Connect with us

Published

on

Climate negotiators in Bonn have been tasked with taking a “deep dive” into how a roadmap to boost climate finance for developing countries should look, so that it can be finalised at COP30 in Brazil – but a series of consultations last week revealed that governments have yet to align on its contents.

At the start of the mid-year talks, UN climate chief Simon Stiell advised governments that the roadmap for mobilising $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 should not be “just a report, but a how-to guide with clear next steps on dramatically scaling up climate finance and investment”.

That will mean reconciling widely divergent views among countries about what sources of finance the roadmap should draw on – and what form the money should come in. Some delegates in Bonn have also complained that the process for compiling the roadmap is unclear.  

The “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T” was launched as part of the new climate finance goal (the NCQG) agreed at COP29, with a commitment for donors to raise $300 million annually – largely from the public purse – at its core. 

Brazil: Let’s deliver on our old climate promises before making new ones

Sandra Guzmán, director general of the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), told Climate Home the roadmap “emerged as a way to reduce the gap” between the $300 billion developed countries have committed to mobilise by 2035 and the far higher amount developing countries were asking for, of $1 trillion-$1.3 trillion. 

“It was also a kind of exit plan to prevent the NCQG discussion from moving to Belém,” she noted.

The two COP presidency teams charged with drafting the roadmap – Azerbaijan and Brazil – last week listened to the needs and concerns of governments in Bonn in the first formal consultations on the roadmap since COP29 in Baku.

Differing needs and expectations

One main unresolved rift is that developing countries wanted the $1.3 trillion to consist of public money from rich nations – but according to the text agreed in Baku, all sources of finance are possible with no percentage distribution between them specified, Guzmán said.

Rebecca Thissen, global advocacy lead at Climate Action Network International, told Climate Home the broad scope of proposals on the roadmap from countries in Bonn shows “it’s clear we don’t have a common understanding of what it is and what we´re going to do with it.”

In general, developing countries have requested that the $1.3 trillion should consist of new money that is not re-labelled from other budgets, with public grant money as the bulk of it, excluding loans and other forms of debt.

India, for its part, has said that global tax levies and approaches to raise money from specific sectors should be excluded, even though a recent survey by Greenpeace and Oxfam shows that 80% of respondents in India agreed that oil, gas, coal corporations should be taxed for the environmental damage they have caused.

Climate activists call on rich countries to contribute their fair share of climate finance for the Global South, at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, November 2024 (Photo: Megan Rowling/Climate Home)

Climate activists call on rich countries to contribute their fair share of climate finance for the Global South, at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, November 2024 (Photo: Megan Rowling/Climate Home)

During last week’s discussions, a delegate from the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), said: “The engagement of private sector and philanthropic institutions must complement and not replace the obligations of developed countries.”

In contrast, the European Union’s representative argued: “We should really focus on scaling up private finance and catalysing investments that drive climate action.” They also called on other countries to join the pool of donors mobilising money – referring indirectly to China and Gulf nations.

From the 116 submissions on the roadmap received ahead of the Bonn talks, only 20 were from governments, with the rest from civil society including NGOs, research organisations and business. 

At a consultation for these non-government groups, Avinash Persaud, special adviser on climate change to the president of the Inter-American Development Bank, presented a plan to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal. Under it, multilateral banks would buy existing private-sector loans to renewable energy projects in poor countries, with commercial lenders then using the proceeds for more clean energy investment. 

Guzmán said the private sector should play a bigger role but it is still unclear how the roadmap would avoid perpetuating the existing model of largely debt-based climate finance, nor who would benefit – as countries like Brazil and Tuvalu do not have the same needs.

Whose roadmap?

The two COP presidencies are tasked with preparing the roadmap, whose form is still being decided but needs to present ideas for how the $1.3 trillion can be raised.

COP30 CEO Ana Toni told Climate Home it will include recommendations on how to move forward. “It will be what the two COP Presidents – considering what they listened to – feel is needed to mobilise $1.3 trillion,” Toni said in an interview in Bonn.

A first draft of the report is expected to be presented for comment in September, with the final version published in October.

Toni added that she expects many of the recommendations to be for “players” outside the UN climate process. For example, “the reform of the multilateral banks is not something that we can do within the [UN climate] convention, but if it’s mentioned in the report, it will be an important message for those actors,” she said.

How ‘sophisticated’ climate misinformation gets to the heart of power

In Bonn, some officials said it was unclear how the consultations on the roadmap outside the UN climate process would be brought together with those happening inside. In particular, they pointed to a “circle of finance ministers” convened by Brazil to contribute to the roadmap, saying there was confusion about its role.

Toni said the circle is not part of “the official track of the roadmap”. “It’s our [Brazil’s] initiative led by finance minister Fernando Haddad to hear from finance ministers what they feel should be a roadmap to mobilise $1.3 trillion,” she explained.

There have also been concerns about inclusivity. The circle originally covered 24 countries and has since been expanded to 32 members, including the European Union, Canada, the UK and China. One of the selection criteria is to involve countries that have hosted COPs since the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Toni clarified this to Climate Home, saying that any country that wants to participate would be welcome, adding “it’s not a closed shop”. During the Bonn talks, the Marshall Islands and Tanzania asked to join the circle.

Toni said the finance ministers’ circle – due to meet again at a development finance conference in Spain next week – would produce a report that will feed into the roadmap. Civil society consultations have so far been limited to webinars.

Life beyond COP30

Thissen of CAN International said it would be good to connect the climate finance conversation with the wider international finance architecture – but without “forgetting what you have to move forward here, at the COPs”. 

She added that developing countries remain concerned there is ambiguity over whether rich nations will be held responsible for ensuring the NCQG finance goal is delivered, which is why they want formal UN discussions to be launched on that specifically.

Another big question for the roadmap at COP30 in Belém is how it will be treated as part of the UN climate process going forward. Countries could formally “note” or “welcome” the final document – as they have done with key climate science reports – or they could include it in the negotiations as a new agenda item or under other discussions such as on long-term finance. 

“If the [roadmap] doesn’t include elements that have a scope beyond COP30, it will be an absolutely wasted year,” Guzmán said, warning against a report that fails to meet neither immediate nor future needs. “That’s the greatest risk: to have a document that could die at COP30.”

The post UN expects climate finance roadmap to offer “clear next steps” appeared first on Climate Home News.

UN expects climate finance roadmap to offer “clear next steps”

Continue Reading

Climate Change

NextEra Energy to Join the Offshore Wind Club, But Does It Matter?

Published

on

The country’s most valuable utility didn’t like offshore wind. But a proposed merger with Dominion would include a $11.4 billion project in Coastal Virginia.

A utility megamerger announced this week would mean that the largest offshore wind project in the United States would be owned by the same company that already is the nation’s leading developer of renewables and battery storage.

NextEra Energy to Join the Offshore Wind Club, But Does It Matter?

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Australia’s nature is in trouble.

Published

on

Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.

We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.

Pygmy Blue Whales in Western Australia. © Tiffany Klein / Greenpeace
Pygmy Blue Whales continue to slide towards extinction © Tiffany Klein / Greenpeace

Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.

A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.

But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.



Lonely Koala on a Tree Stump Animation in Australia. Still from a stop-motion animation. © Greenpeace


Speak up for nature

It just takes a few minutes


Make a submission

Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.

So what are these standards, exactly?

The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.

In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:

  • What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
  • How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
  • When should a project simply not go ahead?
  • What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
  • How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?

If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.

But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.

Spotted-tail Quolls are a threatened species severely impacted by deforestation. © Lachlan L. Hall / Greenpeace

The biggest problem: process over outcomes

The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.

Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?

But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.

 This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.

A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed

Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.

Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.

But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.

For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.

The home of the near-threatened Red Goshawk has shrunk due to deforestation. © Lachlan L. Hall / Greenpeace

Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting

Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.

You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.

The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.

Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature

The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.

Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.

Strong standards could help turn things around by:

  • stopping destruction in critical habitat,
  • setting firm limits on environmental harm,
  • requiring genuine recovery for nature,
  • and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.

If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.




Speak up for nature

Have your say on nature laws


Make a submission

What needs to change?

The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:

  • ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
  • ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
  • ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
  • ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort

Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.

Australia’s nature is in trouble.

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’

Published

on

The small project is underway at Central Campus, with room for expansion. Its energy usage could complicate the university’s climate goals.

DURHAM, N.C.—Duke University plans to build a small data center at Central Campus, potentially the first of several similar-size projects, which has raised questions among some faculty about whether the energy- and water-intensive endeavors could derail the institution’s climate commitments.

Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com