Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

It was 8am in Baku, Azerbaijan when I woke up for the first day of COP29 still feeling the 10 hour time difference of my homelands in my bones.

The sun shone so beautifully through the kitchen window while I prepared myself some breakfast and it was the first time I really appreciated the cityscape view that I have come to love greeting every morning. I even enjoyed the gentle hum of the many parked and idling COP29 branded shuttle buses that wait outside of the hotel to bring COP29 participants to the Baku Olympic Stadium, where the event is being hosted.

After breakfast I took the elevator down to the lobby, exited the building, and hopped onto the first bus in line after showing the driver my COP29 badge. I sat down on the empty bus and then the driver began their route through the city. The bus made 2 additional stops at official COP29 transit hubs, filling the shuttle with eager COP29 participants, before heading straight for our destination.

Growing up in Minneapolis, my mother and I took the bus everywhere. We did not have access to a car until I was in middle school so taking the bus was not a choice but a necessity derived from poverty. This necessity continued through most of my 20s, as a single mother on welfare myself, while I was working towards a degree in chemistry. Now, as a financially stable adult who owns 2 vehicles and has the privilege of choice, I still tend to prefer public transit whenever possible as it is a sunk-cost in terms of carbon and VOC emissions. My point is — I am familiar with the bus and general bus etiquette.

As I sat on the bus, watching the bustle of Baku from my window seat, I was excited to feel surrounded by like-minded professionals and activists engaged in the climate change mitigation space and was looking forward to the sessions I planned to attend that day. However, I was removed from my daydreaming when I felt the pain of a hair being plucked from my head. The man sitting behind me kept putting his hands on the back of my seat with no consideration for my hair, which was simply existing. I tried shifting and moving my hair, but over the course of the bus ride his hands painfully removed at least five hairs from my head before I had had enough and switched seats.

At some point, the bus gave a slight jolt and a man near me gave a shout of frustration. He had hurt his knees on the seat in front of him when the bus jolted forwards and back again. The man mumbled under his breath and gave a long stern stare at the driver while shaking his head, visually communicating his upset with the driver’s performance. While I felt badly for the hurt the man complained about, I felt he was being overly rude to the driver who drove in a very expected and safe way.

Shortly after the jolt incident, another man began complaining very loudly about the temperature on the bus which, like the jolt, was not unusual or extreme. He told the other passengers near him that ‘somebody ought to tell the driver that we are too hot!’. To no one’s surprise, no one took up his cause. After about 10 minutes of complaints he finally took matters into his own hands and told the driver, in Russian, that the bus was too hot. The driver did not understand him and I thought how odd it was that he assumed the Azerbaijani driver spoke Russian. While some people do, it still seemed a bizarre assumption to make. Once the man was back to his seat, defeated in his task, he told his seatmate that he studied Russian in school and was excited to use it. While I will not say which school he went to, I assure that it has a reputation for educating some of the world’s wealthiest children. It is of note that the man at no point chose to remove the coat he was wearing.

It was at that moment that I realized: I do not think many of the people on this shuttle have much experience in utilizing public transportation in an urban setting. I was on the struggle bus with folks who seemed unaware of how obvious their lack of lived experience was in this context.

The struggle bus did not let me off when I walked off of the COP29 shuttle. Almost every session, negotiation and presentation I attended that day was a harsh reminder that those in positions of power, with the authority to make lasting impacts on international climate policy, do not live the realities of the climate crisis.

They do not ride the bus to work and therefore do not recognize the needs of the folks who do.

I attended over six sessions on my first day with topics ranging from Article 6, international cooperation, blue carbon, integrating science and nature, responsible mineral mining, etc. All of the speakers and presenters spent considerable time advocating for the inclusion of Indigenous peoples voices, traditional, land-based pedagogy and representation, but none of them included Indigenous people themselves or a methodology to meaningfully incorporate us in the future. At one such discussion a representative from the United States made claims that the U.S. strives to include Indigenous folks at the decision making table but gave no details, tribal names or method descriptions as to how that work was being done. Are we to simply trust the words and promises of those who represent power structures that have subjected Native folks to forced poverty, genocide and cultural persecution for centuries?

On my second day at COP29 I heard teachings from Indigenous women representatives from Tuvalu, Torres Strait, and Aotearoa. Tiana Jakevich of Aotearoa shared some words from their elders which translated from their language to mean: 

Indigenous people are of the land. We are of the rivers. Indigenous people are the physical manifestation of the Earth trying to protect itself.

Grace Malie of Tuvalu tearfully recalled visiting places from her childhood to find they are no longer there due to rising waters caused by climate change. She is just 25 years old. The climate crisis is occurring on a tangible timescale which is now altering how Indigenous peoples are able to pass down their teachings. Teachings which career climate change professionals claim they need. But if decision makers do not feel the urgent impacts themselves, can we trust them to act urgently? If they do not ride the struggle bus with us, or at least listen to us, can their vision of sustainability truly support and represent us?

Antavia 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.

Antavia

Antavia descends from the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and grew up in South Minneapolis. She earned her associates degree at Minneapolis College as a Power of You scholar and continued her studies in chemistry at Metro State University as an Increasing Diversity in Environmental Careers Fellow, as well as abroad in Cuernavaca, Mexico as a Gilman International Scholar. Antavia has been a PhD student of chemistry at the University of Minnesota where she helped teach undergraduate analytical chemistry labs and spent time researching and synthesizing porous nanoparticles for PFAS phytoremediation as a 3M Science and Technology Fellow. In her work she develops and implements a STEM curriculum that honors and supports Indigenous ways of knowing and cultural protocol for Native American high school students in South Minneapolis. Her work in STEM educational equity has been shown to increase science interest and engagement for Indigenous girls in particular.

The post Who Gets a Seat on the Struggle Bus? appeared first on Climate Generation.

Who Gets a Seat on the Struggle Bus?

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

Coles, Woolworths failing on deforestation commitments 

Published

8 hours ago

on

August 25, 2026

By

SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.

Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:

“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.

“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.

“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”

Coles, Woolworths failing on deforestation commitments 

Continue Reading

Climate Change

New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

Published

2 days ago

on

August 24, 2026

By

New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.

The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.

Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.

Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.

    Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.

    Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.

    In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.

    Corporate lobbying in the shadows

    Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.

    “That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”

    The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.

    The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.

    Green groups fail to stop bill

    The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.

    But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.

    A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.

    “Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035

    Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.

    But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.

    The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.

    Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”

    Copycat legislation on the rise

    New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.

    In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.

    The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.

    UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court

    Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.

    “Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.

    The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.

    New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

    Published

    2 days ago

    on

    August 24, 2026

    By

    Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS. 

    Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.

    Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.

    The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.

    The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.

    Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output

    Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.

    Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.

      Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.

      Stronger environmental enforcement

      Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.

      This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.

      The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.

      A coastal village is wedged between the sea and a large nickel mine in Indonesia
      The fishing villages of Tapunggaya in Sulawesi, Indonesia, are squeezed between the sea and an expanding nickel mine (Photo by Garry Lotulung/NurPhoto)

      The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.

      In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.

      None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.

      Unequal benefits

      For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

      Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.

        In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.

        Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.

        The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.

        None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.

        The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry  appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry 

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com