For decades, Europe relied on pipelines bringing Russian gas to heat its homes and provide its electricity, arguing that President Vladimir Putin would not shoot himself in the foot by turning off the taps. That assumption was proved wrong when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, leading to restrictions on gas exports to European countries.
With Russian supplies largely cut off, Europe’s gas and electricity prices shot up, causing a cost-of-living crisis across the continent. While speeding up policies to get their economies off fossil fuels in the long term, European governments scrambled for alternative gas suppliers in the short term.
One of those stepping up supply to Europe was the US, which is building out liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals on its Gulf Coast. But with Donald Trump back in the White House and threatening to invade Greenland, before toning down his rhetoric last week, these energy ties are coming under scrutiny.
A legally binding ban on Russian gas imports was approved by European Union countries on Monday and will take effect by late 2027.
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on the same day that “it was a huge mistake to be dependent on Russian fossil fuels. We should never have done that and now we have to make sure that we will have no dependencies on other countries outside Europe.”
-
IMO head: Shipping decarbonisation “has started” despite green deal delay
Arsenio Dominguez said the shipping industry’s net zero emissions goal is not in dispute although countries have stalled on adopting a framework to reach it -
Africa urged to unite on minerals as US strikes bilateral deals
In the race for minerals critical for clean energy technologies, experts at the World Economic Forum said African nations should coordinate negotiations with trade partners
Chris Aylett has co-written a well-timed new research paper for Chatham House titled “Why renewables and electrification hold the keys to EU energy security”. He spoke to Climate Home News about northern Europe’s offshore wind ambitions and who holds the power in the US-Europe gas relationship.
Q: On Monday, ten northern European governments gathered in Hamburg for the North Sea Summit, where they committed to developing offshore wind and interconnecting their national grids. They said this would improve Europe’s energy security. Are they right?
A: Yes. Renewable generation, especially offshore wind, helps to reduce Europe’s dependence on imported gas, which we know only too well can be used against Europe to devastating effect. So there’s a simple energy security benefit in that respect.
The wind projects are also combined with interconnectors. It’s really exciting because the wind assets connect to lots of different countries and this can increase the efficiency of the system and renewable generation. Interconnectors give grid managers in different countries access to more generation options, boosting energy security and pushing down prices.
One caveat though is that new electricity infrastructure does mean new challenges, and nothing is risk free. So there will be work to do to ensure that the infrastructure is resilient to physical attack – for example the undersea cables – and cyberattacks. But that can be done, it can be mitigated, and there’s a lot of work going on in these areas.
Q: How much of the supply chain for offshore wind is European rather than reliant on China and other countries?
A: We live in an integrated, globalised world – and even though Europe has a pretty strong wind sector and much of what is being used to generate electricity from wind in Europe is from European suppliers, there are Chinese components in there and there are Chinese companies now which are trying to get into the European market.
It’s not as simple as ‘use Chinese equipment or don’t use Chinese equipment’. It’s all to do with the entire supply chain. There will be decisions around what aspects you would want to buy in and use, and which you wouldn’t, and there will be security regulations involved in that. It’s certainly an aspect to consider.
Q: In 2024, the US supplied a sixth of the EU’s gas imports. Does this make the EU reliant on the US for its gas in the same way it was on Russia? Or, with the International Energy Agency forecasting declining European gas demand and a global glut of LNG, is the US reliant on Europe? Where does the power lie – with the buyer or seller of gas?
A: The power lies with both at the moment. Europe buys about half of the US’s LNG exports – it’s a massive customer and the US government is very keen to sell it, there’s no doubt about that. You can tell in some of the government rhetoric over the last year and the “energy dominance” agenda that they want to sell. So it seems a little bit like all the power is with the EU.
But the issue is that there are not that many countries that export LNG – not in these quantities anyway. And the glut in LNG that is starting to emerge and is likely to play out in the run up to 2030 and beyond, most of that is going to be US producers. So you haven’t got that many options if you’re looking at which countries you get LNG from, and some of the EU’s other gas suppliers – Norway, Algeria – they’re not likely to be expanding anytime soon. Australia is expensive, Qatar is difficult.
So there’s a mutual dependency at the moment, but the EU has a chance to escape this by reducing demand. Once it brings gas demand down by switching to renewable resources, energy efficiency and so on, then it’s in a much better situation. Whereas for the US, it might find that it’s not got any other markets to sell into, as the big hope was the US would start selling to China and that now doesn’t look to be happening.
Q: Could the US government order its gas companies to restrict exports to Europe, in the same way Vladimir Putin did? Would it do so, given that the oil and gas industry is a major funder of the Trump administration and Trump promised to support them?
In principle, the US government could not stop US companies exporting to Europe. There’s the rule of law, there’s contracts between companies but, with this administration, it’s not totally clear that this would be an insurmountable barrier if they wanted to exert leverage.
What the US government could do is incentivise that the gas which would have been bound to Europe is sold into the domestic market instead. LNG is flighty, it goes where the highest price it can fetch is. We’re seeing that now with the winter storm in the US. Gas production has gone down and there’s huge demand for heating and electricity so prices have shot up in the US, so LNG is going there. Europe has had to start buying from Australia.
If you look at the upward trajectory of US demand for electricity, with data centres combined with the scrapping of incentives for renewable deployment, you’ve got a situation where demand for gas in the US is increasing and prices are going up.
You can imagine a situation where a populist government could go ‘right, we know US citizens benefit from US gas and we’re not going to export it’. So there’s a quite subtle sort of interplay there which wouldn’t necessarily be as brutal as what Putin did in 2022.
This interview was shortened and edited for clarity.
The post Q&A: Trump’s Greenland threats push Europe to question reliance on US gas appeared first on Climate Home News.
Q&A: Trump’s Greenland threats push Europe to question reliance on US gas
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a negligible fraction of the funding needed to preserve ecosystems, allowing industries to continue with their destructive business-as-usual practices.
-
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
Countries remain 70% off track to meet a goal to end deforestation by 2030, as progress in Latin America offset by failures in Africa -
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
Brazil’s environment minister said the Tropical Forest Forever Facility has raised billions in record time – which he hopes will convince more investors
In advanced economies, public funding often actively undermines biodiversity. In Europe, over €5.3 billion in public subsidies is funnelled annually into intensive forest biomass harvesting under renewable energy directives, degrading primary forest ecosystems and undermining long-term climate resilience. Pleading with private investors to fill a “finance gap” while pouring billions into ecological destruction is an exercise in futility.
Developing countries struggle with debt burden
For developing countries, reliance on private finance is further compounded by a crushing sovereign debt crisis. In 2024, public debt in developing economies reached record levels, with net interest payments alone absorbing $921 billion. A record 61 developing countries now spend more than 10% of government revenu