Since she was a child, Argentine park ranger Natay Collet can remember seeing trucks rolling through her hometown, throwing up dust clouds and piled high with the reddish-brown trunks of the Chaco’s famed quebracho tree.
“You used to know people who lived in the forest. Now, the land belongs to big business owners who come to exploit it,” said Collet, 40, gesturing towards a dusty plain that was once covered by forest in Argentina’s northern province of Chaco.
Collet’s determination to do what she could to save Gran Chaco – the second-biggest forest biome in South America after the Amazon – led her to become a park ranger as the region’s dry, scrubby forest comes under intense pressure from agricultural expansion and illegal logging.
Chaco province alone has lost 1 million hectares (2.47 million acres) of tree cover since 2001, equivalent to 18% of the area covered by trees in 2000, according to Global Forest Watch. As a whole, the country has lost about 7 million hectares (17.3 million acres) of tree cover over the same period, in tandem with rising output of grains – especially soybeans.
Argentina’s native forests are protected by law – and it backed a commitment by countries at the Glasgow COP26 climate summit to halt forest loss by 2030.
Lula says he is “optimistic” about US support for new rainforest fund
But two years since pro-business libertarian President Javier Milei was elected on pledges to get the country’s unruly finances in order, environmentalists and climate campaigners fear the country’s forests are in growing danger because of sweeping spending cuts for forest protection – including park rangers like Collet.
“It’s getting worse and worse,” she told Climate Home News, describing increasingly precarious working conditions, with rangers’ contracts renewed every three months, low pay and no money for new equipment or repairs.
The budget of the National Parks Administration (APN) fell 34% in real terms between 2023 and 2024, according to a report published by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), an Argentine NGO.
The APN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
-
In new forest finance plan, 34 nations endorse Brazil’s rainforest fund
The Forest & Climate Leaders’ Partnership of forest-rich and donor countries backs Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility, set to be launched at COP30 -
Russia justifies fossil gas use by citing contentious COP28 loophole
In Dubai two years ago, Russia pushed for a clause on “transitional fuels” which its new UN climate plan uses to justify gas consumption -
Zimbabwe forest carbon megaproject generated millions of junk credits
Verra is seeking compensation for offsets issued “in excess” by the controversial Kariba REDD+ scheme. But the registry’s track record in obtaining remedies raises concerns
Deforestation jumps under Milei
Milei, an ideological ally of US President Donald Trump who took office in December 2023, faces a crucial midterm election this month that could make it even easier for him to push environmental protection cutbacks through by bolstering his support in Congress, where his government currently holds a minority.
Environmentalists say the impact of his government’s spending cuts and other policies is already becoming evident, contributing to an increase in deforestation across the country last year, including in the northern provinces that straddle the Gran Chaco region, which covers about 1 million square km (386,000 square miles) in total across Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia.
Argentine government data indicates a loss of around 254,000 hectares nationwide in 2024, up 34% from 2023, despite a court injunction completely banning deforestation in Chaco since August 2024. Neighbouring northern provinces are also deforestation hotspots.
Milei has in the past called climate change a hoax and earlier this year he expressed interest in withdrawing Argentina from the Paris Agreement. Officials from his government, however, have said his administration will honour its environmental agreements and its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
The Subsecretariat of the Environment did not reply to a request for comment.
Milei scrapped the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, downgrading it to the Secretariat of Tourism, Environment and Sports. That move led to a decrease of almost 80%, in real terms, in the environmental budget between 2023 and 2024, according to FARN.
And in an October 2024 decree, Milei eliminated the national Fund for the Environmental Protection of Native Forests, making less funding available for conservation, sustainable use and forest restoration projects.
International credibility at risk
Under Milei, the “dismantling” of the state apparatus has “encouraged institutional permissiveness over deforestation”, said Ana di Pangracio, interim executive director of FARN.
“The failure to comply with international commitments and national laws affects Argentina’s international credibility, hinders access to climate and biodiversity financing, and affects the conditions for entering international markets that are of interest to Argentina,” Di Pangracio added.
Last year, Milei attempted to modify the country’s Forest Law as part of a broader reform bill, seeking to loosen the legislation’s controls on deforestation on certain land, but eventually dropped the plan in order to garner sufficient support from opposition lawmakers to pass the wider measures.
Explainer: Brazil’s “right answer” to forest finance turns to markets to keep rainforest standing
“Axe-breaker” tree no match for chainsaws
The biggest driver of deforestation in northern Argentina is agriculture: mainly soy farming and cattle grazing, which has been pushed northwards as the best arable land is used up further south.
Decades of “systematic clearing” have taken a heavy toll on Chaco’s emblematic quebracho tree – meaning axe-breaker due to its hard wood, said Collet, the park ranger. Along with its wood, the tree is exploited for its tannins, which are used for curing leather products such as luxury handbags and car upholstery.
Despite the 2024 deforestation ban, there are signs that trees continue to be cut down in Chaco.
During a July visit to the town of Juan José Castelli, which lies just outside the El Impenetrable national park, a large truck loaded with tree trunks was parked up in front of the police station – apparently confiscated along with its load.
In May, Governor Leandro Zdero hailed the arrival of new satellite-equipped trucks, which he said had helped forest service officials halt an illegal deforestation incident.
But environmental activists told Climate Home that for the most part, those responsible for deforestation, including large-scale landowners, do so with impunity in a province plagued by corruption.
Struggle to protect Indigenous land
For Chaco’s forest defenders, who include members of Indigenous communities, there have been some small victories.
In August, the provincial government partially vetoed a law that had been heavily criticised in April for lessening fines and allowing the use of illegally deforested timber for profit, creating an incentive for illicit tree-cutting.
Bigger battles continue, however.
Óscar Villalba, a member of the Moqoit Indigenous community, has been fighting in the courts to secure his people’s land rights since 2012, when the 308,000 hectares (761,000 acres) of the forested Reserva Grande in western Chaco were recognised as Indigenous land jointly belonging to the Moqoit, Wichí and Toba – or Qom – communities.
Despite the recognition by a provincial Indigenous rights body, governors have twice blocked court rulings that supported the Indigenous communities’ exclusive rights to live on and work the land, Villalba said, adding that in the meantime, loggers have had free rein to encroach on the land and cut down trees.
The provincial government did not reply to requests for comment.
“For many years we have been travelling, walking, denouncing, demanding that the government grant us hearings,” Villalba said, struggling to hold back tears as he stood by the side of a dusty road near the reserve. “There is no response. But they are cutting down trees to their heart’s content, day and night.”
The post Milei’s budget cuts fuel deforestation fears in Argentina’s Chaco appeared first on Climate Home News.
Milei’s budget cuts fuel deforestation fears in Argentina’s Chaco
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.
In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.
The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:
“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”
In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
Spreadsheet error
The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.
The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.
These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.
Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.
In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.
This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.
At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.
In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.
Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.
Paper trail
The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.
The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.
A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.
However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.
It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.
(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)
After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”
The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.