The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) held their spring meetings last week in Washington DC – a key event in a critical year for international climate finance.
As the two so-called Bretton Woods institutions mark their 80-year anniversary, they are under growing pressure to reform and deal with the “polycrisis” enveloping the world.
Many developing nations are struggling with growing food insecurity, income inequality and massive debts that are taking up much of their resources.
All of this is making it harder than ever for them to invest in low-carbon energy or prepare their citizens for the growing threat of climate change. At the same time, some wealthy countries have been scaling back their foreign-aid spending.
While the two financial institutions are undergoing reforms, including changes designed to help them tackle climate change, progress so far has been slow.
Developed countries pledged $11bn at the spring meetings to help boost the World Bank’s lending capacity. However, calls for new funds and debt relief for the world’s poorest countries remained largely unanswered.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief explains the key outcomes from the spring meetings. The Q&A also looks ahead to the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, where countries are due to agree on a new climate finance target.
- Why are the World Bank and IMF spring meetings important for climate action?
- Are countries giving the World Bank more climate finance?
- What is the World Bank doing to ‘unlock’ more money?
- Did the spring meeting provide any debt relief for climate-vulnerable countries?
- Did leaders decide on ‘innovative’ new sources of climate finance?
- What comes next for global financial system reform?
Why are the World Bank and IMF spring meetings important for climate action?
Developing countries need large sums of money to address the climate and development challenges that they face.
An assessment by the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEG) in 2022 concluded that developing and emerging countries – excluding China – need to invest $2.4tn every year, by 2030, to meet their climate goals. This amounts to a fourfold increase from current levels.
(In the report, China is considered alongside the “advanced economies” of Europe, North America and East Asia and the Pacific that see the majority of global climate investment.)
The same group stated that insufficient investment, particularly in emerging and developing economies, was the “primary reason” that the world was “badly off track” on the path to its Paris Agreement targets.
Meanwhile, the world’s poorest countries are facing what the World Bank has described as a “great reversal”, with surging debt distress, food insecurity and income inequality increasing since the Covid-19 pandemic. This “polycrisis” makes it harder for them to address climate change.
Multilateral development banks (MDBs) distribute billions of dollars to developing countries every year, largely as loans. These banks are widely viewed as vital for expanding international climate finance and, as the largest MDB, the World Bank is expected to play a key role.
MDBs provided a record $60.9bn of climate finance to developing countries in 2022. However, IHLEG estimates that raising $2.4tn of investment for such nations would require around $250-300bn annually, by 2030, from MDBs and other development finance institutions.
Meanwhile, the IMF – which also lends money, but with a focus on financial stability rather than development – could play a vital role in aiding debt-laden countries that are also facing severe climate hazards.
Over the past year, the World Bank has been undertaking reforms as part of its “evolution roadmap” to increase its spending in developing countries, including more money for climate-related projects.
This came amid a broader push by a group of global-north and global-south nations for reforms to the international financial system – in part to scale up climate finance.
Progress has been slow. One review by the Centre for Global Development concluded that only one-fifth of the required reforms have been implemented by the World Bank so far and, in general, there has been uneven progress across the MDBs.
The spring meetings provided an opportunity for leaders to discuss the status of these activities and push for more progress.
Yet there remains a great deal of mistrust around the role of these institutions in addressing climate change from those who view them as complicit in many of the problems facing developing countries.
“The IMF, as well as the World Bank, contribute greatly to the economic entrapment of the global south,” Dr Fadhel Kaboub, a senior advisor at the thinktank Power Shift Africa, told a press briefing ahead of the spring meetings.
Issues highlighted by campaigners include what they regard as the IMF’s punitive policies for debt-laden countries and the World Bank’s continued financing of fossil-fuel projects.
Finally, the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, at the end of this year is expected to be the “finance COP”, with nations set to agree on a new climate-finance target to support developing countries.
Writing ahead of the spring meetings, Danny Scull, senior policy advisor for public banks and development at the thinktank E3G, explained that the spring meetings “will set the tone for a key year of transforming the international finance system, which is not limited to these DC-based institutions”.
Are countries giving the World Bank more climate finance?
At the end of this year, wealthy countries are due to “replenish” the International Development Association (IDA) – the arm of the World Bank that provides concessional and grant-based finance to the world’s poorest nations.
Given the challenges ahead, World Bank president Ajay Banga has stated that this replenishment should be the “largest of all time”, calling for $30bn in pledges. Such a commitment would allow IDA to lend more than $100bn.
Much of this money would be climate finance, as the World Bank has pledged to spend 35% of its funds on climate-related projects, rising to 45% by 2025.
Country surveys suggest that IDA funding tends to be well received by developing nations, compared to other sources of funding. However, developed countries such as the US and Germany have reduced their IDA pledges in recent years. Many have cut the foreign aid budgets from which their IDA contributions are drawn.
The last IDA contribution by the UK for example, was less than half its previous one. The government stated in 2022 that it planned to spend more on direct country programmes in order to “control how exactly taxpayers’ money is used to support our priorities”.
Some nations, such as the US, have stressed the need for the World Bank to do more with its existing resources, rather than relying on new investments from donor countries. (See: What is the World Bank doing to ‘unlock’ more money?)
According to the thinktank E3G, an “ambitious” IDA replenishment by wealthy nations would go some way to “re-establish[ing] trust with developing countries” – particularly those in Africa, where more than half of the IDA-eligible states are located.
A report released by the G20 Independent Expert Group last year describes IDA as “the largest source of long-term, cheap financing to low-income countries”, but adds that it is currently “too small to properly address the needs for [climate] adaptation, resilience and mitigation”.
The group therefore recommends a tripling of finance from IDA. This would require a “sharp” increase in contributions from donor countries.
The spring meetings provided a space for discussion of IDA replenishment, which Banga made clear was one of his priorities. A replenishment meeting taking place the week after the event is expected to provide more clarity on how much countries will donate.
What is the World Bank doing to ‘unlock’ more money?
The World Bank is under pressure to change the way it operates and assesses risk in its lending, in order to “unlock” more money from existing funds.
In 2022, an influential report for G20 finance ministers into “capital adequacy frameworks” highlighted measures that it said could unlock “several hundreds of billions of dollars” in extra lending from MDBs.
Crucially, the expert group said this could be done without threatening the financial stability or credit ratings of these banks.
The World Bank has already announced various measures over the past few months to boost lending. However, observers say further steps are needed.
A study by the consultancy Risk Control, which assessed the impact of the G20 report’s proposals, concluded that they could unlock an extra $162bn in lending over a decade from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) – the arm of the World Bank that focuses on middle-income countries.
It also concluded that the reforms could free up an extra $27bn in lending from the IDA.
Speaking to journalists during the spring meetings, Banga said that the World Bank was working through 27 recommendations from the G20 report that apply to the institution.
Franklin Steves, a senior policy adviser in sustainable finance at E3G, tells Carbon Brief that rapid progress was not expected at the meetings:
“There are lots and lots of political, but also legal and technocratic, issues around how the bank and also the other MDBs can implement those measures. They are going to take a lot of time to work through.”
Nevertheless, the spring meetings did see some progress in the World Bank’s reforms programme. Rich countries pledged a total of $11bn towards new instruments that the World Bank has set up as part of its effort to increase lending capacity.
The US, France, Japan and Belgium committed funds to the portfolio guarantee platform. This money will be available to pay off borrowers’ debts if necessary, allowing the World Bank to lend money more freely.
Separately, a group of countries including Germany, Denmark and the UK contributed to the World Bank’s hybrid capital mechanism. This allows shareholders to raise new funds by investing in special bonds from the bank.
According to the World Bank, in total these additional funds will allow it to lend an extra $70bn over the next 10 years.
Generally, the spring meetings also highlighted the World Bank’s interest in working more with the private sector to mobilise finance for renewable energy and other key investments. In an interview with Agence France-Presse, Banga said:
“The reality is that that gap between tens and hundreds of billions to trillions is not a number that the bank can fill…That’s why you do eventually need the private sector.”
The World Bank president’s language mirrors that of other leaders, such as former US climate envoy John Kerry, who has stated repeatedly that “no government in the world” has enough funds to address climate change on its own.
Banga said the bank was working to address regulatory uncertainties in developing countries, foreign currency risk and protecting private investors from war and other unrest.
At the spring meetings, the bank also launched a new partnership with the African Development Bank and private partners to provide 300 million people in Africa with access to electricity by 2030.
This approach has faced criticism from campaigners, who argue that the private sector has so far failed to mobilise significant climate finance for developing countries.
A report from the Bretton Woods Project launched just before the spring meetings concluded that creating “bankable” low-carbon projects in developing countries is “far from straightforward”. It also noted that ensuring such bankability can clash with the interests of citizens in those countries and jeopardise a “just energy transition”.
Did the spring meeting provide any debt relief for climate-vulnerable countries?
Just ahead of the meetings, Bulgarian economist Kristalina Georgieva was chosen for another five-year term as the IMF managing director. Her reappointment comes at a fraught time for the institution, as the world faces a mounting global debt crisis.
This issue is rising up the global agenda, with newspaper editorials and prominent figures calling for action to help debt-laden developing countries.
Around 60% of low-income nations are trapped in a cycle of paying off debt, which was exacerbated by borrowing during the Covid-19 pandemic and a surge in interest rates.
Developing countries spent $443.5bn on servicing their debts in 2022. Analysis by the ONE campaign concluded that, as of 2024, more money is flowing out of developed countries to service their debts than is flowing into their governments from external sources.
Many countries, particularly in Africa, are spending more on interest payments than on healthcare, education or climate action. This is particularly problematic for debt-laden nations – such as Malawi – which are dealing with climate-driven disasters and need to spend money on recovery and adaptation.
Analysis by the Debt Relief for Green and Inclusive Recovery (DRGR) project found that among 66 of the world’s most economically vulnerable nations, 47 will likely face insolvency in the next five years if they invest the amounts required to meet their climate and development goals.
Many civil society groups blame the IMF for contributing to these issues. Its approach of encouraging austerity policies so that countries can pay off debts has been responsible for “keep[ing] developing countries in a cycle of crisis”, according to a statement released by ActionAid USA country director Niranjali Amerasinghe.
Moreover, according to E3G, the role of the US Federal Reserve in increasing borrowing costs and the failure of wealthy countries to provide debt relief has been “tremendously
corrosive to trust” with developing countries.
Ahead of the spring meetings, civil society groups and academics called for major interventions to address these issues, such as the immediate cancellation of public debt payments for African countries and the “urgent reform” of the G20 “common framework”.
Wealthy creditor nations in the G20 established the common framework in 2020 to help coordinate the restructuring of debts. However, despite the high demand, only four developing countries have used it so far and it has been widely dismissed as inadequate.
Marina Zucker-Marques, a senior academic researcher in global economic governance at the Boston University Global Development Policy Center, tells Carbon Brief:
“What is happening today is that countries are defaulting on their development priorities and climate priorities instead of defaulting on their debt.…[They are] doing this because it’s very difficult to get your debt restructured within the common framework.”
One issue is debt sustainability analysis, which is meant to guide the borrowing decisions of low-income countries. As it stands, this calculation of how much money countries can pay towards their debt obligations does not account for their social, development and climate needs.
At the spring meetings, the IMF and the World Bank started discussions of how to reform this analysis to account for climate action and other issues. “This is a welcome path, but it’s something that is going to take two or three years to have a result,” Zucker-Marques explains.
The meetings also saw the launch of an independent review into the links between sovereign debt, nature and climate change, which will consider potential solutions such as debt for nature or climate swaps.
Did leaders decide on ‘innovative’ new sources of climate finance?
Raising the large sums of money required to tackle climate change is expected to involve tapping new sources of finance. Some of these sources were discussed during the spring meetings.
Representatives from a small group of global-north and global-south countries met on the sidelines of the event in the second ever in-person meeting of the international tax task force.
The goal of this initiative is to analyse and design new forms of taxation that could be used to raise money for climate and development needs. Options being considered include taxes on fossil-fuel producers, shipping fuel, air travel and financial transactions.
The group, co-chaired by France, Barbados and Kenya, was joined by Colombia at the event, bringing its total membership up to eight.
Kenyan climate change envoy Ali Mohamed said in a statement that their goal was to “raise much needed financing to tackle climate change while having minimal impact on ordinary people”.
The task force’s ambition is to present one or more options for taxes at COP30 in 2025, with the goal of gathering a coalition of nations that would be willing to implement them. It will present its initial findings at COP29 in Baku.
Meanwhile, there was growing momentum around the idea of a global tax on billionaires, in part to pay for climate action. A “wealth tax” of 2%, which could raise $250bn each year, was initially proposed by G20 chair Brazil in February, but received support from other leaders at the spring meetings, including IMF head Georgieva.
The concept will be developed further and presented at a G20 meeting of finance ministers and central bankers in July.
Finally, there was a lot of pressure from NGOs at the spring meetings to shift World Bank finance away from fossil fuels and into low-carbon energy sources. Three US senators also issued a public letter to Banga asking him to commit to ending fossil-fuel financing.
Oil Change International analysis shows that the bank was providing roughly $1.2bn a year to fossil fuel projects in developing countries, between 2020 and 2022. This is in spite of the World Bank committing to “align” all of its lending with the Paris Agreement as of July 2023.
Paola Yanguas Parra, a policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, tells Carbon Brief that current geopolitics are making calls to end fossil-fuel financing harder. “There is a lot of ‘gas as transition fuel’ and ‘gas as development’ being supported [by the World Bank],” she says.
In the end, there was no commitment from the World Bank to change its policies on fossil-fuel financing.
What comes next for global financial system reform?
This year is set to be a critical milestone for international climate finance.
When nations gather in Baku for COP29 in November, they will decide on a “new collective quantified goal” for providing climate finance to developing countries. This will replace the $100bn annual goal, which developed countries may finally have met in 2022, two years after the 2020 deadline.
The COP29 presidency hosted a “dialogue on enabling global action for climate finance” at the spring meetings, which saw president-designate Mukhtar Babayev sketch out broad priorities for the new climate-finance goal.
Other international events will feed into the climate summit and give a sense of progress towards international financial system reforms. In particular, G20 host Brazil will oversee continued discussions around finance at a meeting in July.
The World Bank and IMF annual meetings will then take place in October, shortly before COP29.
The post Q&A: Climate finance at World Bank and IMF spring meetings 2024 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: Climate finance at World Bank and IMF spring meetings 2024
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS.
Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.
Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.
The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.
The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.
Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output
Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.
Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.
-
Big banks’ lending to coal backers undermines Indonesia’s green plans
Foreign banks involved in Indonesia’s $20-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership have also funded companies working on coal power expansion, a TBIJ and Climate Home News investigation reveals -
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Renewables developers need reliable electricity infrastructure and stable policies to help the region meet climate goals and surging demand for power
Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.
Stronger environmental enforcement
Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.
This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.
The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.
The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.
In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.
None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.
Unequal benefits
For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.
-
Nickel mining for electric vehicles is destroying lives in Indonesia
Indonesia’s abundant nickel reserves are crucial for a low carbon world. But extracting them is ruining local peoples’ lives and causing rampant deforestation -
Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone
Indonesia supplies the EV industry with critical battery materials but the sector’s rapid expansion is infringing the rights of Indigenous peoples -
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
The government has abandoned its plan to shut down a major coal plant, which was a key part of the deal, raising doubts about the donor-backed approach
In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.
Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.
The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.
None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.
The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry appeared first on Climate Home News.
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
Climate Change
Risk of “catastrophic” oil spill reaching Kimberley coast found in Woodside’s Scott Reef gas drilling plans
SYDNEY, Monday 24 August 2026 – New analysis of Woodside modelling released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Environs Kimberley has revealed the oil and gas corporation’s plans to drill at Scott Reef could cause an oil spill up to 30 times bigger than the 2009 Montara disaster, impacting the Kimberley coastline and reaching as far as Indonesia.
The new analysis details the “catastrophic” oil spill risk put to environmental regulators for approval by Woodside in its Browse to North West Shelf Project (Browse) plans, the worst-case scenario being a blowout directly below Scott Reef, polluting whale migratory pathways and covering isolated turtle nesting ground with oil condensate.
An FOI application (F348) revealed the federal environment department (DCCEEW) asked offshore oil and gas regulator NOPSEMA to look into the oil spill risk in 2025. NOPSEMA’s response to the application refused access to its report, and one document shows DCCEEW sought further advice this year.
Greenpeace and Environs Kimberley are calling on the Federal Government to publicly release the NOPSEMA report given the risk of an uncontrolled release of oil condensate from directly below Scott Reef.
Hannah Schuch, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Woodside is aware that drilling at Scott Reef risks a massive oil spill that would have severe, far-reaching consequences. It appears environmental regulators are aware too.
“The state and federal governments need to take this risk from Woodside’s drilling plans seriously, as they could end up allowing the worst oil spill in Australian history.
“The pygmy blue whales that migrate up and down the WA coast with their newborns each year could be swimming and feeding in toxic, oil-slicked water. Woodside’s proposal to drill at Scott Reef is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the WA and federal governments have one surefire way to prevent catastrophe — reject Browse.”
Martin Prichard, Executive Director at Environs Kimberley, said: “A catastrophic oil spill by Woodside would be disastrous not just for marine life in the area but also for the Kimberley’s $500 million tourism industry.
“The state and federal governments will see five marine parks on the Kimberley coast included in the risk area of a catastrophic Woodside oil spill.
“The Montara oil spill was disastrous for West Timor with the toxic oil destroying seaweed farmers’ livelihoods. The Kimberley dodged a bullet with Montara, we were lucky the spill didn’t head our way. Myself and a crew flew over the Montara oil spill and followed it as far as we could. It was like a scene from a disaster movie.”
After the WA Environmental Protection Authority deemed Browse “unacceptable” due, in part, to oil spill risk, Woodside submitted a mitigation plan based on technology that has never been used “in anger”, a weakness stated in an independent expert review of the plan.
Professor Richard Steiner, independent oil spill expert, said: “A large offshore spill is impossible to effectively contain or recover. Historically, only 2-6% of total spill volume is recovered and the ecological injury from the release of toxic hydrocarbons in the sea can be severe, extensive, and long-term.
“Here in Alaska, government research concludes that several marine populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, including whales, fish, and seabirds, are still not recovering today, 37 years later. We should expect similar long-term ecological impacts in Western Australia if there were to be a major oil spill. The only sure way to avoid the risk of a catastrophic marine oil spill is to not develop oil and gas projects in marine environments.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Emma Sangalli on emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits