in open court, publicly and transparently. A procedure in which the judges hear privately from any person, however authoritative – and the IPCC is authoritative – is unusual. It’s unorthodox. It does raise questions. We don’t know who attended. We don’t know what they said. We don’t know what the exchanges were with the judges. I have to assume that it was done by the judges, at their request, as a way of informing themselves on the state of science, which is understandable. But the more usual way for this to happen would be, as I said, in written submissions made to the court and in open submissions made already in the courtroom. So it is unusual.
CB: You mentioned already, there’s more than 100 submissions from countries and international organisations. And we’ve obviously got these two weeks of hearings, with some of those same entities making oral statements. How significant are those submissions in terms of shaping the advisory opinion of the court?
PS: My experience before the court, having been involved in a number of cases involving advisory opinions and contentious cases, is that the written pleadings are very important in setting out the generality of the arguments and the totality of the arguments. And, essentially, what you see is a narrowing down. There are essentially three rounds. The first round is the first written statement of the participating states and international organisations. Then they have a second written round, which tends to narrow down the issues and be responsive to the first round of others. And then you’ve got the oral arguments, which are limited, of course, to half an hour for each participant. And so it’s a real narrowing down and homing in. Essentially, what the oral arguments are doing is signaling to the judges what the states participating think are the most significant issues. That’s why the oral phase is very important, because it basically concentrates the issues down to the most significant and narrow set of issues. And so it gives the judges a sense of what states think are the most important issues to be addressed. Secondly, it provides states with an opportunity to hear what responses each state has made to the written submissions of other states. So the oral phase is significant.
CB: If you were going to make a bet, which way would you say the court would go on that key question of whether it’s just the [UN] climate regime that gives rise to obligations [on states], or whether there could be obligations from other parts of the law?
PS: I think the court will proceed very carefully. I don’t think it will want to close the door to the application of other rules of international law. Rather, as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea did, which opened the door to the application of the Law of the Sea Convention to the issue of climate change – and opened it quite widely. I don’t know precisely where the court will go. But I would be surprised if they said general international law does not govern issues related to climate change.
The interesting area to read, in what they say, will be the relationship between the general rules and the treaty rules. I mean, the broader issue here is that, essentially, the legislative system has broken down. The states have been unable to legislate effectively and efficiently to address the issues related to climate change. And so what has happened is that a group of states have essentially gone to the General Assembly and said: “The legislative system is broken down. Let’s now ask the judges to step in and tell us what the applicable principles and rules are.” The difficulty that that poses for the judges, who will be conscious that the legislative system has not delivered, is that it’s not the function of judges to legislate. The function of judges is limited to interpreting the law and applying it to the facts, to identify the existence of rules and then applying them to the facts. So I would have thought the instinct of the judges will be to do something, but not to want to overstep the proper boundaries on the judicial function. And that’s a difficult challenge for the judges that they find themselves in.
[It is] a very delicate and difficult situation in the face of, on the one hand, the urgent need for action, and, on the other hand, the failure of states, essentially, to deal with the situation and act as the scientists tell us is needed. I don’t know whether you’ve been through all the different pleadings. I drafted the pleadings for Mauritius – I’m speaking here in a personal capacity. Mauritius decided not to participate in the oral hearings, but you can go on to the Mauritius statement and, if you look at the second Mauritius statement filed in August, you’ll find attached to it as an annex, a report by Prof James Hansen, one of the world’s leading scientists. And that really indicates, with crystal clarity, the urgency of the situation. He’s one of the world’s leading scientists on this issue and that’s the kind of submission that could concentrate the minds of the judges and, I think, impel them to want to go as far as they can. But they’ll be acutely conscious of the limits of judicial function. And, of course, you know, some countries like the UK are basically saying, butt out, leave it to the treaty negotiators, leave it to the treaty system. And the US has said essentially the same thing yesterday. So, it’s a tough situation for the judges.
An abridged version of this interview was published in DeBriefed, Carbon Brief’s weekly email newsletter. Sign up for free.
The interview was conducted by Simon Evans via phone on 5 December 2024.
The post Interview: Prof Philippe Sands on UN court’s landmark climate-change hearing appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interview: Prof Philippe Sands on UN court’s landmark climate-change hearing
The European Commission has rejected requests by green groups to review the status of 16 controversial projects it has designated as “strategic” to shore up the bloc’s supply of critical minerals needed for the energy transition, despite environmental concerns.
Campaigners accused the European Union’s executive arm of being more interested in labelling projects as “strategic” to accelerate their development than ensuring they meet its environmental standards.
Legal experts told Climate Home News that despite the EU’s rhetoric on developing sustainable mining standards, it will be very difficult for local communities and NGOs to use the judicial system to enforce compliance with environmental safeguards.
Earlier this year, the European Commission labelled 47 mineral extraction, processing and recycling projects within EU member states as “strategic“, granting them preferential treatment for gaining permits and easier access to EU funding.
-
Europe’s lithium rush leaves mineral-rich communities in the dark
Local residents are seeking more information and want stronger guarantees that mining won’t harm the nature on which their incomes depend -
South Africa’s platinum mine dumps get a second look as clean energy lifts demand
Mining firms say extracting minerals from tailings is a sustainable way to boost global supplies, but local communities want to see benefits this time around -
COP30 draft text includes energy transition minerals in UN climate first
A draft negotiating text on defining principles for a just transition to clean energy systems recognises the social and environmental risks associated with mining critical minerals
Spanning from the north of Sweden to Portugal and southern Spain, these projects are due to help the EU reach targets for sourcing more of the minerals it needs for clean energy and digital technologies within its own borders in an environmentally friendly way, while reducing its dependence on imports from China.
However, NGOs and local communities have accused the European Commission of a lack of transparency and of failing to engage civil society over the selection of these projects, most of which are in the early stages of development and are yet to obtain the necessary permits or conduct detailed environmental impact assessments.
Civil society groups challenged the decision to include around a third of projects on the strategic list, arguing that the commission had not properly assessed their sustainability. They also cited risks of social and environmental harm and human rights violations.
EU: Environmental compliance lies with member states
In total, 11 requests for review covering 16 of the projects planned within the EU were filed under the Aarhus Regulation, which gives NGOs the right to ask the European Commission to review administrative decisions if they are considered to violate the bloc’s environmental law.
In a single response shared with green groups this week, and seen by Climate Home News, the commission found that the requests to review the projects’ status were “unfounded”.
“A thorough assessment confirmed that all points raised by the NGOs had already been properly addressed during the selection process. All the projects concerned therefore retain their status as strategic projects,” a European Commission spokesperson told Climate Home News. They did not respond to detailed questions about their assessment.
Under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, which was adopted last year, the commission can designate mineral projects as strategic if they meet a shortlist of criteria, including that the project “would be implemented sustainably” and monitor, prevent and minimise environmental and adverse social impacts.
The strategic status can be revoked if projects no longer meet the criteria.
However, the commission said it was not its job to carry out a full and detailed assessment of whether the projects fully comply with EU environmental laws, adding that it is only required to make an “overall assessment”.
Rather, it argued, member states have the responsibility to ensure the projects fully comply with EU environmental standards including impacts on biodiversity and ground water as well as waste management.
The commission also refused to examine the social impacts of the projects on community livelihoods, health and human rights – which could arise from environmental degradation – arguing that this was outside the scope of the review mechanism under the Aarhus Regulation.
Campaigners have strongly criticised the response.
“Cosmetic”sustainability criteria
Ilze Tralmaka, a lawyer at Client Earth, told Climate Home News the commission’s decision showed that the designation of mineral projects as “strategic” doesn’t make them safe or sustainable, despite creating a legal presumption that they serve the public interest and protect public health and safety.
“While on paper, there is mention of sustainability, in practice, it’s almost cosmetic,” she said. “It seems the environmental standards are just briefly looked at and that the policy of declaring these projects as strategic is more important than real engagement with the sustainability criteria.”
Client Earth argues that while securing supplies of minerals for the energy transition is a legitimate goal, the status of strategic project is being “misused” to fast-track questionable mining projects.
Tralmaka said the European Commission should engage where there are “unanswered questions, or if there is credible information about these projects being potentially unsafe”.
Client Earth was part of a group of NGOs that challenged the decision to designate the Barroso lithium project in Portugal as a strategic project.
“Textbook example of how not to do a green transition”
London-listed Savannah Resources is planning to dig four open pit mines in the northern Barroso region to extract lithium from Europe’s largest known deposit. The company says it will extract enough lithium every year to produce around half a million batteries for electric vehicles.
However, local groups have staunchly opposed the mining project, citing concerns over waste management and water use as well as the impact of the mine on traditional agriculture in the area.
Earlier this year, a UN committee found that Portugal had failed to respect citizens’ rights to information and public participation in the case of the Barroso project. Portuguese authorities denied the breach.
Efforts to green lithium extraction face scrutiny over water use
The commission said it was satisfied with the project’s overall sustainability credentials and that campaign groups should take a case to their national court if they are concerned about the legality of any project.
“This decision shows that the EU is willing to trade rural lives and irreplaceable landscapes for a political headline,” said Nik Völker of MiningWatch Portugal. “The truth is, the Mina do Barroso mine offers minimal benefits and enormous risks: a textbook example of how not to do a green transition.”
Savannah Resources did not respond to a request for comment.
“Murky” standards make legal challenge hard
Simon Simanovski, a business and human rights attorney with German law firm Günther Rechtsanwälte, has advised dozens of communities affected by projects designated as “strategic” under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act over the past year.
For him, the commission’s response creates a disconnect between its role as a decision-making body and the responsibility for enforcing the bloc’s environmental laws, by pushing it to member states. That, he said, creates “murky standards”.
This, he added, will make it “really difficult” to challenge inadequate environmental safeguards through the courts. “It means that there is no effective judicial protection… and that the projects will happen,” he told Climate Home News.
However, Simanovski still expects some campaign groups to try filing a case before the general court of the European Court of Justice to challenge the European Commission’s response and ask it to review its assessment of the projects.
Simanovski represents communities in Serbia that are also challenging the “strategic” designation of the Jadar lithium mine – one of an additional 13 “strategic projects” located outside EU countries – which has seen massive local opposition.
The commission is expected to respond to requests to review those external strategic projects in January.
The post EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition
Climate Change
DeBriefed 28 November 2025: COP30’s ‘frustrating’ end; Asia floods; UK ‘emergency’ climate event
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
‘Lukewarm’ end to COP30
BYE BELÉM: The COP30 climate talks in Belém ended last weekend with countries agreeing on a goal to “triple” adaptation finance by 2035 and efforts to “strengthen” climate plans, Climate Home News reported. The final deal “fell short on the global transition away from oil, gas and coal”, the outlet said, as Brazil announced that it would bring forward voluntary roadmaps to phase out fossil fuels and deforestation, before the next COP. It was a “frustrating end” for more than 80 countries who wanted a roadmap away from fossil fuels to be part of the formal COP agreement, BBC News said.
WHAT HAPPENED?: Carbon Brief published its in-depth analysis of all the key outcomes from COP30, spanning everything from negotiations on adaptation, just transition, gender and “Article 6” carbon trading through to a round-up of pledges on various issues. Another Carbon Brief article summed up outcomes around food, forests, land and nature. Also, Carbon Brief journalists discussed the COP in a webinar held earlier this week.
ART OF THE DEAL: The “compromise” COP30 deal – known as the “global mutirão” – “exposed deep rifts over how future climate action should be pursued”, Reuters noted. The “last-ditch” agreement was reached after fossil-fuel wording negotiations between the EU and Saudi Arabia, according to the Guardian. Meanwhile, Carbon Brief revealed the “informal” list of 84 countries said to have “opposed” the inclusion of a fossil-fuel roadmap in the mutirão decision, but analysis of the list exposed contradictions and likely errors.
UNITY, SCIENCE, SENSE: The final agreement received “lukewarm praise”, said the Associated Press. Palau ambassador Ilana Seid, who chaired the coalition of small-island nations, told the newswire: “Given the circumstances of geopolitics today, we’re actually quite pleased…The alternative is that we don’t get a decision and that would have been [worse].” UN climate chief Simon Stiell said that amid “denial, division and geopolitics”, countries “chose unity, science and economic common sense”, reported the Press Trust of India.
Around the world
- Floods and landslides killed more than 200 people in Thailand and Indonesia this week, reported Bloomberg. At least 90 people also died in recent floods in Vietnam, said Al Jazeera.
- New measures to cut energy bills and a “pay-per-mile” electric-vehicle levy were among the announcements in the UK’s budget, said Carbon Brief.
- The Group of 20 (G20) leaders signed off on a declaration “addressing the climate crisis” and other issues, reported Reuters, which had no input from the US who boycotted last week’s G20 summit in South Africa.
- Canadian prime minister Mark Carney signed a deal with the province of Alberta “centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline”, said the Guardian, adding that Canadian culture minister and former environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, resigned from cabinet over the deal.
- Greenpeace analysis, covered by Reuters, found that permits for new coal plants in China are “on track to fall to a four-year low” in 2025.
27
The number of hours that COP30 talks went over schedule before ending in Belém last Saturday, making it the 11th-longest UN climate summit on record, according to analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- The risk of night-time deaths during heatwaves increased “significantly” over 2005-15 in sub-Saharan Africa | Science Advances
- Almost half of climate journalists surveyed showed “moderate to severe” symptoms of anxiety | Traumatology
- Lakes experienced “more severe” heatwaves than those in the atmosphere over the past two decades | Communications Earth & Environment
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
The key COP30 agreement – termed the “global mutirão” – contained 69 inactive verbs, which require no action from countries, compared to 32 active ones. “Recognises”, “recalls” and “acknowledges” were used far more often than more active verbs, such as “decides”, “calls” and “requests”, showed Carbon Brief analysis.
Spotlight
Nine warnings from a UK climate and nature ‘emergency’ briefing
This week, Carbon Brief’s Orla Dwyer reports from an event where experts and campaigners sounded the alarm bell on climate change and nature loss.
Naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham urged attendees at a climate and nature “emergency briefing” in London yesterday to “listen to the science” on climate change amid a “dangerous wave of misinformation and lies”.
The “first-of-its-kind” event heard from nine experts on the links between climate change, nature loss, health, food production, economics and national security.
Event host, Prof Mike Berners-Lee from Lancaster University, called for a “World War II level of leadership” to tackle the interconnected crises.
Hundreds of people showed up, including Green Party, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, leader of the Greens Zack Polanski, musician Brian Eno and actress Olivia Williams.
Here is a snapshot of what the nine speakers said in their short, but stark, presentations.
Prof Kevin Anderson, professor of energy at University of Manchester
Anderson focused on the risks of a warmer world and the sliver of emissions left in the global carbon budget, noting:
“We have to eliminate fossil fuels or temperatures will just keep going up.”
He urged a “Marshall-style” plan – referencing the 1948 post-war US plan to rebuild Europe – to ramp up actions on retrofitting, public transport and electrification.
Prof Nathalie Seddon, professor of biodiversity at University of Oxford
Nature is not a “nice to have”, but rather “critical national infrastructure”, Seddon told attendees. She called for the “need to create an economy that values nature”.
Prof Paul Behrens, British Academy global professor at University of Oxford
Behrens discussed the food security risks from climate change. Impacts such as poor harvests and food price inflation are “barely acknowledge[d]” in agricultural policy, he said.
He also emphasised the “unsustainable” land use of animal agriculture, which “occupies around 85% of total agricultural land” in the UK.
Prof Tim Lenton, chair in climate change and Earth system science at Exeter University
Lenton outlined the “plenty” of evidence that parts of the Earth system are hurtling towards climate tipping points that could push them irreversibly into a new state.
He discussed the possibility of the shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which he said could cause -20C winters in London. He also noted positive tipping points, such as momentum that led the UK to stop burning coal for electricity last year.
Prof Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts at Newcastle University
One in four properties in England could be at risk of flooding by 2050, Fowler said, and winters are getting wetter.
She discussed extreme weather risks and listed the impacts of floods in recent years in Germany, Spain and Libya, adding:
“These events are not warnings of what might happen in the future. They’re actually examples of what is happening right now.”
Angela Francis, director of policy solutions at WWF-UK
Francis factchecked several claims made against climate action, such as the high cost of achieving net-zero.
She noted that the estimated cost for the UK to achieve net-zero is about £4bn per year, which is less than 0.2% of GDP.
Lieutenant general Richard Nugee, climate and security advisor
Discussing the risks climate change poses to national security, Nugee said:
“Climate change can be thought of as a threat multiplier, making existing threats worse or more frequent and introducing new threats. Climate shocks fuel global instability.”
Tessa Khan, environmental lawyer and executive director of Uplift
Khan said the rising cost of energy in the UK is “turning into a significant political risk for the energy transition”.
She discussed the cost of fossil-fuel dependency and the fact that these fuels cost money to burn, but renewable “input[s], sun or wind [are] free forever”.
Prof Hugh Montgomery, professor of intensive care medicine at University College London
Montgomery discussed the health and economic benefits of climate actions, such as eating less meat and using more public transport, noting:
“The climate emergency is a health emergency – and it’s about time we started treating it as one.”
Watch, read, listen
WATER WORRIES: ABC News spoke to three Iranian women about the impacts of Tehran’s water crisis amid the “worst drought in 60 years”.
CLIMATE EFFORT: The BBC’s Climate Question podcast looked at the main outcomes from COP30 and discussed the “future of climate action” with a team of panelists.
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR:New Scientist interviewed criminal psychologist Julia Shaw about the psychology behind environmental crimes.
Coming up
- 24 November-5 December: COP20 on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, Samarkand, Uzbekistan
- 29-30 November: First part of global youth environment assembly, Nairobi, Kenya
- 3-4 December: Second round of Egyptian parliamentary elections
- 5 December: World soil day, global
Pick of the jobs
- Aldersgate Group, head of policy | Salary: £56,650-£66,950 per year. Location: London
- Ofgem, climate resilience expert | Salary: £61,446-£86,547. Location: Cardiff, Glasgow or London
- Green Climate Fund, integrity risk management lead | Salary: $171,200. Location: Incheon, South Korea
- Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust, project manager – seabird recovery | Salary: Up to £45,000 per year. Location: Isles of Scilly, UK
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 28 November 2025: COP30’s ‘frustrating’ end; Asia floods; UK ‘emergency’ climate event appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 28 November 2025: COP30’s ‘frustrating’ end; Asia floods; UK ‘emergency’ climate event
Climate Change
Revealed: Leak casts doubt on COP30’s ‘informal list’ of fossil-fuel roadmap opponents
A confused – and, at times, contradictory – story has emerged about precisely which countries and negotiating blocs were opposed to a much-discussed “roadmap” deal at COP30 on “transitioning away from fossil fuels”.
Carbon Brief has obtained a leaked copy of the 84-strong “informal list” of countries that, as a group, were characterised across multiple media reports as “blocking” the roadmap’s inclusion in the final “mutirão” deal across the second week of negotiations at the UN climate summit in Belém.
During the fraught closing hours of the summit, Carbon Brief understands that the Brazilian presidency told negotiators in a closed meeting that there was no prospect of reaching consensus on the roadmap’s inclusion, because there were “80 for and 80 against”.
However, Carbon Brief’s analysis of the list – which was drawn up informally by the presidency – shows that it contains a variety of contradictions and likely errors.
Among the issues identified by Carbon Brief is the fact that 14 countries are listed as both supporting and opposing the idea of including a fossil-fuel roadmap in the COP30 outcome.
In addition, the list of those said to have opposed a roadmap includes all 42 of the members of a negotiating group present in Belém – the least-developed countries (LDCs) – that has explicitly told Carbon Brief it did not oppose the idea.
Moreover, one particularly notable entry on the list, Turkey – which is co-president of COP31 – tells Carbon Brief that its inclusion is “wrong”.
Negotiating blocs
COP28, held in Dubai in 2023, had finalised the first “global stocktake”, which called on all countries to contribute to global efforts, including a “transition away from fossil fuels”.
Since then, negotiations on how to take this forward have faltered, including at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, where countries were unable to agree to include this fossil-fuel transition as part of existing or new processes under the UN climate regime.
Ahead of the start of COP30, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made a surprise call for “roadmaps” on fossil-fuel transition and deforestation.
While this idea was not on the official agenda for COP30, it had been under development for months ahead of the summit – and it became a key point of discussion in Belém.
Ultimately, however, it did not become part of the formal COP30 outcome, with the Brazilian presidency instead launching a process to draw up roadmaps under its own initiative.
This is because the COP makes decisions by consensus. The COP30 presidency insisted that there was no prospect of consensus being reached on a fossil-fuel roadmap, telling closed-door negotiations that there were “80 for and 80 against”.
The list of countries supporting a roadmap as part of the COP30 outcome was obtained by Carbon Brief during the talks. Until now, however, the list of those opposed to the idea had not been revealed.
Carbon Brief understands that this second list was drawn up informally by the Brazilian presidency after a meeting attended by representatives of around 50 nations. It was then filled out to the final total of 84 countries, based on membership of negotiating alliances.
The bulk of the list of countries opposing a roadmap – some 39 nations – is made up of two negotiating blocs that opposed the proposal for divergent reasons (see below). Some countries within these blocs also held different positions on why – or even whether – they opposed the roadmap being included in the COP30 deal.
These blocs are the 22-strong Arab group – chaired in Belém by Saudi Arabia – and the 25 members of the “like-minded developing countries” (LMDCs), chaired by India.
For decades within the UN climate negotiations, countries have sat within at least one negotiating bloc rather than act in isolation. At COP30, the UN says there were 16 “active groups”. (Since its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has not sat within any group.)
The inclusion on the “informal list” (shown in full below) of both the LMDCs and Arab group is accurate, as confirmed by the reporting of the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), which is the only organisation authorised to summarise what has happened in UN negotiations that are otherwise closed to the media.
Throughout the fortnight of the talks, both the LMDCs and Arab group were consistent – at times together – in their resistance to proscriptive wording and commitments within any part of the COP30 deal around transitioning away from fossil fuels.
But the reasons provided were nuanced and varied and cannot be characterised as meaning both blocs simply did not wish to undertake the transition – in fact, all countries under the Paris Agreement had already agreed to this in Dubai two years ago at COP28.
However, further analysis by Carbon Brief of the list shows that it also – mistakenly – includes all of the members of the LDCs, bar Afghanistan and Myanmar, which were not present at the talks. In total, the LDCs represented 42 nations in Belém, ranging from Bangladesh and Benin through to Tuvalu and Tanzania.
Some of the LDC nations had publicly backed a fossil-fuel roadmap.
‘Not correct’
Manjeet Dhakal, lead adviser to the LDC chair, tells Carbon Brief that it is “not correct” that the LDCs, as a bloc, opposed a fossil-fuel roadmap during the COP30 negotiations.
He says that the group’s expectations, made public before COP, clearly identified transitioning away from fossil fuels as an “urgent action” to keep the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C goal “within reach”. He adds:
“The LDC group has never blocked a fossil-fuel roadmap. [In fact], a few LDCs, including Nepal, have supported the idea.”
Dhakal’s statement highlights a further confusing feature of the informal list – 14 countries appear on both of the lists of supporters and opposers. This is possible because many countries sit within two or more negotiating blocs at UN climate talks.
For example, Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu are members of both the “alliance of small island states” (AOSIS) and the LDCs.
As is the case with the “informal list” of opposers, the list of supporters (which was obtained by Carbon Brief during the talks) is primarily made up of negotiating alliances.
Specifically, it includes AOSIS, the “environmental integrity group” (EIG), the “independent association of Latin America and the Caribbean” (AILAC) and the European Union (EU).
In alphabetical order, the 14 countries on both lists are: Bahrain; Bulgaria; Comoros; Cuba; Czech Republic; Guinea-Bissau; Haiti; Hungary; Kiribati; Nepal; Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Timor-Leste; and Tuvalu.
This obvious anomaly acts to highlight the mistaken inclusion of the LDCs on the informal list of opposers.
The list includes 37 of the 54 nations within the Africa group, which was chaired by Tanzania in Belém.
But this also appears to be a function of the mistaken inclusion of the LDCs in the list, many of which sit within both blocs.
Confusion
An overview of the talks published by the Guardian this week reported:
“Though [Brazil’s COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago] told the Guardian [on 19 November] that the divide over the [roadmap] issue could be bridged, [he] kept insisting 80 countries were against the plan, though these figures were never substantiated. One negotiator told the Guardian: ‘We don’t understand where that number comes from.’
“A clue came when Richard Muyungi, the Tanzanian climate envoy who chairs the African group, told a closed meeting that all its 54 members aligned with the 22-member Arab Group on the issue. But several African countries told the Guardian this was not true and that they supported the phaseout – and Tanzania has a deal with Saudi Arabia to exploit its gas reserves.”
Adding to the confusion, the Guardian also said two of the most powerful members of the LMDCs were not opposed to a roadmap, reporting: “China, having demurred on the issue, indicated it would not stand in the way [of a roadmap]; India also did not object.”
Writing for Climate Home News, ActionAid USA’s Brandon Wu said:
“Between rich country intransigence and undemocratic processes, it’s understandable – and justifiable – that many developing countries, including most of the Africa group, are uncomfortable with the fossil-fuel roadmap being pushed for at COP30. It doesn’t mean they are all ‘blockers’ or want the world to burn, and characterising them as such is irresponsible.
“The core package of just transition, public finance – including for adaptation and loss and damage – and phasing out fossil fuels and deforestation is exactly that: a package. The latter simply will not happen, politically or practically, without the former.”
Carbon Brief understands that Nigeria was a vocal opponent of the roadmap’s inclusion in the mutirão deal during the final hours of the closed-door negotiations, but that does not equate to it opposing a transition away from fossil fuels. This is substantiated by the ENB summary:
“During the…closing plenary…Nigeria stressed that the transition away from fossil fuels should be conducted in a nationally determined way, respecting [common, but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities].”
The “informal list” of opposers also includes three EU members – Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The EU – led politically at the talks by climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, but formally chaired by Denmark – was reportedly at the heart of efforts to land a deal that explicitly included a “roadmap” for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Carbon Brief understands that, as part of the “informal intelligence gathering” used to compile the list, pre-existing positions on climate actions by nations were factored in rather than only counting positions expressed at Belém. For example, Hungary and the Czech Republic were reported to have been among those resisting the last-minute “hard-fought deal” by the EU on its 2040 climate target and latest Paris Agreement climate pledge.
(Note that EU members Poland and Italy did not join the list of countries supporting a fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30.)
The remaining individual nations on the informal list either have economies that are heavily dependent on fossil-fuel production (for example, Russia and Brunei Darussalam), or are, like the US, currently led by right-leaning governments resistant to climate action (for example, Argentina).
Turkey is a notable inclusion on the list because it was agreed in Belém that it will host next year’s COP31 in Antalya, but with Australia leading the negotiation process. In contrast, Australia is on the 85-strong list of roadmap supporters.
However, a spokesperson for Turkey’s delegation in Belem has told Carbon Brief that it did not oppose the roadmap at COP30 and its inclusion on the list is “wrong”.
Media characterisations
Some media reporting of the roadmap “blockers” sought to identify the key proponents.
For example, the Sunday Times said “the ‘axis of obstruction’ – Saudi Arabia, Russia and China – blocked the Belém roadmap”.
Agence France-Presse highlighted the views of a French minister who said: “Who are the biggest blockers? We all know them. They are the oil-producing countries, of course. Russia, India, Saudi Arabia. But they are joined by many emerging countries.”
Reuters quoted Vanuatu’s climate minister alleging that “Saudi Arabia was one of those opposed”.
The Financial Times said “a final agreement [was] blocked again and again by countries led by Saudi Arabia and Russia”.
Bloomberg said the roadmap faced “stiff opposition from Arab states and Russia”.
Media coverage in India and China has pushed back at the widespread portrayals of what many other outlets had described as the “blockers” of a fossil-fuel roadmap.
The Indian Express reported:
“India said it was not opposed to the mention of a fossil-fuel phaseout plan in the package, but it must be ensured that countries are not called to adhere to a uniform pathway for it.”
Separately, speaking on behalf of the LMDCs during the closing plenary at COP30, India had said: “Adaptation is a priority. Our regime is not mitigation centric.”
China Daily, a state-run newspaper that often reflects the government’s official policy positions, published a comment article this week stating:
“Over 80 countries insisted that the final deal must include a concrete plan to act on the previous commitment to move beyond coal, oil, and natural gas adopted at COP28…But many delegates from the global south disagreed, citing concerns about likely sudden economic contraction and heightened social instability. The summit thus ended without any agreement on this roadmap.
“Now that the conference is over, and emotions are no longer running high, all parties should look objectively at the potential solution proposed by China, which some international media outlets wrongly painted as an opponent to the roadmap.
“Addressing an event on the sidelines of the summit, Xia Yingxian, deputy head of China’s delegation to COP30, said the narrative on transitioning away from fossil fuels would find greater acceptance if it were framed differently, focusing more on the adoption of renewable energy sources.”
Speaking to Carbon Brief at COP30, Dr Osama Faqeeha, Saudi Arabia’s deputy environment minister, refused to be drawn on whether a fossil-fuel roadmap was a red line for his nation, but said:
“I think the issue is the emissions, it’s not the fuel. And our position is that we have to cut emissions regardless.”
Neither the Arab group nor the LMDCs responded to Carbon Brief’s invitation to comment on their inclusion on the list.
The Brazilian COP30 presidency did not respond at the time of publication.
While the fossil-fuel roadmap was not part of the formal COP30 outcome, the Brazilian presidency announced in the closing plenary that it would take the idea forward under its own initiative, drawing on an international conference hosted in Colombia next year.
Corrêa do Lago told the closing plenary:
“We know some of you had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand…As president Lula said at the opening of this COP, we need roadmaps so that humanity, in a just and planned manner, can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation and mobilise resources for these purposes.
“I, as president of COP30, will therefore create two roadmaps, one on halting and reverting deforestation, another to transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner. They will be led by science and they will be inclusive with the spirit of the mutirão.
“We will convene high level dialogues, gathering key international organisations, governments from both producing and consuming countries, industry workers, scholars, civil society and will report back to the COP. We will also benefit from the first international conference for the phase-out of fossil fuels, scheduled to take place in April in Colombia.”
Fossil-fuel roadmap
‘Supporters’
Both ‘supporter’ and ‘opposer’
‘Opposers’
Additional reporting by Daisy Dunne.
The post Revealed: Leak casts doubt on COP30’s ‘informal list’ of fossil-fuel roadmap opponents appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: Leak casts doubt on COP30’s ‘informal list’ of fossil-fuel roadmap opponents
Walmart (WMT) Expands EV Charging and Boosts Renewable Energy in Its Net-Zero Playbook
Before Trump, “Contempt of Court” Used to Be a Big Deal
EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
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”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale