- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
As I wind down from day 4 of COP29, I can’t help but feel many mixed emotions about our future as humans.
I’ve filled my days here with as much as possible. I’ve been trying to go to press conferences with climate justice activist leaders and the International Indigenous People’s Forum sessions, while also trying to comprehend the processes of these yearly COP meetings. Physically being here at COP29 doesn’t help to understand the process, only individual research and asking seasoned COP attendees can help. I came to the understanding that this almost 30-year-old conference will have developed a language, process, and dynamic that only those in the know can fully understand. But, I still can’t help but notice the immense differences between the negotiations and the grassroots sessions.
COP29 has been deemed the “finance” COP, and while world leaders are negotiating, climate justice activists are calling for the Global North to pay their fair share into the loss and damage fund, so that the Global South can be protected from and adapt to climate change. A yearly fund of 1 trillion dollars is the goal, as 300 billion would pay for climate adaptation, 300 billion for climate mitigation, and 400 billion for the loss and damage fund. Without these funds, the Global South will not effectively be able to survive climate change.
I’ve filled most of my days by listening to Indigenous People from the Global South, and the effects of climate change are a reality for them. What I see is a huge disconnect between Indigenous people and the rest of COP29. As an Indigenous person myself, I know that Indigenous people have the lowest carbon footprint; I know they know how to live with nature and not harm it. I know that this has been the reality for thousands of years.
But, what Indigenous Peoples are being asked at COP29 is to somehow measure this. It should be easy for researchers to calculate carbon footprints, sustainability reports, and history. What’s not easy is measuring how much a sacred site or traditional knowledge costs. For Indigenous People, this is an easy answer, it is priceless. It is the entire reason for existence, although researchers, diplomats, and academics want specific numbers.
This disconnect is very evident at COP29 as I see most of the sessions are about climate finance, carbon credits, carbon offsets, carbon markets, etc. Climate justice activists know that this is all a scam and a romantic solution to climate change. While countries negotiate these non-transparent carbon credits, they could be investing this money into renewable energy infrastructure and Indigenous communities. Instead, they choose to cope with the fact that they don’t want to stop fossil fuel emissions.
All of this finance talk is not addressing how Indigenous people don’t need funds to mitigate climate change, what they are missing is funds to adapt to something that is not their fault.
These specific finance numbers that are wanted from Indigenous people hinge on their land being healthy, their water flowing, and their knowledge being kept alive. Their culture is entirely place-based and climate change threatens that. Finance is not being asked for so that they can move, finance is being asked for so they can survive in the places they’ve lived for thousands of years.
Ultimately, I’ve felt at a loss with all of this, as I see these disconnects leading to misunderstandings and symbolic solidarity with Indigenous people. I see that Indigenous people are deeply listened to at these COP meetings while behind their backs our world leaders negotiate how to keep getting away with only being profit-focused and keeping the status quo.
Now, after hearing other struggles around the world, I was reminded why I love being Indigenous when I attended an Australian Indigenous people’s session about the importance of Indigenous leadership and approaches to climate solutions. An Indigenous woman leader stated, “We will be fine with all of these changes coming, we’ve survived changes before, what we’re trying to do is help others understand how to live without so much chaos around them, and to just be.”
Indigenous people know that climate change is not their fault, they know that they need funds to survive, and they know that most likely their calls for help will be met with false solutions. What is needed most right now is trust. Trust that Indigenous people know what they’re talking about, that they’re the experts in their communities, and they know the answers to ensuring their survival. The calls for Indigenous people to measure their impacts on the world so that world leaders can fund their survival is just another tactic to stall the real solution.
Jen is a Climate Generation Window Into COP delegate for COP29. To learn more, we encourage you to meet the full delegation, support our delegates, and subscribe to the Window Into COP digest.
Jen (Nape Mato Win) is an enrolled member of the Oglala Lakota Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. Since the KXL pipeline threatened treaty territory of the Dakotas, Jenna has been passionate about a world beyond fossil fuels and centering Indigenous voices, culture, and history. Jen is also a beadwork artist, Indigenous gardener, and received a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Augsburg University. She believes that positive cultural and ancestral based knowledge are vital components to Indigenous resiliency. Currently, Jenna is the Environmental Justice and Stewardship Programs Manager at Wakan Tipi Awanyankapi, an East Side St. Paul, Minnesota – Indigenous led environmental nonprofit that stewards the sacred site known as Wakan Tipi.
The post Trusting Indigenous Communities is Imperative appeared first on Climate Generation.
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.