- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Outside Telstra’s Annual General Meeting in October, Greenpeace activists staged a bold and creative protest – complete with a Telstra-coded phone booth – to urge both shareholders and the public to call Telstra to disconnect from Big Gas and walk away from the Business Council of Australia (BCA).
Inside the AGM, Greenpeace campaigners,climate scientists, and sustainable investment experts dominated the question time portion of the event, challenging Telstra’s leadership over its ties to the BCA – a powerful lobby group stacked with Australia’s biggest polluters, which has been pushing for new dirty gas projects and weaker climate action.
It was a perfect warning shot: Telstra can no longer claim to be a climate leader, if it stays on the board of a group like the BCA that lobbies to undermine and delay climate action.
Telstra’s climate credibility is on the line
The telecommunications giant claims that “climate change is everybody’s business” and talks up its environmental record. At the same time, Telstra is on the board of the BCA, who on behalf of its members – including Telstra – has doubled down on its support for dirty gas projects like Woodside’s North West Shelf extension and lobbied for for a dangerously weak 2035 climate target.
This isn’t leadership — it’s hypocrisy and greenwashing.
Telstra talks a big game on climate, but remaining on the board, while the BCA lobbies for new gas projects in its name, means Telstra is part of the problem.
Solaye Snider, Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific.
That’s why Greenpeace launched the Climate Credibility Scorecard, ranking a list of influential BCA members on whether their lobbying truly aligns with their climate commitments, with Telstra ranking at the bottom.

Why focus on Telstra?
Plenty of major Australian brands are members of the BCA, however, Telstra’s position is unique. As both a board member and part of the BCA’s Climate and Energy Working Group, Telstra has the power to influence the BCA’s direction when it comes to climate action and advocacy.
If Telstra truly supports the goals of the Paris Agreement and limiting warming to 1.5°C, it must ensure its advocacy efforts match its promises. Remaining silent while the BCA lobbies for more dirty fossil fuels directly undermines that climate credibility, and therefore, their brand.
What is even more surprising is that Telstra previously threatened to quit the BCA back in 2019 over climate concerns. Since then, the climate crisis has only worsened in Australia – but it seems like Telstra has gone backwards.
Greenpeace crashes Telstra’s AGM
Yesterday’s AGM was a turning point. Greenpeace campaigners joined forces with renowned climate scientist David Karoly and investment analysts from SIX, to expose how Telstra’s membership with the BCA undermines its public climate commitments.
As our questions dominated the AGM agenda, Telstra’s leadership became visibly frustrated, but still wouldn’t give us a straight answer. We kept pushing, because a company can’t claim to be a climate leader to the public while giving cover to the Gas Lobby in private.
Outside of the AGM, our activists spoke with shareholders about how Telstra’s membership with the BCA undermines its public climate commitments, inviting them to take action and call on Telstra’s leadership to disconnect from Big Gas.
It was loud, bold and an impossible to ignore moment – which is exactly what’s needed to hold these big corporations accountable.

What comes next
Telstra has an influential role in the BCA – and what they do next has the potential to genuinely shift the BCA’s position on gas. This is an opportunity for Telstra to be part of the solution by aligning its lobbying activity with its values, which could encourage other companies to step up too.
But so far the company is remaining silent, implicitly endorsing the BCA’s fossil fuel lobbying. So it’s up to all of us to keep the pressure up!
Together, we can make it impossible for corporations to hide behind lobby groups like the BCA – and prove that their customers aren’t falling for the greenwash.
Telstra’s Climate Disconnect: It’s time for Telstra to walk away from the Gas Lobby.
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below,


