The European Commission has set out a proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040, with up to 3% coming via carbon credits purchased from other countries.
In a proposed amendment to EU climate legislation, the commission has laid out what it calls a “new way to get to 2040”, including “flexibilities” to ease the burden on member states.
Besides the limited use of carbon credits, the proposal also gives a potentially larger role to carbon dioxide (CO2) removal technologies and leaves the door open for weaker sectoral goals.
It has drawn criticism from climate NGOs and left-leaning European politicians, who argue that it “waters down” the EU’s climate ambitions and presents “considerable risks”.
Yet, the proposal is seen by many as an acceptable compromise option, following strong pushback from many member states to the 90% target, originally proposed last year.
With all nations expected to come forward with new international climate targets for 2035 by September and ahead of the COP30 climate summit, the 2040 goal will also be crucial in determining where the EU’s pledge lands.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief outlines what the amendment proposed by the commission includes, why it has proved controversial and what is expected to happen next.
What has the European Commission proposed?
The European Commission has proposed an amendment to the EU Climate Law, which would set a target for a 90% reduction in net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2040, compared to 1990 levels.
It will “give certainty to investors, innovation, strengthen industrial leadership of our businesses and increase Europe’s energy security”, the commission says.
In a statement, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, added:
“As European citizens increasingly feel the impact of climate change, they expect Europe to act. Industry and investors look to us to set a predictable direction of travel. Today we show that we stand firmly by our commitment to decarbonise [the] European economy by 2050. The goal is clear, the journey is pragmatic and realistic.”
The proposal includes new “flexibilities”, such as a limited role for “high-quality international credits” from 2036, the use of domestic permanent emissions removals within the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and additional flexibilities across certain hard-to-decarbonise sectors.
These additional flexibilities are designed to allow countries to meet targets in a cost-effective and “socially fair” way, the commission adds. It says they will provide the possibility that a member state could compensate for a struggling land-use sector with overachievement in other areas, such as emissions from waste or transport.
The target will “send a signal to the global community” that the EU will “stay the course on climate change, deliver the Paris Agreement and continue engaging with partner countries to reduce global emissions”, says the commission.
It has been announced ahead of the UN COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil in November.
The European Commission says it will now work with the council presidency – representing EU member state governments – to finalise the EU’s climate pledges for 2035, so that the EU can submit its “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.
The EU was among the 95% of countries that missed the UN deadline to submit their NDCs by February of this year.
A recent update from the European parliament noted that the EU “needs to update its NDC…by September”, in order to meet an extended deadline from the UN.
In 2023, independent advisory body the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change recommended that the EU should aim for net emissions reductions of 90-95% by 2040, compared to 1990 levels.
As such, the advisory board said that the bloc would need to limit its cumulative emissions from 2030-50 to 11-14bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e), in order to be in line with bringing global warming down to 1.5C by the end of the century.
The 90% emissions reduction figure set out by the EU is on the lower end of guidance.
Why is the commission making this proposal now?
The European Commission’s new proposal builds on previous targets and roadmaps, representing a significant step towards enshrining the 2040 target in law.
In July 2021, the European Climate Law officially entered into force, setting a target of a net GHG reduction of at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, as shown in the chart below.
Rules were introduced governing sectors, such as clean energy, energy efficiency and transport, among others, to help meet this target.
If all were successful in their implementation, they would reduce emissions by roughly 57% by 2030, according to a European parliament assessment in 2022.
Subsequently, the commission has been working on developing a target for 2040, as an interim benchmark between the 2030 target and the EU goal – announced in 2018 – to be “climate neutral” by 2050. At this point, the bloc would reach net-zero emissions overall and would stop adding to global warming.
In 2024, the commission published an impact assessment, detailing the underlying qualitative analysis it had undertaken around emissions reduction targets for 2040.
This, together with the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s report (detailed above) and advice from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formed the basis for the 90% target, the commission says.
The headline 90% target for 2040 was announced as part of a roadmap outlined by the commission in February 2024.
The roadmap kicked off a lengthy process in which EU politicians and institutions worked to cement the details of this target, ahead of this week’s proposal on turning it into law.
This process included “substantial engagement” with member states, the European parliament, stakeholders, civil society and citizens, the commission says.
In particular, certain European countries have been placing pressure on the commission to change or adapt the 2040 target, slowing the progress of this week’s proposal, which had been due out in February.
For example, Italy called for the goal to be weakened and France asked for “flexibility” to be introduced (See: Who has supported and opposed the proposed climate target?).
The commission hopes that publishing the proposed target now will allow it to be factored into the EU’s upcoming NDC, in which it will establish an emissions reduction target for 2035.
What does it say about international carbon credits and ‘flexibilities’?
The European Commission’s proposal sets out a “pragmatic” pathway towards the 2040 target, including specific measures to give EU member states “flexibility”.
Of these, the one that has received the most attention is to allow limited use of international carbon credits, under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, starting in 2036.
In effect, this flexibility means that emissions within the EU would only need to fall to 87% below 1990 levels by 2040, with the remaining 3% taking place overseas.
This would mean member states could buy credits generated by emissions-cutting projects in other countries and count those cuts towards their own targets.
Other nations, including Japan and Switzerland, have already welcomed the use of international credits to meet their climate goals.
In an unusual intervention that coincided with the proposal itself, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change stated that the EU should not count such credits towards the 2040 target. It said:
“Using international carbon credits to meet this target, even partially, could undermine domestic value creation by diverting resources from the necessary transformation of the EU’s economy.”
The board also mentioned other concerns that are frequently levelled at “carbon offsetting”, such as credits not resulting in real-world emissions cuts.
The commission’s proposal refers to “high-quality international credits under Article 6”, but does not specify which types of credit. This leaves the door open for lower quality options.
For example, carbon trading under Article 6.2 is subject to far less oversight than trading of Article 6.4 credits.
The proposal also states that: “The origin, quality criteria and other conditions concerning the acquisition and use of any such credits shall be regulated in union law.”
This suggests that the EU would conduct its own assessment of any credits used by member states, beyond the rules that have been negotiated at an international level.
Jonathan Crook, the lead expert on global carbon markets at Carbon Market Watch, tells Carbon Brief that additional safeguards would be “essential”, given outstanding issues with Article 6 carbon credits.
A Q&A accompanying the commission proposal states that credits would be bought from “credible and transformative” projects in nations with Paris-aligned climate goals.
It mentions direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as examples of the kinds of projects that the EU could source credits from.
This could severely limit the pool of available credits, because – as it stands – almost all carbon credits are from tree planting, forest conservation and clean-energy projects.
DACCS and BECCS projects could result in relatively permanent carbon removal. Crook says this would be one of the “many necessary safeguards” needed for credit purchases, although he points to potential issues with such projects. He adds:
“This potential durability criterion is only mentioned in the Q&A, rather than in the actual commission proposal and so currently has very limited standing unless it is introduced [into the legal text] during the co-legislation process.”
There are two additional “new flexibilities” mentioned in the commission’s proposal, to help member states meet the 2040 emissions target more easily.
One is the inclusion of permanent carbon dioxide (CO2) removal in the EU ETS, something that was already being discussed as part of an ETS revision.
This would mean that DACCS and BECCS projects in EU member states could sell credits to help high-emitting companies, such as steel plant operators, stay within their ETS limits.
Paying for such credits could become more appealing as the number of available emissions “allowances” under the overall “cap” for ETS system shrinks and the allowances become more expensive.
The commission says this would help to “compensate for residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors”, referring to those that are expensive or difficult to reduce to zero.
The need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is widely recognised and inclusion in the ETS could help to drive investment into early-stage technologies, such as DACCS.
However, there are concerns that focusing on removals diverts investment from readily available technologies that cut emissions, such as electric-arc furnaces for steel plants.
In its recommendations, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change says there should be separate targets for emissions reductions and removals. This would ensure the removals contribute to EU targets “without deterring emission reductions”, it says.
Finally, the commission’s proposal also includes a vague mention of “enhanced flexibility across sectors, to support the achievement of targets in a cost-effective way”.
Linda Kalcher, executive director of the thinktank Strategic Perspectives, tells Carbon Brief that this is “alluding to the fact that we might see weakening of some laws”.
Michael Forte, a senior policy advisor at thinktank E3G, expands on this, noting that it could mean member states adjusting emissions targets between different parts of the EU climate architecture, depending on where they were over- or underperforming.
“I would infer that this means letting member states transfer a greater share of their mitigation efforts between these different instruments,” Forte tells Carbon Brief.
Kalcher notes that such changes cannot be regulated in this law, but instead would need to be part of the expected 2040 framework or other pieces of law:
“They are more alluding to future changes, instead of making them now. So that…gives confidence to the countries that have concerns [about the 2040 target] that something will happen.”
Who has supported and opposed the proposed climate target?
Climate campaigners and left-leaning politicians were highly critical of the “flexibilities” included in the commission’s proposal, in particular the use of international carbon credits.
The options proposed were described by civil-society groups as “creative accounting” and a “dangerous new precedent” that relies on “outsourcing Europe’s responsibility” to other countries.
The European parliament’s centre-left Socialists and Democrats coalition issued a statement warning that “the inclusion of international carbon credits as a means to meet the target carries considerable risks”.
Critics also noted that using such flexibilities contradicted the official advice offered by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change.
Yet the proposal, presented as a “new way to get to 2040”, is widely viewed as an attempt to find a political compromise against a tricky geopolitical backdrop.
It allows the EU to aim for the target set out by its scientific advisers, albeit at the lower end of the “90-95%” emissions reduction that had been proposed. This is in spite of a strong political pushback from some member states.
A statement released by Peter Liese and Christian Ehler, German members of the European parliament’s centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) group, explained:
“We think it’s very dangerous to criticise the European Commission because they intend to include flexibility in their proposal on the 2040 target. We don’t see a majority in parliament nor council for any 2040 target without flexibility.”
Some member states, including Spain and Denmark, supported the 90% target without asking for major concessions. Others, including Poland and Italy, have argued for a less stringent headline goal.
Meanwhile, others pushed for some kind of compromise during discussions of the new target.
Notably, the newly elected, right-leaning German government gave qualified support for the 90% goal in its coalition agreement, subject to conditions such as the inclusion of international carbon credits. Other influential nations have also increasingly stressed the need for “flexibility” around the target.
Meanwhile, according to Politico, France has been part of a push – alongside “climate laggards” Hungary and Poland – to separate discussions of the EU’s domestic 2040 target from its international 2035 NDC pledge.
According to the news outlet, such decoupling could result in a weaker 2035 target, compared to the 2035 target that is expected to be derived from the 90% reduction 2040 goal.
How does the goal fit with the EU’s industrial growth plans?
The commission says its 2040 proposal goes “hand in hand” with its clean industrial deal strategy, its affordable energy action plan and its “competitiveness compass” plan.
Alongside tabling its 2040 climate goal, the commission issued a new “communication” on “delivering on the clean industrial deal”. (The deal was first announced in February.)
The communication says that “decarbonisation and reindustrialisation are two sides of the same coin” and reaffirms that the aim of the deal is to “enable the EU to lead in
developing the clean-technology markets of the future”.
The commission says delivery of the deal is “already underway”. It points to the adoption of the clean industrial deal state aid framework on 25 June, an €85bn ($100bn) state-aid package for helping member states transition their economies.
Environmental law charity Client Earth said a draft version of the framework risked “entrenching support for fossil gas and fossil based low-carbon gases”.
The clean industrial deal communication also notes that the commission this week published recommendations on tax incentives for speeding up the energy transition.
On 18 June, the European parliament and council agreed on a commission proposal to simplify the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), a policy for taxing carbon-intensive imports at levels equivalent to the EU ETS.
The agreement introduces a new exemption threshold of 50 tonnes for CBAM goods, meaning small and medium-sized companies that do not exceed this weight of imports per year will now be exempt from the measure.
EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra described it as a “win for both climate policy and competitiveness of our companies”, with the new measure meaning 90% of companies will now be exempt from the CBAM, but 99% of emissions will still be covered.
Previous analysis has found that, in isolation, the CBAM will have a limited impact on global emissions.
What comes next?
Before the target can be adopted, it must be agreed by member states and pass through the European parliament.
Once the parliament and national ministers have agreed on their separate positions, three-way “trialogue” negotiations between them and the commission can begin with the aim of finalising the 2040 legislative proposal.
All nations were asked to submit new 2035 climate pledges, known as “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), to the UN by February of this year (see: What has the European Commission proposed?). The EU was among the vast majority of parties to miss the deadline.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell has now asked all parties to submit their NDCs “by September”. This is to allow time for the preparation of a report on the collective ambition of all nations’ pledges before COP30 in November.
The EU’s NDC will include an “indicative 2035 figure” derived from the bloc’s 2040 climate target, according to the commission.
The commission says it will work with the Danish presidency of the EU council and member states to finalise its NDC.
It is expected that the EU will aim to finalise both its 2035 NDC and its 2040 climate goal ahead of the next UN general assembly, which starts on 9 September in New York.
The post Q&A: European Commission’s proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: European Commission’s proposal to cut EU emissions 90% by 2040
Candidates are being nominated to take over as the UN secretary general, when António Guterres steps down after nearly a decade in the role at the end of 2026.
Since becoming the ninth secretary general on 1 January 2017, Guterres has been a strong advocate for climate action, saying in January 2026:
“We have been outspoken on the urgent need for climate action, demanding ambition and working to rally governments, businesses and civil society.”
According to the UN, his predecessor, Ban Ki-moon, also “fought tirelessly to ensure that climate change stays at the top of the leaders’ agendas”.
Following a call for nominations going out in November last year, member states are currently nominating candidates to be the next secretary general.
To date, six candidates have been nominated by UN member states, with more expected in the coming months.
Below, Carbon Brief looks at the candidates’ views on climate change.
The UN secretary general’s role in climate action
The UN charter describes the secretary general as the organisation’s “chief administrative officer”.
According to the UN, they are a “symbol of UN ideals and a spokesperson for the interests of the world’s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them”.
It adds that the role is “[e]qual parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO”.
Over the past two decades, UN secretaries general have used their platform to advance action on climate change.
They have done so both by serving as a “moral authority” on climate change and as mediators in the drive to bring countries together, according to the UN.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general from 2007 to 2016, oversaw and brokered negotiations that culminated in the Paris Agreement, which he described as a “peace pact with the planet”.
Additionally, he pushed for its rapid ratification by member states so it could enter into force in record time compared to other treaties – such as its predecessor the Kyoto Protocol, which took eight years to come into force – with Ban securing an early buy-in from the US and China.
He also worked to mobilise $100bn per year by 2020 in climate financing from developed to developing countries. (The target was, ultimately, met two years late.)
His successor and current secretary general, Guterres, had been Portugal’s prime minister from 1995 to 2002, making him the first former national leader to hold the position.
Guterres served as the UN’s high commissioner for refugees between 2005 and 2015, a period that saw the highest level of human displacement since the second world war.
Guterres was the first secretary general to be elected through the current process, which includes public hearings and anonymous polling. (See: Next steps.)
He was chosen as the successful candidate in 2016, when he was voted in without opposition “in a rare show of unity” by members of the security council.
In his near-decade in office, he has become known for his references to the climate “emergency” and his calls for nations to make rapid emissions cuts.
Describing climate change as a “battle for our lives” and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2021 report as a “code red for humanity”, Guterres has repeatedly demanded immediate action towards limiting global warming to 1.5C.
In 2024, as the world edged closer to hitting 1.5C of warming in an individual year, Guterres said:
“The battle to limit temperature rise to 1.5C will be won or lost in the 2020s – under the watch of leaders today.”
Besides repeatedly urging developed countries to meet their climate-finance obligations, Guterres has also intervened in attempts to resolve gridlocked negotiations at the annual “COP” climate summits.
He is known for his pointed advocacy on phasing out fossil fuels and for regularly convening states to submit more ambitious climate pledges.
The candidates
In the run-up to the UN general assembly in September 2026, nations are putting forward candidates for the secretary general position.
According to Reuters, tradition dictates that the role rotates between regions, with Latin America and the Caribbean next in line.
Thus far, five of the six candidates are from South or Central America: Michelle Bachelet Jeria; Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis; Rafael Mariano Grossi; María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés; and Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett.
The outlier is Macky Sall, a former Senegalese president nominated by the east African nation of Burundi.
Reuters adds that there is an “unwritten rule” that the secretary general never comes from one of the five permanent members of the UN security council – the UK, China, France, Russia and the US – to avoid an over-concentration of power.
In its 80-year history, a woman has never held the position of UN secretary general. Four of the six candidates nominated to date are women.
As shown below, this fact was noted “with regret” by a UN general assembly resolution in 2025, setting out the rules of the process to appoint the next secretary general.
Speaking during the first candidates’ debate, Espinosa Garcés quipped:
“I think, of course, a woman – it’s about time, isn’t it? After 80 years [of the UN’s existence].”
The debate was held in June by the UN Foundation, in collaboration with women’s organisation GWL Voices.
Bachelet, Espinosa and Grynspan took part in person at the event in Geneva, Switzerland.
(Sall sent in a video intervention, played at the beginning of the debate. Grossi was, according to the presenter, “not available” to participate and “chose not to send” a message by video.)
The three candidates were asked by an audience member how they would “ensure the climate governance becomes more equitable in response to those on the front lines of the crisis”, if they were elected as secretary-general.
Bachelet called for increased urgency in tackling climate change. Grynspan highlighted the need for action on adaptation as well as mitigation. Espinosa emphasised the need for a wide range of people to be involved in climate action, from Indigenous people to the financial sector.
The three participants all emphasised the need for finance in their responses. Bachelet, for example, specifically highlighting the need for grant-based finance. She said that “we cannot” keep asking “states that are fighting with a terrible debt” to accept climate-finance loans, which, ultimately, add to their debt. She added:
“They’re drowning and we’re asking them to ask for loans with a debt service that’s so big.”
All six candidates attended the Jeju Forum for Peace and Prosperity, co-hosted in Geneva by the Ban Ki-moon Foundation, at the end of June, ahead of the scheduling of further debates.
Additionally, for the first time in the selection process, candidates have been asked to voluntarily disclose their funding sources at the time of nomination.
Below, Carbon Brief details the candidates that have been nominated so far, what climate-relevant roles they have held previously and their views on climate change. (The list will be updated as further candidates are announced.)
Michelle Bachelet Jeria
Dr Michelle Bachelet Jeria is a Chilean diplomat, politician and doctor, nominated to be the next UN secretary general by Brazil and Mexico.
Bachelet was the former UN high commissioner for human rights, having served as its seventh commissioner from 2018 to 2022 and as the first director of UN Women.
She originally trained as a doctor – an education that was disrupted by being exiled in 1975 following the Chilean coup d’état led by general Augusto Pinochet – and specialised in paediatrics and public health.
In 1990, she began taking on roles in government bodies, including work in the Ministry of Health. This led her to further study, completing courses in military strategy and continental defence.
She became health minister in March 2000, before becoming the first woman to be the defence minister in Chile and Latin America in 2002.
Bachelet was elected as Chile’s first – and only – woman president, serving two terms: from 2006 to 2010 and 2014 to 2018.
As president and in public office, she consistently framed action on climate change as a human-rights obligation and a preventive tool to mitigate the worst impacts, arguing that “there is no space for [climate] denial”.
During her second term as Chile’s president, the share of renewables in the nation’s energy mix grew from 6% to 17% in four years. Bachelet also enacted South America’s first carbon tax and announced a 70% by 2050 renewable-energy goal, as well as expanding marine protected areas.
Among the range of international positions she has held over the last 20 years, Bachelet was named as the first director of the UN Women agency by former UN secretary general Ban.
Throughout her first term as high commissioner for human rights, Bachelet advocated for the protection of environmental defenders at risk, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as women and girls impacted by climate change.
In a 2022 address to the UN human rights council following devastating fires in the Amazon, Bachelet remarked: “We are burning up our future – literally.” She continued:
“The world has never seen a threat to human rights of this scope. This is not a situation where any country, any institution, any policymaker can stand on the sidelines.
“The economies of all nations; the institutional, political, social and cultural fabric of every State, and the rights of all your people – and future generations – will be impacted.”
In an interview after she stepped down as human rights chief, Bachelet described the “triple planetary crisis – climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss” – as the “worst threat for humanity”.
In February 2026, she “broke new ground” when she was nominated by multiple UN member states – Chile, Mexico and Brazil – for the secretary general position.
However, in March, Chile’s newly sworn-in right-wing government, led by José Antonio Kast, withdrew its backing for Bachelet. Her nomination was dubbed “unviable” and a “mistake” by figures in the new government.
This is the first time a nominating state has withdrawn its support for a candidate. Bachelet’s candidacy is still supported by Brazil and Mexico.
Additionally, more than two dozen Republican US lawmakers accused Bachelet of “prioritis[ing] an extreme abortion agenda” in a letter earlier in 2026. They called for the US to veto her nomination.
She pushed back during a hearing in New York, US, saying that she “will always be by the side of women”.
In her pitch for secretary general, Bachelet calls for “simplify[ing] access to climate funds”, “innovative financial instruments” to address biodiversity loss and climate change and “sustainable responses that ensure climate justice, particularly for developing countries and vulnerable communities”.
She calls for debt relief, “true reform” of the international financial architecture, promoting investment in sustainable infrastructure and accelerating a just energy transition, with special attention to small-island states and least-developed countries. She says:
“From climate change to armed conflict, from growing inequality to technological disruption, the future of the UN will depend on its ability to adapt, renew and lead.”
Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis
Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis is a Costa Rican economist, diplomat and the former vice-president of Costa Rica. The nation backed her nomination.
In 2021, Grynspan became the first woman to be appointed secretary general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
As part of this role, in February 2022, she outlined the UN’s vision for a sustainable recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic that “avoid[s] another lost decade of development for developing countries”.
In July 2022, Grynspan was credited with playing a “central” role in negotiating the Black Sea grain initiative struck between Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and the UN.
Brokered on behalf of the UN and as part of the Istanbul agreements, the initiative allowed grain and fertiliser exports blocked by Russia to resume to some of the world’s most food-insecure nations, with global food prices falling 23% in response to the deals.
In her pitch to become secretary general, Grynspan prioritises “durable peace and security” and UN reform as the first two of her three key priorities.
She warns that the world is “sleepwalking into dangerous climate-change scenarios”. Still, she adds that “technology offers new paths to development”, including through clean energy and critical minerals that are becoming “as valuable as oil”.
Grynspan has been especially vocal on the interconnections between climate and debt, observing that “financing is really key for any objective that we set to stick to the 1.5C target”.
Grynspan also supports the Bridgetown Initiative, championed by Barbados’ prime minister, Mia Mottley, to reform the global financial architecture and address debt and climate change, particularly in climate-vulnerable countries.
In her pitch, Grynspan warns that many millions “will continue to live in crushing scarcity and face compounding crises” if current trends continue.
These, she says, include small-island states “hit by cyclones that grow fiercer each year, landlocked nations facing the brunt of rising trade costs [and] developing economies servicing debt while capital moves past them”. She continues:
“Many states, including middle-income countries that are home to most of the world’s poor, struggle to fully access the trade, finance, technology and investment opportunities of the global economy.
“The UN must help widen the pathways to economic opportunities and help remove the structural constraints that stifle people’s potential. Sustainable development is not given, but unleashed.”
Rafael Mariano Grossi
Rafael Mariano Grossi is an Argentine diplomat and has served as the director-general of the UN’s nuclear watchdog – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – since 2019.
Grossi was nominated by Argentina in November 2025.
A month later, Iran opposed his candidacy for failing to condemn US-Israeli attacks against “safeguarded, peaceful nuclear facilities”. It has since accused him of political bias and “destructive statements”.
While his “vision statement” for the UN does not directly mention “climate” or “climate change”, he refers to progress on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals as “unfulfilled aspirations”.
Grossi suggests a “grounded, sectoral approach” to the world’s challenges through “collaborative partnerships” with “civil society, the private sector and the scientific community”.
In the statement – his pitch for the secretary general position – Grossi writes:
“Development cooperation must deliver tangible benefits, including access to health care, food, water and energy security, environment, education and real opportunities for a better quality of life, especially in countries facing the greatest challenges. Words must lead to action, and action to impact.”
Grossi takes credit for helping to achieve “global consensus around the need for nuclear power in the energy transition”.
At the UN climate summit COP28 in Dubai in 2023, Grossi delivered a statement saying:
“Net-zero needs nuclear power. The world needs nuclear power to fight climate change and action should be taken to expand the use of this clean energy source and help build a low-carbon bridge to the future.”
At the conference, a declaration to triple nuclear energy was endorsed by 22 national governments, including the US, France, the UAE and the UK.
More recently, Grossi has described the annual COP summits as “unmanageable” due to their size. According to the National, he has also “said he hoped to bridge the gap between climate agreements and growing energy demands, particularly in developing countries”.
Macky Sall
Macky Sall is a Senegalese politician who served as prime minister from 2004 to 2007 and then president from 2012 to 2024. He has been nominated by Burundi, which is currently the chair of the African Union (AU).
However, Sall’s candidacy has been rejected by other AU states, with Rwanda calling the use of a “silent procedure” to push through consensus on the African candidate for the position “a gross breach of AU rules and regulations”.
In his “vision statement”, Sall says that “peace and security cannot be sustained when the foundations of development are undermined by poverty, inequality, exclusion and climate vulnerability”.
While Sall underlines shortfalls in development financing, he emphasises that a “solidarity-based approach, founded on trust in crisis management, combined with sustained efforts for prevention and strengthening of early warning initiatives and mechanisms” is needed to address the challenges created by climate change.
Although Sall’s 12-year stint as president focused on “reducing power cuts and connecting remote villages to the power grid”, his candidacy is also facing charges of corruption, protestor crackdowns and media repression, according to Al Jazeera.
During the early part of Sall’s presidency, Senegal discovered oil and gas reserves – and the country’s oil exports have since surged from $0.4bn in 2015 to $2.4bn in 2024.
He was supportive of the African oil-and-gas sector, with much of the development of Senegal’s first oil production site undertaken during his term in office.
In 2019, a BBC Africa Eye investigation alleged that a company owned by Aliou Sall – Sall’s brother – received secret payments from businessmen who had obtained licences for two offshore gas blocks that same year. Sall denied the allegations.
María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés
María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés is an Ecuadorian linguist, poet, politician and conservationist. She was nominated by Antigua and Barbuda on 12 May, the only Caribbean state to put forward a candidate in this year’s selection process.
Espinosa was the president of the UN general assembly (UNGA) from 2018 to 2019. She has also served as Ecuador’s minister of foreign affairs twice, as well as its defence minister.
Before her political career, Espinosa was known for her work with Indigenous communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon and biodiversity conservation.
She established the socio-environmental studies programme at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) and served as the regional director for South America at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) from 2005 to 2007.
Espinosa is no stranger to climate talks: she was Ecuador’s chief climate negotiator at UN COPs from Copenhagen in 2009 to Paris in 2015.
In a statement ahead of COP24 in Katowice, Poland, Espinosa – as UNGA president – remarked:
“I clearly remember the long negotiation days; the emotions, the frustrations, the sense of duty fulfilled in Cancun, Johannesburg or Copenhagen; the great hope of Paris. Clearly, we have come a long way, and much has been achieved, but we must rise to the new evidence and the new threats.
“The current climate crisis gives us now the opportunity to show the world that effective, results-oriented multilateralism is not an option but a survival necessity.”
In a 2024 paper, she lists fragmentation, “coordination challenges” and an “implementation deficit” as some of the key hurdles undermining the UN’s global environmental governance framework. She argues that its effectiveness “is significantly compromised by its very structure”.
In the same paper, Espinosa observes that the UNFCCC’s consensus-based decision-making “paradoxically contributes” to challenges in responding to climate change.
In her vision statement, Espinosa says that she plans to encourage a “more coherent international response” to support highly indebted, climate-vulnerable countries.
She states that the UN must act as a platform to strengthen cooperation on energy and support states during energy shocks.
According to Espinosa, “energy security, access, sustainability, trade and strategic autonomy are central to global stability”, with the energy transition “reshaping patterns of dependence and competition”.
She also says critical mineral extraction is being “unevenly distributed and developing at breakneck speed”.
If selected as secretary general, Espinosa plans to establish a “global energy security coordination mechanism” between UN member states and “other key actors” to manage the impacts of global energy shocks. These include impacts on energy access and affordability, food security, development and social stability, according to her nomination statement.
At a special UNGA meeting on climate ambition and sustainable development in 2019, Espinosa warned the gathering:
“We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet. Climate justice is intergenerational justice.”
Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett
Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett is a politician, diplomat, former school teacher and Guyana’s permanent representative to the UN. She was nominated by her home nation on 15 June 2026, becoming the first Indigenous candidate in the current elections.
Rodrigues-Birkett served as Guyana’s minister for Amerindian affairs – the Indigenous population – in 2001 and 2006.
Appointed at the age of 27, Birkett is widely recognised as one of the “architects” of the Amerindian Act of 2006 – a piece of legislation described as “a milestone for Amerindian land rights, not only in Guyana but the western hemisphere”.
The act codified Indigenous land rights, governance and mandates their consent before mining or development projects on communally owned forest land.
In 2008, Birkett was appointed the country’s minister for foreign affairs and trade for two terms, the first and youngest woman of Indigenous descent to rise to the role.
Birkett has served as Guyana’s envoy in the security council in its two-year tenure between 2024 to 2025, supporting statements on the linkages between climate, peace, security and food insecurity.
Between 2015 and 2020, she coordinated the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) work with other UN organisations and its outreach to parliamentarians, particularly in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.
In her vision statement for the role, Birkett places a strong emphasis on climate finance and unmet sustainable development goals. She says:
“While trillions exist globally in potential financing, many developing countries continue to struggle with access. There has also been a profound shift in the risk landscape characterised by interconnected threats and climate-related challenges.”
The new secretary general, she says, must work with member states to “champion the implementation of existing commitments”. She adds that “there must be continued support to [m]ember [s]tates as they implement agreed” climate commitments.
If elected, Birkett pledges to use the secretary general’s convening powers to “bring all stakeholders together to address climate impacts and protect the environment”.
Next steps
While parties were encouraged to submit their candidates by April 2026, they can continue to make nominations for the next UN secretary general until the end of July.
At this point, the 15-member security council will begin to discuss the candidates “behind closed doors”.
Candidates will need to clear a “straw poll” vote by the council. These are informal, anonymous ballots to determine the viability of candidates.
Security council members have the option to “encourage” or “discourage” a candidate within these straw polls, as well as state that they have no opinion.
Polls are run numerous times until a consensus is found on a candidate. For example, when Guterres was selected in 2016, it took six straw polls for the council to reach agreement.
The selected candidate is then publicly put to a vote, in which non-permanent members of the council have a single vote and the five permanent members each have a power of veto.
This results in a council “resolution”, recommending the appointment of a candidate. This resolution must secure support from nine out of 15 members and no vetoes to pass.
Subsequently, there is a formal vote by the UN general assembly to endorse the council’s recommendation – although Reuters notes that this final vote has “long been seen as a rubber stamp”.
Ultimately, the security council process is likely to be finalised between August and October, ahead of the general assembly formalising the appointment at the end of the year.
The next secretary general is due to take office on 1 January 2027.
The post Q&A: Where do the UN secretary general candidates stand on climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: Where do the UN secretary general candidates stand on climate change?
Climate Change
In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods
In Guatemala’s southwest region lies a large lake with a storied history.
Lake Atitlán is one of Central America’s most critical local sources of drinking water, and is surrounded by volcanoes, a thriving tourism industry and an ancient Mayan culture. The Sololá region has long been home to Indigenous communities who have been attracted to its fertile land and pristine natural resources.
But in recent years, this site of natural beauty in Guatemala’s highlands has had to contend with the growing impacts of the climate and nature crises. Climate change is disrupting the rain cycle and significant areas of land show signs of erosion and loss of soil fertility. These changes are threatening crop production and pushing local people into food insecurity.
Elena Wason, co-executive director at Natün, a local non-profit supporting Indigenous people, told Climate Home News that community leaders have “identified deforestation and the effects of climate change in their communities as among their greatest concerns”. Forest cover declined by an estimated 12% in the past two years alone.
Women are often the social group most exposed to these changes and Natün has focused its efforts on reviving Indigenous agriculture techniques in a bid to improve climate resilience and empower female farmers.
How to fight drought
The impacts of climate change on Indigenous communities can often lead to further environmental damage as farmers are forced to rely on unsustainable practices, such as cutting down trees to clear more land. This can accelerate water scarcity, soil erosion and ultimately food insecurity.
An ongoing adaptation project led by Natün has sought to reverse these impacts, working with local people to combine modern climate-smart agriculture and ancestral knowledge. The approach involves the use of drought-resistant crops, organic pest management and soil conservation techniques. This is increasingly recognised as an effective way to strengthen climate resilience.
“Our approach is based on soil analysis and the use of locally resilient, endemic tree species, significantly increasing survival rates and ensuring sustainable water availability despite changing rainfall patterns,” Wason explained.
A US$170,000 grant from the Adaptation Fund-UNDP innovation platform (through the AFCIA programme) also allowed it to scale. For example, Natün established over 300 family food gardens – small spaces with shared resources that focus on growing nutrient-rich crops.
The project was built for the long-term by embedding innovation within Indigenous knowledge systems, organic farming and Mayan land stewardship rather than imposing external solutions. In this way, it ensures that communities remain the architects of their own resilience. Diversified revenue streams, including carbon credits and replicable learning kits, further support its longevity.
Nearly all of the typical Mayan gardens are managed by women, with the project training up to 30 women in climate-resilient practices, such as seed bank management. The approach has paid dividends by bolstering local food security and providing almost 19,000 people with sustainable food sources.
Young South Africans take up sustainable agriculture for food security
“The project uses locally led innovation by helping to restore sustainable Indigenous Mayan practices, while empowering vulnerable communities and women to build resilience and adapt to climate change and bolster food security,” said Mikko Ollikainen, head of the Adaptation Fund.
“Community-led approaches like these can have profound positive impacts on the directly affected communities and beyond by creating practical scalable solutions,” he added.
Growing incomes
The programme was expanded in 2025 with the creation of over 260 small poultry farms, further diversifying family incomes. The early results have been positive: two-thirds of families with both a garden and poultry now have surplus produce and incomes that have grown by an estimated $61 per month.
“These impacts especially benefit women, who not only make up 75% of programme participants and have taken leadership roles in managing community gardens, but also generally take on the responsibility of providing nutritious food for their families,” said Wason.
The project follows an earlier $5.4 million activity in Guatemala, also funded by the Adaptation Fund, that focused on honey bee production, forest conservation and ancestral knowledge across Suchitepéquez and Sololá. The aim was to empower vulnerable communities and Indigenous populations to adapt to floods and landslides, while enhancing diverse production landscapes and livelihoods.
Advancing women’s rights and empowerment in climate adaptation
That project resulted in 6,093 hectares under forest management and conservation, nearly 1,500 beehives in operation, and 328 family gardens with the purpose of helping women adapt. Utilising such ancestral practices have helped to increase agricultural resilience in the Nahualate River basin, benefiting some 1,125 people.
Enduring benefits
The long-term benefits of the Lake Atitlán project will be in providing communities, especially women, with practical tools to respond to the environmental challenges of drought, storms and deforestation in the Sololá region. These challenges are becoming more pronounced as the climate becomes more extreme and unpredictable.
Guatemala is ranked among the most exposed countries to climate risk. The World Bank estimates that up to 83% of its GDP is generated in areas prone to disasters. As such, it is not only the people around Lake Atitlán who stand to benefit from sustainable farming techniques.
The Natün project is easily replicable by harnessing local knowledge and offering a practical model that can be adapted across Indigenous communities facing similar climate pressures. In a country with an Indigenous population of over 6 million people, this approach will be of importance to many other communities as they face similar existential crises in a warming world.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance journalist based in Brighton, UK.
The post In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods appeared first on Climate Home News.
In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods
The World Bank has scrapped its headline climate finance target under pressure from the Trump administration, but experts believe the survival of its wider climate programme should preserve support for clean energy and resilience in developing nations.
Following tense negotiations between its government shareholders, the global lender announced this week it would extend its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) while “retiring” its commitment to direct 45% of its financing to projects with climate benefits – a target it has already met.
“It could have been a lot worse,” said Danny Scull, a senior policy advisor at think-tank E3G. “I would have loved to see the most ambitious outcome possible, but it is far less likely we’ll see a scenario where the bank all of a sudden reverses its current trajectory and starts delivering less on climate,” he added.
-
Climate adaptation in Africa needs investment, not imported solutions
Across Africa, communities have implemented vital climate adaptation measures – but these need investment to scale -
With extreme heat now a public health crisis, local data can save lives
The impacts of extreme heat vary widely across countries and cities, and approaches tailored using data can target solutions at vulnerable groups
Introduced in 2021, the CCAP has been credited with overhauling the World Bank’s approach to climate finance after years of criticism over the development finance institution’s lukewarm support for cutting planet-heating emissions and building resilience to extreme weather and rising seas.
Since the CCAP began, the World Bank’s climate finance nearly doubled to $39.2 billion in 2025, with 48% of its financing showing climate “co-benefits” and exceeding the target first set at COP28.
US attack partially rebuffed
With the CCAP due to lapse at the end of June, the US – the World Bank’s largest shareholder – mounted a campaign for the lender to axe the programme entirely. Last April, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly welcomed the plan’s upcoming expiration, urging the bank to “shift its myopic focus on climate” and abandon its “distortionary” 45% climate finance target.
But Washington was left increasingly isolated during protracted negotiations in recent months as both European governments and a wide-ranging coalition of developing countries held firm on the plan’s extension, sources with knowledge of the discussions told Climate Home News.
In May, executive directors representing a bloc of nearly 100 countries, including China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Russia, sent a letter to the World Bank’s board requesting the CCAP be extended and calling for an independent review of the programme.
While the US had previously seemed unwilling to compromise with its European counterparts, that intervention got it to “back off from its most extreme positions”, E3G’s Scull said.
Focus on “outcomes”
In its statement on Monday, the World Bank Group said it would place less weight on the amount of money flowing into projects with climate benefits and shift its focus to “outcomes”, including indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions avoided and the number of people better shielded from climate risks.
The UK’s international development minister, Jenny Chapman, said in a post on LinkedIn this week that the extension of the CCAP is “a critical step forward”, adding that the stronger emphasis on results “is essential to ensure maximum impact, and the UK will hold the Bank to account to ensure delivery”.
Despite ditching its headline goal, the international lender is still expected to keep counting the volumes of climate finance for the vast majority of its activities. That’s because the individual entities belonging to the group continue to have their own climate targets embedded in their current mandates.
World Bank climate funding greens African hotels while fishermen sink
For example, the International Development Association (IDA), which supports the world’s poorest nations, has committed to providing 45% of its funding to climate-related activities until 2028. And its larger lending arm, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), should keep aiming for 30% of its financing to have climate benefits.
Joe Thwaites, a climate finance expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said these targets “can be a backstop against the bottom falling out”. “Client countries are emphasising that they want to see more investments in clean energy and resilience,” he added.
No major change expected
The World Bank’s provision of climate finance is also crucial for wealthy countries’ efforts to meet a commitment to provide $300 billion a year for developing countries by 2035 under the new UN climate goal agreed at COP29 in 2024.
That year, multilateral development banks (MDBs) accounted for around half of all climate finance provided by developed countries under the previous $100-billion-a-year goal, according to calculations by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
UK development minister Chapman said this week that the bank “must continue to meet the expectations of the wider international community, including those set out at COP29”. There, MDBs said that by 2030, their annual joint climate financing for low- and middle-income countries would reach an estimated $120 billion.
Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest
Rajneesh Bhuee, just transition lead at campaign group Recourse, said it was a “blow” that the World Bank’s headline target had been dropped, but she doesn’t expect to see climate financing reducing – at least in the short term.
“This is the [bank] management’s way of alleviating pressure from the US and ensuring they can have some sort of calm internally,” she told Climate Home News.
Thwaites said shareholder countries should hold the bank’s leadership accountable for delivering what countries have “agreed and need” on climate action.
“If World Bank climate finance does start to fall, donors should focus their support on other international financial institutions that continue to prioritise climate,” he added.
IMF also steps back from climate focus
Regional development banks outside of the Americas may be under less pressure to water down their climate mission. But the World Bank’s sister institution – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – has seen its enthusiasm for climate action ebb, according to a report released in June by its official watchdog, the Independent Evaluation Office.
The report said that in 2021, the fund placed great emphasis on tackling climate change, as shown by its flagship climate strategy published that year and the establishment of the Resilience and Security Trust in 2022.
But in the last year or so, it found “decreasing emphasis on climate-related issues” which coincided with IMF cost-cutting, “emerging geopolitical challenges” and reduced support for climate action from some unnamed IMF member countries.
Last year, US finance minister Bessent accused the IMF of “mission creep”, accusing it of spending too much time on climate action, gender and social issues.
The evaluation report found that the focus on climate change among the IMF’s management and executive board has weakened, and its flagship reports have not included any climate-related chapters since 2023. IMF head Kristalina Georgieva and other managers mentioned climate-related terms in speeches and statements to the board far less in 2025 than the preceding years, it noted.
While most of the nearly 700 IMF’s staff surveyed welcomed the swing away from climate work, others bemoaned it and felt “self censored” when working to promote awareness of the risks of climate change to the global economy – which the IMF is tasked with protecting.
The post World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say appeared first on Climate Home News.
World Bank’s climate work can endure without finance target, experts say
.jpg){kind=link}
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 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”
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测