Hosting a COP in the Amazon, the world’s largest tropical rainforest, has raised hopes that this year’s UN climate summit in Brazil will be free from the shadow of fossil fuels, after the last two were held in major oil-producing countries. But even as Brazil faces extreme heat and flooding, its government has signalled it wants to extract more climate-warming oil.
“I dream of a day when we no longer need fossil fuels, but that day is still far away. Humanity will depend on them for a long time,” Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said last week during a speech in Belém, the capital of Pará and the host city for November’s COP30.
This Tuesday, Brazil’s National Energy Policy Council, which brings together federal ministers, approved the Latin American nation’s entry into the Charter of Cooperation (CoC) between oil-producing countries, a discussion forum linked to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+).
It provides a platform to “facilitate dialogue and exchange views regarding conditions and developments in the global oil and energy markets”, according to OPEC. Despite lacking binding obligations, Brazil’s entry into the CoC has brought backlash from climate groups.
“This is a disappointing setback for everyone who relies on the Brazilian government to lead a just transition away from fossil fuel exploration—an essential step if we are to survive on this planet,” said André Guimarães, director of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM).
According to a report by the climate campaign group 350.org, Brazil became the third-largest country in terms of investment in expanding its oil and gas sector last year, shortly after countries agreed at the COP28 in Dubai to “transition away from fossil fuels”.
Japan disregarded widespread calls to raise its 2035 emissions goal
Fossil fuel growth
If Brazil were to maintain only the oil wells it currently has in operation, the country’s production would decline by 64% by 2035. However, with new exploration projects set to be licensed, Brazil’s oil production is expected to increase by 36% in the next decade, according to analysis by 350.org based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data.
President Lula responded to criticism that his support for oil would tarnish Brazil’s leadership at COP30. “Look at the United States; see if France is worried. No, they are exploiting as much as they can. It’s England exploiting [oil] in Guyana and France in Suriname,” he said, pointing out that neighbouring countries are already profiting from oil in the Amazon region, working with Europe-based multinationals.
In his speeches, Lula has argued that the profits from new oil explorations will be used to finance the energy transition. However, this claim has been met with skepticism and sarcasm from environmentalists.
“It’s like recommending smoking twice as much to raise more money for lung cancer treatment,” mocks Caetano Scannavino, from the Amazonian NGO Saúde e Alegria.
In 2010, the Lula government passed a law stipulating that revenues from oil exploration in the pre-salt fields—a new source of wealth for Brazil at the time—would be invested in health and education. However, amid an economic crisis in the following years, the government redirected those funds to cover other expenses such as public debt.
Amazon oil
Since taking office for his third non-consecutive term, Lula’s government has been seeking an environmental license to drill an exploratory oil well in the Foz do Amazonas Basin, located along the coast of Amapá state, in an area of extreme environmental sensitivity.
The license was denied early in his administration, in May 2023. Experts at IBAMA (the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, the federal government’s environmental agency) concluded that Petrobras, the state-owned oil company, had failed to present a solid impact mitigation and emergency response plan.
Additionally, IBAMA’s President Rodrigo Agostinho noted the risks of exploring the area without first conducting a Sedimentary Area Environmental Assessment (AAAS). This includes an assessment of sensitive ecosystems, biodiversity hotspots and affected communities to determine potential environmental and social impacts.
Since then, three ministers – Alexandre Padilha for Institutional Relations, Rui Costa who is Chief of Staff, and Alexandre Silveira for Mines and Energy – have been negotiating a political agreement with the Ministry of the Environment, led by Marina Silva.
Seen as a roadblock by other ministries, Silva has repeatedly stated that IBAMA’s decision will be purely technical. However, sources within the government told Climate Home that the license is expected to be granted by the end of March.
Big polluters funnel 75% of profits to shareholders, not clean energy
Pressure from above
Even if IBAMA’s technical staff reject Petrobras’ revised plans, the agency’s leadership could still approve the drilling under political pressure from the president himself. Lula has been considering replacing IBAMA’s current president and has reportedly been eyeing Márcio Macêdo, a close ally who currently heads the General Secretariat of the Presidency.
“We can’t keep up this back-and-forth with IBAMA, which is a government agency but seems to act against the government,” Lula said last week during an interview to Diário FM, a local radio in Amapá state.
The environmental public servants’ association, Ascema, responded to that declaration with a letter stating that political pressure is unacceptable and that evaluations take the time needed to assess potential environmental and social impacts, as well as mitigation or compensation measures.
“The attempt to fast-track the approval of high-impact projects without due adherence to technical and scientific procedures threatens not only the integrity of Brazil’s ecosystems but also the rights of traditional populations and local communities directly affected by these decisions,” stated the Brazilian Forum of NGOs for the Environment.
Pressure to fast-track environmental licensing for large infrastructure projects, such as hydroelectric dams and highways, has already left a stain on the left-wing administrations of Lula and his successor, Dilma Rousseff. The most emblematic case was the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in Pará state in the Amazon.
In 2011, the approval of its environmental license led to the dismissal of IBAMA’s president. The project significantly impacted the Xingu River, a large tributary of the Amazon River, and Indigenous communities who depended on the river were not consulted. The violation of their rights was later recognised by Brazil’s Supreme Court.
Recently, due to the variability of the region’s hydrological regime combined with an undersized reservoir infrastructure, the dam has been operating at less than half of its projected power generation capacity, calling into question the economic rationale of the project.
Weakening studies
Now, the government aims to speed up environmental approval for drilling in the Foz do Amazonas basin by weakening IBAMA’s evaluation process. Through legal opinions issued by the Attorney General’s Office, the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) has successfully narrowed the scope of the environmental assessment.
One of its main arguments was that IBAMA cannot require mitigation measures for noise pollution caused by aircraft in the region, despite complaints from Indigenous communities that disturbances have scared away game animals essential to their way of life.
Another requirement that was legally overturned was the demand for a Sedimentary Area Environmental Assessment, a tool the MME has resisted implementing, since it could identify areas where oil exploration should be restricted.
With much of the licensing process stripped down, IBAMA’s final decision now hinges on the company’s emergency response plan. The initial denial of Petrobras’ request was based, among other criteria, on the absence of a plan to rescue wildlife in the event of an oil spill.
In response, the company built a wildlife rescue centre on the coast of Amapá state. This plan remains the last pending issue, and its approval will determine whether the license is granted.
Government officials at the Ministry of Environment told Climate Home they fear that the issuance of the license could send a crucial signal to potential fossil fuel investors in the region, as the National Petroleum Agency has already announced it will auction another 47 oil blocks in the same area of the Foz do Amazonas basin in June.
The post Lula’s government pushes for new oil drilling in the Amazon – where it plans to host COP30 appeared first on Climate Home News.
Lula’s government pushes for new oil drilling in the Amazon – where it will host COP30
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 offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously revealed, the same industry and NGO groups that sought an exemption from the “buffer pool”, along with some corporate buyers, criticised the use of a study backed by the UN carbon market’s experts that recommended the new risk assessment approach.
The groups pushed for more flexible rules that would have allowed natural risk values drawn from other sources, including national databases, or from the project developers themselves.
While the Supervisory Body rejected this approach, it gave project developers and countries the option to propose alternative values that would first need to be vetted by the mechanism’s expert panel and then approved by the regulator.
A carbon market expert told Climate Home News that, while it is too early to say how this provision will be used, they expect requests will have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence, lowering the risk of unfounded claims.