Connect with us

Published

on

Brandon Wu oversees research, advocacy, coalition building and campaigning work for ActionAid USA.

Leaders are supposed to lead by example. If you broke it, you’re meant to fix it (or at least pay for it). You’re supposed to do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.

These and any number of other tired cliches are actually incredibly useful for describing the seemingly interminable deadlocks at UN climate negotiations like COP30.

There is a set of rich developed countries that call themselves “climate leaders.” They caused the climate crisis through their emissions, and they should be fixing it by zeroing out those emissions and paying for poorer countries to do the same. They should be treating countries and communities harmed by climate impacts with compassion and solidarity.

News flash: they aren’t doing any of those things. And somehow we act surprised that the climate negotiations haven’t yet produced the massive breakthroughs the world needs?

No transition without concrete support

It might be easy to blame certain countries for being unhappy with a proposed roadmap to end fossil fuels, backed by 80-90 nations at the talks. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the wealthy countries that are pushing for the roadmap – the European Union most stridently – are themselves not anywhere close to being on track to phase out fossil fuels.

Just as importantly, developed countries as a whole have consistently refused to provide meaningful amounts of climate finance in line with needs, despite their extremely clear obligations and the practical realities of the need for support in developing countries.

COP30 Bulletin Day 11: With talks in “crisis”, countries urged to unite for COP30 deal

Of course we need a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels – that is what many of us are here to achieve. But if the transition away from fossil fuels is not just, it will not succeed. And if there is no support from developed to developing countries, not only will the transitions there not be just – in many cases they will not happen at all.

Just transition mechanism close?

To that end, at COP30, negotiators are getting tantalizingly close to an outcome on “just transition” – a framework to support countries to ensure their communities and workers are lifted up rather than left behind as they transition to a new and more sustainable economy.

Civil society has been pushing hard for a “Belem Action Mechanism,” or BAM, that would embed just transition principles into a coherent, practical and actionable system. The guiding principle behind the push for the BAM, and for just transition more broadly, is that without justice, any massive economic transition will fail, as it will be impossible to garner the necessary political support to implement it.

The BAM was the major priority for many activists and developing countries coming into this COP, and a great deal of open and transparent negotiations have gone into trying to make it a reality. In contrast, the fossil fuel roadmap – necessary as some form of it is – was dropped into the formal negotiations late, without any transparent process.

Rich nations push back on calls for new just transition mechanism

Developing countries need a comprehensive package

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 characterizing 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. 

If COP30 ends without a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels and deforestation, let’s make sure we keep the pressure on the real culprits: the rich countries that keep coming to these negotiations offering nothing but demanding everything.

The post Just transition, finance and equity – that’s how we get COP30 to act on fossil fuels  appeared first on Climate Home News.

Just transition, finance and equity – that’s how we get COP30 to act on fossil fuels 

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Published

on

SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million. 

ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.

Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.

“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”

The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]

ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]

Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.

“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”

Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.

-ENDS-

Images available in Greenpeace Media Library

Notes:

[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.

[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee

[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.

[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.

Media contact:

Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Published

on

The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.

In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.

Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Cheniere Energy Received $370 Million IRS Windfall for Using LNG as ‘Alternative’ Fuel

Published

on

The country’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas benefited from what critics say is a questionable IRS interpretation of tax credits.

Cheniere Energy, the largest producer and exporter of U.S. liquefied natural gas, received $370 million from the IRS in the first quarter of 2026, a payout that shipping experts, tax specialists and a U.S. senator say the company never should have received.

Cheniere Energy Received $370 Million IRS Windfall for Using LNG as ‘Alternative’ Fuel

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com