Isatis M. Cintron-Rodriguez is a Puertorrican climate scientist and staff associate at Columbia University’s Earth Insitute. Liane Schalatek is associate director at the Heinrich Boell Stiftung Washington with expertise in UN climate funds and finance. Lien Vandamme is senior campaigner for the Climate & Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law.
Imagine losing your home to catastrophic floods, your loved ones to unprecedented hurricanes, your livelihood to raging wildfires, or your ancestors’ graves to rising sea levels.
Then, to add insult to injury, imagine losing your voice and rights in the very UN institution mandated to alleviate the costs of these climate-related harms for the hardest hit in communities such as yours.
Technocrats talking about you, without you; decisions made – including, ironically, on participation and stakeholder engagement – while you have no meaningful say. Justice denied from the outset.
This could be the dire reality when the new board of the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) convenes for the first time in Abu Dhabi (UAE) next week (April 30 – May 2). Designed to provide long-awaited justice for those suffering the most from climate impacts, the fund risks failing right from the start by limiting access for those it claims to support.
Expectations mount as loss and damage fund staggers to its feet
Those most affected by the climate crisis know all too well the losses and damages they are suffering and how to repair these harms. Their involvement in the LDF is essential not only for its effectiveness but for its legitimacy and for justice. Even more than any other, this fund needs to be driven by people, to respect their rights, and hear their voices.
Let’s start with the basics: public participation and access to information are human rights. Accountability, transparency and participation in decision-making are the hallmarks of democratic governance – and their importance for the LDF’s ability to meet local needs and priorities cannot be overstated.
These fundamental rights are rooted in the understanding that people should hold power over decisions that concern their lives and communities. Science and experience show that such participation also leads to more effective and sustainable outcomes. Getting participation right from the start is essential to the LDF’s legitimacy, equity, effectiveness and potential for transformative change.
Sidelined in planning
The LDF would not exist if it were not for the decades-long relentless calls for justice and affirmative action by communities, civil society and Indigenous Peoples, which escalated to an impossible-to-ignore volume over the last few years.
Despite these loud calls, rightsholders’ representatives were sidelined during the fund’s planning stages last year. While a small group of countries in a Transitional Committee debated the fund’s scope and aims, civil society consistently had to put up a fight merely to be let into the room.
And history is repeating itself. The LDF’s Governing Instrument (adopted at COP28) reinforces the need to support local communities and recognition of their participation. Yet the first board meeting limits participation to two people per UNFCCC stakeholder group – some of which represent millions, even billions, of people – such as Indigenous Peoples, youth, and women and girls.
Such overly restrictive numbers do not allow for the representation of the diversity of voices, groups and organisations under the umbrellas of these groups, and will lead to the exclusion of critical voices.
As donors dither, Indigenous funds seek to decolonise green finance
These limitations are in stark contrast with participation at another UN fund, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which – while it still has a long way to go to enable effective participation – does not limit board meeting observer attendance either in number or by stakeholder groups. The GCF had a significantly higher attendance than the LDF at its first meetings.
Restricted seating in the actual room will further limit direct interaction with LDF board members making the decisions. The claimed ‘space constraints’ behind the restrictions are particularly unconvincing, coming from a country that organised the biggest climate talks in history just a few months ago.
Climate justice requires inclusion
The LDF has the potential to set a new precedent for climate finance – one that values human dignity and amplifies the voices of its beneficiaries. This requires more than a token dialogue with a handful of stakeholders in the first meeting; it necessitates a broad, inclusive consultation process that genuinely influences the fund’s policies.
By explicitly endorsing the principles of inclusion, non-discrimination, transparency, access to information, empowerment, collaboration, and accountability, and proactively enabling active participation at all stages – from designing board policies and assessing community-level needs to implementation and decision-making – the LDF could live up to expectations and deliver climate justice.
Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal
If the Board does not explicitly and meaningfully include the diverse voices of the rightsholders who are meant to be the LDF’s main beneficiaries, the fund risks becoming another bureaucratic relic, preserving the status quo of climate injustice.
During its first meeting next week, the board has a chance to overcome business-as-usual, as decision-makers will discuss procedures for the participation of observers and stakeholders. It must radically choose to enable and support meaningful participation by the diverse range of groups involved.
The time to act is now. At its inaugural meeting, the board must choose to champion transformative change and genuine justice, setting a course that will define the fund’s legacy. The lives and livelihoods of far too many are on the line.
The post Limiting frontline voices in the Loss & Damage Fund is a recipe for disaster appeared first on Climate Home News.
Limiting frontline voices in the Loss & Damage Fund is a recipe for disaster
Climate Change
Pacific nations would be paid only thousands for deep sea mining, while mining companies set to make billions, new research reveals
SYDNEY/FIJI, Thursday 26 February 2026 — New independent research commissioned by Greenpeace International has revealed that Pacific Island states would receive mere thousands of dollars in payment from deep sea mining per year, placing the region as one of the most affected but worst-off beneficiaries in the world.
The research by legal professor Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka and development economist Dr Ben Tippet reveals that mechanisms proposed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for sharing any future revenues from deep sea mining would leave developing nations with meagre, token payments. Pacific Island nations would receive only USD $46,000 per year in the short term, then USD $241,000 per year in the medium term, averaging out to barely USD $382,000 per year for 28 years – an entire annual income for a nation that is less than some individual CEOs’ salaries. Mining companies would rake in over USD $13.5 billion per year, taking up to 98% of the revenues.
The analysis shows that under a scenario where six deep sea mining sites begin operating in the early 2030s, the revenues that states would actually receive are extraordinarily small. This is in contrast to the clear mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which requires mining to be carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole.[1] The real beneficiaries, the research shows, would be, yet again, a handful of corporations in the Global North.
Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific Shiva Gounden, said:
“What the Pacific is being promised amounts to little more than scraps. The people of the Pacific would sacrifice the most and receive the least if deep sea mining goes ahead. We are being asked to trade in our spiritual and cultural connection to our oceans, and risk our livelihoods and food sources, for almost nothing in return.
“The deep sea mining industry has manipulated the Pacific and has lied to our people for too long, promising prosperity and jobs that simply do not exist. The wealthy CEOs and deep sea mining companies will pocket the cash while the people of the Pacific see no material benefits. The Pacific will not benefit from deep sea mining, and our sacrifice is too big to allow it to go ahead. The Pacific Ocean is not a commodity, and it is not for sale.”
Using proposals submitted by the ISA’s Finance Committee between 2022 and 2025, the returns to states barely register in national accounts. After administrative costs, institutional expenses, and compensation funds are deducted, little, if anything, remains to distribute [3].
Author Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka of the Centro Universitário de Brasília said:
“What’s described as global benefit-sharing based on equity and intergenerational justice increasingly looks like a framework for managing scarcity that would deliver almost no real benefits to anyone other than the deep sea mining industry. The structural limitations of the proposed mechanism would offer little more than symbolic returns to the rest of the world, particularly developing countries lacking technological and financial capacity.”
The ISA will meet in March for its first session of the year. Currently, 40 countries back a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining.
Gounden added: “The deep sea belongs to all humankind, and our people take great pride in being the custodians of our Pacific Ocean. Protecting this with everything we have is not only fair and responsible but what we see as our ancestral duty. The only equitable path is to leave the minerals where they are and stop deep sea mining before it starts.
“The decision on the future of the ocean must be a process that centres the rights and voices of Pacific communities as the traditional custodians. Clearly, deep sea mining will not benefit the Pacific, and the only sensible way forward is a moratorium.”
—ENDS—
Notes
[1] A key condition for governments to permit deep sea mining to start in the international seabed is that it ‘be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole’, particularly developing nations, according to international law (Article 136-140, 148, 150, and 160(2)(g), the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to explain how it would mitigate environmental harms, including PFAS contamination.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can’t dredge 28 miles of the Wilmington Harbor as planned, after North Carolina environmental regulators determined the billion-dollar proposal would be inconsistent with the state’s coastal management policies.
North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor
Climate Change
Australia’s renewable energy opportunity
Australia has some of the largest areas of high volume, consistent solar and wind energy anywhere in the world. It is a natural advantage that many countries in our region and across Europe will envy as they ramp up their efforts to reduce carbon pollution.
Australia has an amazing opportunity to utilise this abundance of reliable energy not only to transform our own energy systems but also that of our neighbours – if we get the policy settings right.
We are, in fact, already seeing the benefits of renewable energy flowing into our electricity grids. With all the inflation pressures on our bank accounts it looks like electricity pricing may be one cost that could be turning a corner – largely thanks to cheap solar and wind energy.
Renewables are Bringing Down the Cost of Producing Electricity

Here at Greenpeace, while we think there are some important questions to ask about renewable energy, it is clear that solar and wind are certainly the cheapest energy options available.
In contrast, coal, oil and gas are not only big on pollution, they are also proving costlier as they struggle to cope with the changing nature of our electricity systems. Plus, fossil fuels are much more exposed to international price fluctuations – as we all experienced when our electricity bills rapidly rose following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Wouldn’t it be great if we instead had energy independence, sourced from an infinite supply of clean energy?
Solar and wind (backed by batteries) can do just that and the reality is that they are already out-competing the old guard of gas and coal simply because they are quicker and cheaper to deploy. Which is good news for electricity prices!
Although whether energy retailers are passing on those savings to customers is another question. Short answer: no, they’re not – but it is a bit complex.
Why are my electricity bills still high?
There are a number of elements that make up the final amount we see on our bills. The graph below shows the breakdown of energy costs covered by our bills.
You will see roughly a third (36.2% in 2025-26) of the cost goes to maintenance and build out of the electricity grid. This includes the transmission lines needed to connect to new renewable energy sites and to connect states so they can better share their energy resources. The ‘network’ costs have been increasing but so have other components of our bill, most notably the ‘wholesale’ cost of producing electricity.

Thankfully, the cost of producing the electricity is now starting to go down (thanks to renewables and batteries), but they are coming off record highs thanks to the exorbitant cost of gas and the unreliability of coal power stations that are old and no longer fit for purpose.
During high demand times (eg, when we all get home from work on a hot day and turn on the air conditioning) spot prices can quickly jump. Add to that a couple of coal power plants breaking down (as they increasingly do), and expensive gas fired power use spikes in the system. This can quickly cancel out any of the cost savings solar power may have created during the day when prices can actually go negative.
The good news is that this is exactly the problem batteries can solve. Batteries are great at soaking up the surplus supply of solar during the middle of the day, which creates a more efficient system, and then rapidly pumping out that power during the evening peak at a cheaper rate than gas.
How much have costs come down?
According to the Australian energy regulator (AEMO), wholesale electricity prices across the east coast have dropped by 44% when comparing prices in quarter 4 of 2025 to the same period in 2024.

AEMO directly attributes the change to the significant growth in wind (up 29%), solar (up 15%), and batteries (3,796 MW of new battery capacity added). This influx of cheap renewable energy has seen a corresponding decrease in the use of polluting fossil fuels to power the grid. Coal fired power dropped by 4.6% and gas fired power fell by a staggering 27%.
The same trend can be seen in the world’s largest standalone grid in WA where renewable energy and storage supplied a record 52.4% of the grid’s energy across the final 3 months of 2025. That is an impressive result given there is no interstate connection to borrow energy from and there is no hydroelectric power in the system.
As a result, WA has seen a 13% drop in wholesale electricity prices thanks to a 5.8% reduction in coal fired power and a 16.4% reduction in gas fired power.
Australian Households Lead the Way on Solar and Batteries
Despite all the attempts to discredit clean energy by Trump and other conservative politicians, Aussie households have long known the value of renewable energy. In fact, Australia now holds the title for the highest rate of solar energy per capita in the world.
This is now being followed by the rapid takeup of household batteries with the Clean Energy Regulator being overwhelmed with interest in the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. They now expect to receive “around 175,000 valid battery applications corresponding to a total usable capacity of 3.9 GWh by the end of 2025.”’

All these extra batteries storing the surplus solar energy across our neighbourhoods during the day is not only creating drastic bill reductions for those households who are installing them, it is helping the whole grid. Which eventually will help everyone’s electricity bills.
If Australia as a whole follows the lead of suburban families by switching to cheap solar (plus wind) backed-up by batteries, it has an unparalleled opportunity to build its economy on the back of unlimited, local, clean energy harnessed from the sun and wind.
Powering our Future Economy
If there was ever something Australia has a natural advantage in, its sun and wind. But given the growing demand for electricity from data centres and the electrification of heavy industry, we are going to need more than just rooftop solar panels.
That’s where Australia has the potential, more than almost any other country, to become a renewable energy powerhouse and punch above our weight in the fight against climate change. See for example the unique opportunity to enter into the production and export of green iron.
While there is still quite a way to go before our electricity is fully sourced from solar and wind, we are well on the way. The clean energy charge is gathering pace – and our communities, oceans, wildlife and bank balances will be the better for it.
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
