- 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
Ana Yang is Director of the Environment and Society Centre at Chatham House.
In recent months, Brazil has been portrayed by the media, activists and other commentators as either angel or devil.
On the one hand, the country that houses 60% of the Amazon rainforest and an enormous wealth of biodiversity is touted as a climate champion, progressive host of the next UN climate talks, the potential saviour of multilateralism.
On the other, the fifth-largest and seventh-most populous country in the world is demonised as hypocritical for pursuing oil exploration and production, investing in agriculture as a key export industry, and – most recently – building a new road on the outskirts of the northeastern city of Belem, which will host the COP30 UN climate summit in November.
As a Brazilian working and living in London, this is a deeply familiar and frustrating story of a developing nation that cannot be trusted to act in its own interests on climate change, nor in those of the world. It is a story that holds low- and middle-income countries to different standards from rich ones, and denies them the same rights and routes to development.
Oil production supports development
Recent criticism of Brazil’s decision to join the oil producers club, OPEC+, and of President Lula’s support for a new oil project typify this gleeful tendency to attack pragmatic leadership and deny political complexity. Such criticism is not only condescending, but counterproductive and short-sighted.
By joining OPEC+ Brazil – with only 4% of global oil production and less than 2% of global trade oil – gets to be part of the club of countries that dictates oil prices. Crude oil is Brazil’s main export commodity, with China its main customer. Joining OPEC+ is a geopolitical move by a middle power designed to support commercial interests and trade diversification.
The Amazon rainforest emerges as the new global oil frontier
Of course, rapid decarbonisation is imperative if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as per the Paris Agreement. But just as other countries scramble to balance climate goals against other policy objectives, including the opportunities of investment in fossil fuels, or provision of infrastructure, so too should Brazil be able to determine its own path to net zero.
Brazil, a country at the forefront of the climate crisis, whose wealth is concentrated in its abundant natural resources, knows full well the importance of a managed fossil-fuel phase-out. The climate transition and decarbonisation is owned at the highest political level. The country already generates over 90% of its electricity from renewable sources, and has per capita emissions well below the global average.
But President Lula was also elected on a promise of addressing the deep inequality, poverty, hunger and other challenges affecting the Brazilian population. Oil production and exploration contribute to the national coffers and help pay for the national health service, anti-poverty initiatives, and climate adaptation actions.
If we genuinely want to support and encourage progress, we cannot expect Brazil to forgo its biggest commodity overnight. Instead we need an approach which acknowledges that policy-making is a game of balancing competing demands.
No one-size-fits-all path to decarbonisation
Indeed, the truth is that, with three quarters of its emissions coming from deforestation and agriculture, Brazil’s decarbonisation challenge lies less in oil production and more in land use. To effect an equitable and low-carbon transition, the country will need to move away from a deforestation-based agriculture production model, cut methane from cattle herds and reduce reliance on fertiliser.
Its farmers – from large to micro producers – will need to shift to integrated land management approaches that enable the protection of nature. And the country will need to continue to expand renewable energy capabilities while ensuring benefits are shared with local communities, and invested in climate adaptation.
“Not silver bullets”: COP30 CEO downplays impact of yearly climate summits
As for the international community, supporting Brazil as COP30 host means being inclusive rather than prescriptive. It means engaging the COP30 Presidency on areas of mutual interest and bringing the private sector along. It means offering solutions for climate and nature finance, focusing on the link with inequality, and aligning net-zero target dates with Lula’s own plans. It also means rich countries keeping their promises on climate finance.
There are so many expectations around Brazil’s presidency of COP30, some unrealistic. But there are clear opportunities to make progress on climate finance, on emissions reduction targets and on nature. With the right sort of engagement from the international community and the private sector, Brazil will be able to start delivering on its climate promises, setting an example for others to follow.
At its best, COP30 could kick off a decade of action, where the economic opportunities of the energy transition are turned into reality, and the polarised narrative of growth vs. climate action is consigned to history.
To realise this potential, Brazil needs constructive partners who understand that decarbonisation is not a one-size-fits all policy. In a context of heightened geopolitical instability and competing fiscal pressures, collaboration between coalitions of the willing, characterised by mutual respect, must be at the heart of climate action in 2025 and beyond.
The post Why accusations of Brazilian hypocrisy on climate are ill-judged appeared first on Climate Home News.
Why accusations of Brazilian hypocrisy on climate are ill-judged
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.