Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
Plastic treaty pause
BUSAN BUST: Efforts to finalise a global treaty on plastic pollution failed to reach agreement in Busan, South Korea, Reuters reported. The newswire said more than 100 nations wanted the treaty to cap plastic production, but “a handful of oil-producers were prepared only to target plastic waste”. Carbon Brief previously explained how failure to address plastics production could affect efforts to tackle climate change.
FINGER POINTING: Saudi negotiators were accused of “leading” efforts to block limits on plastic production, which relies mostly on fossil fuels, said the New York Times. A French official was quoted by Agence France-Presse saying: “We also are worried by the continuing obstruction by the so-called like-minded countries.” Members of this group include China and India, which opposed limits on plastic production, according to the Hindustan Times.
POST MORTEM: The talks foundered, in part, because, as with the UN climate regime, they rely on making decisions by consensus, found analysis from the Independent. Negotiations will continue next year based on the current draft text, said the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
- DESERT COP: UN talks on desertification began in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Monday, reported Le Monde. The COP16 land summit will last for two weeks, it said.
- PRABAWO’S PLEDGE: Indonesia leader Prabawo Subianto’s pledge to phase out coal power by 2040 would entail “massive costs, reforms”, the Jakarta Post reported. The country would need to build 8 gigawatts (GW) of renewables and retire 3GW of coal each year to meet the target, according to Ember analysis cited by Bloomberg.
- COAL CURTAILED: A high court in South African capital Pretoria overturned plans for 1.5GW of new coal-fired capacity, the Mail and Guardian reported. It said the “landmark” ruling found the government had failed to adequately consider the impact of coal on children’s rights, particularly their right to a health environment.
- MONSOON FLOODS: More than 30 people were killed and tens of thousands displaced by floods in Malaysia and Thailand, Al Jazeera reported. The outlet noted climate change is “causing more intense weather patterns that can make destructive floods more likely”, according to scientists.
- CHINESE CURBS: Beijing has banned exports to the US of a series of critical minerals needed for low-carbon technologies, Reuters reported. China wanted to “safeguard its national security and interests”, said China Daily.
- HISTORIC DISCOVERY: Brazilian oil giant Petrobras and Colombian Ecopetrol have discovered Colombia’s “largest ever gas deposit”, according to Oilprice. The gas could double the country’s existing reserves, but the outlet says its energy sector is “grappling” with a government that supports the “transition away from fossil fuels”.
The funds needed by Caribbean countries over the next 20 years to become “climate resilient”, according to comments from the International Monetary Fund reported by La Vanguardia.
- The Arctic Ocean could see its first ice-free days before 2030, according to findings in Nature Communications.
- The recent “surge” in global temperatures has been “intensified by record-low planetary albedo” (reflectiveness), said a study in Science.
- A Nature Climate Change perspective critiqued the idea of climate “tipping points”, saying they “confuse and can distract from urgent climate action”.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
At COP29 in Baku, developed-country parties such as the EU, the US and Japan agreed to help raise “at least” $300bn a year by 2035 for climate action in developing countries. This target faced a strong backlash – and a closer inspection of climate-finance data helps to explain why. Carbon Brief analysis showed how pledges from before the COP29 deal would already bring climate finance up from $115.9bn in 2022 to around $200bn by 2030. Counting contributions from developing countries – something “encouraged” under the new goal – could raise this to $265bn. These pre-existing funds mean the target is achievable for developed countries with virtually “no additional budgetary effort”, according to experts.
Landmark climate case kicks off
This week, Carbon Brief interviews a leading international law scholar about a landmark climate case at the UN international court of justice.
The international court of justice (ICJ) has opened two weeks of hearings on states’ climate-related legal obligations – and the consequences, if “significant harm” is caused.
The case stems from a UN general assembly (UNGA) request for an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ. It is the ICJ’s largest ever case, with more than 100 countries and international organisations making interventions, deploying a wide variety of legal arguments.
In his opening address, Ralph Regenvanu, climate envoy for Vanuatu, which pushed for the case, said: “[T]his may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity.”
Carbon Brief interviewed leading international law scholar Prof Philippe Sands to find out more about the legal issues at stake and the wider significance of the ICJ case.
Carbon Brief: Would you be able to start by situating this case in its wider legal context and explaining why it could be so consequential?
Philippe Sands: Well, it’s the first time the international court of justice has been called upon to address legal issues relating to climate change. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and, although the advisory opinion that it hands down will not be binding on states, it is binding on all UN bodies. The determinations that the court makes will have consequences that go very far and that will have a particular authority, in legal and political terms. Of course, everything turns on what the court actually says.
CB: Would you be able to summarise the key legal arguments that are being fought over in this case?
PS: [F]or me, the crucial issues are, firstly, what the court says about the state of the science: is it established, or is there any room for doubt? Secondly, what are the obligations of states having regard to the clarity of the science. Thirdly, are there legal obligations on states in relation to the climate system that exist and arise outside of the treaty regime – the 1992 [UN Framework] convention [on climate change], the Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement and so on and so forth. And, related to that, fourthly – this is the most intense, legally interesting aspect – what are the responsibilities of states for historic emissions under general international law? And, in particular, are the biggest contributors liable under international law to make good any damages that may arise from their historic actions…The practicalities are that islands are disappearing with sea level rise. Are historic polluters of greenhouse gases responsible for the consequences of those disappearances?
CB: If you were going to make a bet, which way would you say the court would go on that key question of whether it’s just the [UN] climate regime that gives rise to obligations [on states], or whether there could be obligations from other parts of the law?
I think the court will proceed very carefully. I don’t think it will want to close the door to the application of other rules of international law…The broader issue here is that, essentially, the legislative system has broken down. The states have been unable to legislate effectively and efficiently to address the issues related to climate change. And, so, what has happened is that a group of states have essentially gone to the General Assembly and said: “The legislative system is broken down. Let’s now ask the judges to step in and tell us what the applicable principles and rules are.” The difficulty that that poses for the judges, who will be conscious that the legislative system has not delivered, is that it’s not the function of judges to legislate.
The full transcript of the interview can be read here.
ZHENMIN SPEAKS: In a long interview with China Newsweek, Chinese climate envoy Liu Zhenmin reflected on the outcome of the COP29 climate talks, including the “disappoint[ing]” $300bn finance goal, and said the global energy transition is “irreversible”.
‘WAKE UP’: In a “viewpoint” article, Guardian economics editor Heather Stewart wrote that rising food prices were a sign of the “destabilising impact of [the] climate crisis”.
TALKING COP: Carbon Brief’s Anika Patel joined the All Things Policy podcast to discuss COP29, the upcoming Trump presidency and China’s actions at the summit.
- International Energy Agency, junior energy modeller/analyst | Salary: €5,741 a month. Location: Paris
- University of Oxford, director of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History | Salary: Unknown. Location: Oxford, UK
- Mongabay, staff writer – California biodiversity | Salary: $54,000-$75,000. Location: California
- University of East Anglia, senior research associate – land use resource and engagement | Salary: £37,999. Location: Norwich, UK
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to [email protected].
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
Sharelines from this story
