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.
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”
Climate Change
Energy transition policymaking must evolve to fit an age of rupture
Andreas Sieber is head of political strategy at 350.0g. Cat Abreu is director of the International Climate Politics Hub.
From the US abduction of Venezuela’s president at the start of this year to the Iran war which rumbles on, disruption is the new normal for global geopolitics, more often than not linked to conflict over supplies of oil and gas.
Events so far in 2026 – driven largely by the desire of the Trump administration to grab control of fossil fuels around the world – show that the climate community’s approach to energy diplomacy will have to evolve if we are to operate effectively and push for climate action in such a volatile landscape.
Today’s climate and energy governance must be able to cope with trade wars, genocide, fascism, spiralling inequality and challenges to multilateralism. The increasingly dominant paradigms of economic competitiveness, energy security and green industrialisation can help drive the transition but they also challenge our collective mission to deliver an equitable green shift.
US-China rivalry dominates
Longer-term geopolitical trends that are seeing power move from West to East and North to South have fuelled a US–China “superpower rivalry”, which is pulling the global economy apart and reining in trade.
A key question will be how the fracture “lines” are drawn: by the US and China, or also by other countries or blocs? Many governments will try to remain “in the middle” between the two giants to capture economic gains from both sides. Yet despite the language of “strategic autonomy”, Washington and Beijing may be in a position to force choices via market access, export controls and sanctions.
At first glance, this may not seem particularly relevant for climate and energy politics. But Huawei’s exclusion from 5G operations across the political West and India following the so-called Clean Network Campaign by the US government serves as a warning of what could happen to climate green tech.
And the recent debate to cut out Chinese inverters from European markets follows the same pattern – US security forces perceive a risk and start encouraging their allies to drop Chinese technology.
The new drivers: competition and security
Despite this fracturing geopolitical and economic context, energy transition is still happening. To ensure it is effective and equitable, we need to understand what is driving it and how to adapt climate politics so that it better responds to these drivers.
Put simply, China is supplying the world with low-cost renewables (roughly 60% of critical wind and 80% of solar components), batteries, EVs and other key elements. Other countries now also want their piece of the green tech pie and are forming industrial policies to get it.
It is this new competitiveness-driven logic that will shape the quest for decarbonisation, which has shifted from cooperating around the cost of tackling climate change to rivalry for the benefits of climate action.
Over 90% of new renewables projects are now cheaper than fossil alternatives. Gas-fired power is 3–4 times more expensive than solar and wind. In 2015, most decarbonisation policies were “traditional” emissions-cutting strategies like carbon pricing or net zero dates, whereas green industrial policies now underpin the majority.
Iran war could boost fossil fuel phase-out push, says Colombian minister
Meanwhile, security has become a central driver of energy politics. We are living through the second major fossil fuel crisis in just four years. Elevated oil and gas prices will impose up to $1 trillion in additional costs on the global economy by the end of the year if disruption continues in the Strait of Hormuz. Fossil fuel supply chains have exposed countries to conflict, coercion and brutal price shocks.
Fossil fuel volatility destabilises whole economies – higher fuel costs drive up food prices, increase political instability, and push millions into poverty and hunger. This incentivises governments to shield themselves from global shocks, especially in countries that are net fossil fuel importers and home to roughly three-quarters of the world’s population.
Yet security fears can cut both ways. The same instability that makes fossil fuel dependence untenable is also sharpening concern over China’s dominance of critical clean technologies and supply chains.
Equity, cooperation and the opportunity for change
Developing countries benefit from the rapid uptake of renewables enabled by low-cost Chinese technologies. But significant fiscal space and public investment is needed for the electricity grids and infrastructure required to fully unleash the energy transition, as well as for green industrialisation to diversify revenue streams.
Despite this, industrial-scale domestic production and ownership often remain out of reach for too many countries that lack the fiscal space to allow green supply chains to flourish and compete with their traditional industrial base. But more just and diversified green tech supply chains could be achieved with concomitant support.
Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future?
For the first time in decades, the international order is being substantially reshaped. If within this context, decarbonisation is increasingly driven by green industrial policy, energy security and competitiveness, the climate policy community must better anticipate where these debates are moving. We must speak the same language, and enter the forums where decisions are made, including security, trade and bilateral or trilateral spaces.
We should build on an enlightened self interest recognising that cooperation remains essential and beneficial. This includes using the UN climate process differently: less as an ever-expanding negotiation machine, and more as a space for norm-setting, political alignment and deal-making. In an age of fragmentation, effective cooperation must not only be framed as necessary but thought of as a strategically compelling source of resilience and shared advantage.
The post Energy transition policymaking must evolve to fit an age of rupture appeared first on Climate Home News.
Energy transition policymaking must evolve to fit an age of rupture
Climate Change
Extreme heat costing India’s poorest workers 2% of GDP, survey finds
Low-income Indian workers, many of them migrants from rural areas hit by climate change, are paying for worsening extreme heat through lost working days and health complications, with the cost equivalent to 2% of national GDP per year, new research shows.
The International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED), a London-based think-tank, worked with local organisations to survey around 540 households of informal workers in three Indian cities: Ajmer, Delhi and Agra. Most had migrated from rural areas to find work in industries such as construction, brick-making, garment manufacturing and food packaging.
The survey found them struggling through long working days with little access to shade, cooling, rest or water, as well as few toilets for women. And even when they go home, many live in makeshift shelters or airless cramped rooms with barely a single fan, bringing almost no respite.
Outdoor workers are losing about 24 days of work a year due to heat, costing them nearly a tenth of their annual earnings, while indoor workers sacrifice roughly 15 days. On top of losing income, they are also bearing the cost of health problems like heat exhaustion, psychological stress and kidney damage brought on by repeated dehydration.
If the survey’s findings are extrapolated to a national level, the IIED researchers estimate that the decline in productivity and effects of kidney disease combined add up to lost wages of $78 billion each year.
Vishram Meena, 45, from Alwar in Rajasthan, has worked on construction sites in Ajmer for more than a decade, toiling for 10 to 12 hours a day carrying materials and mixing cement in the full sun.
In May 2024, on one of the hottest days, he collapsed after feeling dizzy and suffering a nosebleed. His wife and colleagues managed to get him to hospital where he was diagnosed with heat stroke. He has since returned to the same building work because the family needs the money.
“I went back because what else could I do? We are not machines. We are human beings. The heat is killing us slowly,” he was quoted as saying in a report on the survey’s findings.
“Victorian-era” conditions
Ritu Bharadwaj, IIED’s director of climate resilience, finance and loss and damage, described some of the stories from workers about their experiences of extreme heat as “genuinely horrifying”.
Kusum, a tailor at a garment manufacturing and export unit in Kapashera, Delhi, recounted how the machines for ironing finished garments are in the same tiny room where workers are making the clothes, with steam and hot air building up through her shift.
Fans are too far apart to move the air and nothing has changed in over a decade, she said, adding that “in summer, the unit feels like a furnace”.
“These are Victorian-era working conditions and they’re completely unacceptable in the 21st century,” said Bharadwaj. She called for stepped-up social protection from the government to pay people for days they are unable work due to heat, as well as micro-insurance schemes with payouts triggered by temperature measurements.
This money would help families buy food and pay medical bills when their income dips if they fall ill or cannot work their usual hours due to soaring temperatures.
Climate change-driven heatwaves hit Delhi’s Red Fort market traders
The aim of the IIED study, Bharadwaj added, is to get policy-makers’ attention by showing the scale of damage extreme heat is doing to India’s GDP in an economy whose growth relies on service-led industries. “If the workers within them start falling sick, you know it’s the economic growth which is going to get impacted,” she told a webinar to present the research.
“Whether [policymakers] care about the workers or not, at least they would care about the GDP, and therefore then invest in their care,” she explained.
Labour code leaves out heat
However, Bharadwaj noted that a 2026 reform to India’s labour law bringing a range of regulations together in one code does not include heat-related protections for workers and only applies to businesses above a certain size. She urged the government to introduce a temperature threshold above which all workers would be able to stop their activities.
IIED and its partners have also carried out a similar study in Bangladesh which will be published later this month, showing that extreme heat is costing its workforce the equivalent of nearly 1.4% of GDP.
Shakirul Islam, chairperson of the Ovibashi Karmi Unnayan Program (OKUP) in Bangladesh, said the government had introduced stricter safety policies for garment-making companies after the Rana Plaza complex collapsed in 2013. But, he said, these rules are rarely followed by manufacturers, especially at the level of smaller subcontractors.
The workers’ welfare centres that do exist are open mainly during work hours so they are difficult to visit. Some companies also make saline water available for heat stress, which is no good for those with high blood pressure, he noted.
For Indian women workers, a just transition means surviving climate impacts with dignity
Archana Shukla Mukherjee, CEO of India’s Change Alliance, which also partnered with IIED on the survey, said it was time to hold both the government and businesses accountable for finding solutions to the intensifying problem of extreme heat’s effects on workers.
She said that employee state insurance schemes should identify heat stroke as an occupational disease while companies along the whole supply chain should start putting in place heat protection measures, including for informal workers and migrants.
If the tools and mechanisms available to help workers do not reach the most vulnerable and marginalised people, “then I think we are not doing something right,” she said.
The post Extreme heat costing India’s poorest workers 2% of GDP, survey finds appeared first on Climate Home News.
Extreme heat costing India’s poorest workers 2% of GDP, survey finds
Climate Change
Top maritime court rejects bid to halt UN deep-sea mining inquiry
A United Nations investigation into deep-sea mining firms will continue after the world’s top maritime court rejected their bid to suspend the inquiry triggered by a US-backed push to extract critical minerals from the ocean floor.
In two orders issued on Saturday, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) declined to halt an inquiry launched by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) into whether permit holders, including Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML) and Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (NORI), have breached their obligations under UN exploration contracts.
The two companies are subsidiaries of Canadian firm The Metals Company (TMC), which earlier this year sought permits from the United States to commercially mine the deep seabed in an area already covered by its UN exploration licences, bypassing the ISA’s regulatory process.
The inquiry was opened after TMC’s move raised questions over whether its subsidiaries had complied with their contractual obligations to the ISA, which regulates mining in international waters under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. TOML and NORI sued the ISA last June for allegedly targeting them “in breach of due process” and without “good faith”.
While allowing the inquiry to proceed, the court ordered the ISA to ensure the companies receive due process. Judges said the regulator must explain the factual and legal basis of its inquiry, clarify the procedures being followed and provide TOML and NORI with a meaningful opportunity to respond.
The companies seeks to mine an area called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which holds vast reserves of critical minerals like nickel, manganese and rare earths but is also home to a little-studied deep ocean ecosystem with thousands of unnamed species.
In response to the court’s ruling, the ISA welcomed the decision, saying the inquiry “remains in effect” and would continue “with due regard to all applicable legal requirements”.
Last week, during an annual meeting of its member governments, ISA secretary-general Leticia Carvalho said the resources in the ocean floor are “the common heritage of humankind” and upheld the agency’s role as “more important than ever”.
TMC also welcomed the court decision in a statement and claimed that judges ruled to “protect the rights of TMC subsidiaries”.
“Contractors like NORI and TOML, who have together spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the promise of a fair regulatory framework, should be informed of the factual and legal basis of any non-compliance inquiries, understand the procedure being applied, and receive a meaningful opportunity to respond,” said Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company.

Environmental groups said the ruling allows scrutiny of the companies’ actions to continue.
Louisa Casson, deep-sea mining campaigner with Greenpeace, said the “entire litigation has been an egregious waste of time and money”, which was part of the industry’s “textbook distraction tactic” meant to delay the consequences of the inquiry.
“If the inquiry confirms that TMC’s subsidiaries are breaching their contracts, governments must send the strongest possible signal that complicity in unlawful deep sea mining will not be tolerated,” she said.
While investigation is still ongoing, NORI’s contract is set to expire this week and is up for review. Governments asked the ISA to report back and make “make appropriate recommendations” by the next ISA assembly, its main decision-making body set to take place next week from July 27 to 31.
The court ordered both the ISA and TMC to submit a report on how they complied with the ruling by August 31, and called on both to “cooperate and refrain from any action that might lead to
aggravating the dispute”.
The post Top maritime court rejects bid to halt UN deep-sea mining inquiry appeared first on Climate Home News.
Top maritime court rejects bid to halt UN deep-sea mining inquiry
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

