Importantly, countries agreed to work together to hold ‘the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels’ and pursue efforts ‘to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.’

Every national government must now establish a clear plan to reach net zero emissions with regularly updated targets to cut climate pollution.

As governments converge once more at the United Nations Climate Conference, this time, COP30 in Belém, Brazil, some are asking what have we achieved to combat climate change? 

The past three years have been the hottest on record, climate disasters have slammed every continent this year and climate pollution from coal, oil and gas continues to rise.  

10 years after Paris, it’s worth taking stock of where we are at, how much the world has achieved, and the task ahead.  

We’ve made substantial progress in the global shift to clean energy

Pollution from coal, oil and gas continues to rise, but much more slowly

In 2023, the international community agreed to switch away from fossil fuels, finally formally acknowledging the contribution of coal, oil and gas to global warming.

This agreement was labelled the ‘beginning of the end’ for fossil fuels globally. While we still have a long way to go, the global energy mix is shifting away from coal, oil and gas:

• Global emissions are slowing: the latest data shows that we are burning more fossil fuels than ever and emissions continue to climb, but the rate of growth has dropped from 2% per year to 0.6% per year. 
• The world’s biggest polluter’s emissions have peaked: China’s emissions are already peaking, five years ahead of previous projections.
• Countries are phasing out coal: this year, Ireland became the eighth country to phase out coal generation since the Paris Agreement was signed. Many more have committed to becoming coal-free over the coming years, including nearly the entire European Union.
• More countries are committing to get off coal, oil and gas: Pacific Island Nations are leading a diplomatic campaign for a global phase out of coal, oil and gas, calling for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition, 62 countries led by the UK and Canada have pledged to phase out unabated coal generation completely through the Powering Past Coal Alliance.

Clean energy is transforming the world

The global energy transformation is gathering speed: low-emissions energy sources (including wind, solar, hydropower and nuclear) now generate more than 40% of the world’s electricity, compared to 33% in 2015. 

Clean energy is smashing records:

• 2025 saw a significant milestone: in the first six months of 2025 the world generated more power from solar and wind than from coal.
• Record-breaking renewable rollout: Global renewable electricity generation is expected to nearly double by 2030 – enough new renewable generation to meet the combined power demand of China and the US.
• Solar is booming: ​​It took eight years for the world’s solar capacity to go from 100 TWh to 1,000 TWh, then just three years to double to 2,000 TWh. Solar prices have dropped 66% in the past decade, becoming the cheapest form of power in history.
• Investment in clean energy has increased 10x: Investment in clean energy has grown from around US$230 billion in 2013, to $2.2 trillion in 2025 (equivalent to AU $3.4 trillion – twice as much as global investment in coal, oil and gas). 
• China: The world’s biggest polluter, China, is transforming into a clean energy juggernaut. 
• Cleaning up transport: One in five cars sold worldwide is now electric, compared to just 1% in 2015.

Read more in our report Power Shift: The US, China and the Race to Net Zero

Net zero is the global minimum

When the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015 no countries had formal net zero targets. Now, 

83% of the global economy has a net zero target. Analysis shows that climate targets are becoming more robust over time, covering more sectors and gases. The majority of countries also have targets to increase renewable generation.

The Paris Agreement aims to reach peak global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, reaching net zero by the second half of this century. If all countries follow through on their commitments, global emissions are expected to peak by 2030. However, to limit global heating to 1.5°C without overshoot, global climate pollution needed to peak this year, at the latest, and fall by 43% on 2019 levels by 2030. 

But global temperature is rising, and so are the impacts

We are already living in a hotter and more dangerous world, fuelled by climate pollution from coal, oil and gas. Today we are at 1.3°C of global warming, and the past three years have been the hottest on record. 

In 2015, the world was on a catastrophic path to an average global temperature increase of 4°C by the end of this century. Now, according to the latest official data, we are tracking towards 2.3 – 2.5°C, if countries reach their targets. 

This is a more dangerous future, and still falls far short of what is needed. Global warming of 1.5°C is considered the upper limit of what vulnerable communities, coral reefs, and many ecosystems can withstand. Science is clear that crossing the 1.5°C threshold increases the risk of triggering irreversible and cascading climate impacts. Transformative action, delivered urgently, is needed to limit how much and for how long we overshoot this threshold, and to bring temperatures back down to safer levels.

The only way to do so is by cutting pollution from coal, oil and gas further and faster than we are today, in all the places we can do so.

With almost half the world’s population already vulnerable to the effects of climate change, global work to adapt, build resilience and deal with loss and damage caused by climate-driven disasters is critical. The Paris Agreement set a Global Goal on Adaptation to increase countries’ efforts to prepare for and manage the impacts of climate disasters. In 2023 countries agreed to an adaptation framework, and a key focus of COP30 in Belém is to establish indicators to measure this progress.

The international community has also established a new Loss and Damage fund, and as of June this year, 27 countries had pledged more than AU$1.2 billion. This represents a small fraction of the estimated economic costs of climate change-induced loss and damage in developing countries of up to $AU800 billion in 2030, rising to up to 2.6 trillion by 2050.

We need to do so much more – and Australia has a key role to play

Australia is a major climate polluter: we are the world’s 10th largest polluter on a per person basis, and one of the largest fossil fuel exporters. So we have an important role to play at home, and abroad. With the right policies, Australia can contribute to global goals while growing our own economy and creating skilled jobs. 

Powering past our climate targets

Under the Paris Agreement, the Albanese Government has pledged to cut climate pollution 43% by 2030, 62-70% below 2005 levels by 2035 and reach net zero by 2050. 

Our analysis shows we can, and should, be doing much more to keep Australians safer. Read more about our analysis of Australia’s target and temperature rise scenarios

To keep Australians safer from worsening climate harm, and unlock Australia’s economic opportunity, the Australian Government should put in place policies to not just meet a 70% reduction, but power past it. 

Growing green export industries

Australia also has a significant opportunity in the global shift to renewables. By making use of our abundant renewable resources and critical minerals we can support global decarbonisation while boosting our own economy and creating skilled jobs in future-focused export industries. Australia’s green export opportunity could create over 400,000 jobs by 2040, growing the economy by $100 billion per year. 

Phasing out fossil fuels

We must also deal with polluting fossil fuels. We can start by stopping approvals of new and expanded fossil fuel projects. At the moment our environment law doesn’t include any mechanism to consider the climate impacts of such projects on our environment.

The Government has approved seven coal and gas projects this year alone, and 32 since forming government in 2022. Another 42 are waiting to be assessed.

The Albanese Government can still deliver credible environment laws that protect the places we love from climate harm, and don’t undermine our climate laws and policies.

Find out how Australia’s national environment law measures up on climate, and how we can fix this.

The post Ten years of the Paris Agreement: what have we achieved? appeared first on Climate Council.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sought to strengthen security ties with Pacific island nations and counter China’s growing influence during a trip to the region this week. If he walks away with one lesson, it’s that Australia’s climate policy remains a significant sticking point.

The main purpose of Albanese’s visit was to attend annual leaders’ talks known as the Pacific Islands Forum. On the way, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement – but he couldn’t ink the deal.

I am in the Solomon Islands this week to observe the talks. I saw firsthand that Australia clearly has its work cut out in its quest to lead regional security – and our climate credibility is key.

Pacific countries say unequivocally that climate change – which is bringing stronger cyclones, coastal inundation and bleached coral reefs – is their single greatest threat. If Australia’s geo-strategic jostling is to work, we must show serious commitment to curbing the dangers of a warming planet.

Australia’s strategy tested in the Solomons

The location of this year’s talks – Solomon Islands’ capital, Honiara – is a stark reminder of Australia’s geopolitical stakes amid rising Chinese influence in the region.

The Solomon Islands signed a security deal with China in 2022, which set alarm bells ringing in Canberra. Penny Wong – then opposition foreign minister – described it as the worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since World War II.

Since then, the Albanese government has sought to firm up Australia’s place as security partner for Pacific countries by pursuing bilateral security agreements with island nations. So far, it has completed deals with Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

On his way to the Solomon Islands, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement which reportedly included A$500 million over ten years to address worsening climate impacts. But that deal was postponed. Members of Vanuatu’s coalition government were reportedly concerned about wording that could limit infrastructure funding from other countries, including China.

Albanese had more success in Honiara, where he advanced talks with Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka for a new bilateral security pact.

Working with island nations to tackle climate change has become key to Australian strategy in the region. This week Albanese also joined Pacific leaders to ratify a regional fund intended to help island communities access international finance to help adapt to climate impacts. Australia has already pledged $100 million for the project, known as the Pacific Resilience Facility.

Australia is bidding to host the COP31 United Nations climate talks in partnership with Pacific countries in 2026. Pacific leaders formally restated support for Australia’s bid this week.

Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr said an Australia-Pacific COP had broad support from the rest of the world:

We deserve to host COP31, and given the breadth and depth of support, it would be seen as an act of good faith if others would clear the way. We don’t want to let this major international opportunity slip by us.

Whipps also championed an initiative for the Pacific to become the world’s first region to be powered 100% by renewable energy.

Pacific Island countries spend up to 25% of their GDP on importing fossil fuels for power generation and transport. As the costs of renewable energy and battery storage quickly fall, Pacific countries could save billions of dollars by making the clean energy shift.

Albanese this week appeared to acknowledge regional concerns about climate change, saying taking action was “the entry fee, if you like, to credibility in the Pacific”.

But the real test is whether Albanese can follow words with meaningful action.

The work starts at home

Albanese’s Pacific visit comes amid heightened scrutiny of Australia’s efforts to curb emissions.

The government must set Australia’s 2035 emissions reduction target this month. The latest reports suggest the commitment may be less ambitious than Pacific leaders, and many others, would like.

Pacific leaders also expect Albanese to curb fossil fuel production for export. Australia’s biggest contribution to climate change comes from coal and gas exports, which add more than double the climate pollution of Australia’s entire national economy.

However, in coming days the federal government is expected to approve Woodside’s extension of gas production at the Northwest Shelf facility off Western Australia, out to 2070. The decision could lock in more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution – equivalent to a decade of Australia’s annual emissions.

All this comes in the wake of a landmark legal ruling in July this year, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion confirming countries have legal responsibilities for climate harms caused by fossil fuel exports.

Vanuatu led the legal campaign. In Honiara this week, Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu reiterated that Australia must heed the ruling, saying:

The advisory opinion of the ICJ made it clear that going down the path of fossil fuel production expansion is an internationally wrongful act under international law. The argument Australia has been making that the domestic transition is sufficient under the Paris Agreement is untenable. You’ve got to deal with fossil fuel exports as well.

Albanese may have taken on board some of the Pacific’s concern about climate – and made a little progress at this week’s Pacific Islands Forum. But there is work to do if Australia is to be seen as a credible security partner in the Pacific – and that work starts at home.

The post Australia’s quest to be key Pacific security partner hinges on climate credibility appeared first on Climate Council.

For Pacific nations, climate change isn’t a distant risk – it’s an existential threat, here and now. People from Pacific nations are already relocating to Australia, after losing their homes to rising sea levels and extreme weather fuelled by the burning of fossil fuels. With Australia bidding to co-host the UN climate summit (COP31) alongside Pacific nations in 2026, what happens at this year’s PIF will be crucial for securing genuine collaboration with Pacific nations, and for our region’s commitment to tackling climate change. 

Why is Australia attending the Pacific Islands Forum?

Australia is a founding member of the Pacific Islands Forum, and works closely with Pacific nations to advance their priorities. Australia is the region’s largest development partner, and plays a significant role in aid, security and economic cooperation. 

Australia has a strong interest in remaining the region’s main development partner and security partner of choice. However, in the words of Australia’s Foreign Minister, we are now in a state of “permanent contest” for this position (Wong 2024). 

But at the end of the day, Australia’s credibility in the region ultimately hinges on our climate action at home. Pacific leaders have been clear: unless Australia tackles the region’s greatest security threat – climate change – it cannot be seen as a genuine partner.

With COP31 on the horizon, the Pacific Islands Forum is a chance for Australia and Pacific nations to show the world what working together can achieve, strengthening our region’s security as well as our shared future.

How is climate change affecting the Pacific?

Climate change is a shared threat for Australia and countries in our region. From the Solomon Islands to Sydney, communities are being pushed to their limits by worsening heat, bushfires, floods, storms and rising seas. 

In the Pacific Islands, accelerating sea level rise, increasingly destructive cyclones, and damage to the marine ecosystems upon which their livelihoods and economies depend, are all issues being faced today.

While they are some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, Pacific island countries have helped shape global climate action for nearly 50 years. Pacific island leaders have worked tirelessly to ensure that global efforts align with what the science tells us is necessary for their countries’ survival. They have earned a reputation for punching above their weight in global climate action and were instrumental in securing landmark global deals like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement. 

Today, Pacific Island countries are leading a diplomatic campaign for a global phase out of coal, oil and gas, calling for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. The World Health Organization, European Parliament and thousands of others have already backed the proposal. And, earlier this year, in a case driven by Vanuatu students, the International Court of Justice declared that tackling climate change is a legal obligation for all nations. These moves show how Pacific nations are shaping global rules, and raising expectations for countries like Australia to follow through.

What is COP31 and what does it have to do with the Pacific Islands Forum?

COP31 is shorthand for the 31st “Conference of the Parties” to the United Nations climate treaty – the world’s biggest climate meeting, where governments from around the world negotiate how they will cut pollution and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Australia is currently bidding to co-host COP31 in 2026 alongside Pacific nations. The United Nations will make a decision on next year’s host in the coming months. If successful, it will be the largest diplomatic event ever held in Australia and a defining moment for our region.

The Pacific Islands Forum is directly linked to Australia’s bid to co-host COP31. It’s where Pacific leaders can set shared priorities ahead of COP31, ensuring the summit reflects the voices and leadership of the Pacific. For Australia, how we show up at PIF will shape whether we’re seen as a genuine partner in the lead up to COP31.

What do Pacific leaders want to see from Australia?

Pacific leaders are watching closely as Australia sets our 2035 climate target, and they’re calling on the Australian Government to stop approving new polluting fossil fuel projects that are making the climate crisis worse.

If Australia wants to be seen as a credible partner in the region, we need to set the strongest possible 2035 climate target, back it with credible plans and real investment, and commit to phasing out fossil fuels at home. Anything below a 75% cut is not considered credible by Pacific leaders.

Co-hosting the 2026 UN climate talks is a chance for Australia and Pacific nations to show the world what working together can achieve, strengthening our region’s security as well as our shared future.

The post Why the Pacific Islands Forum matters for Australia, and for climate action appeared first on Climate Council.

What began as a group of 27 Pacific Island law students is now a turning point that strengthens a struggling multilateral system for climate action. The Vanuatu government was also a driving force behind this first ever legal opinion on climate change. With these proceedings, we are seeing a familiar storyline play out in the international arena, one that the Pacific is all too familiar with – that if we want to survive the climate crisis, it is up to us to chart the path of least destruction. Whether or not the world follows our lead has differed over history.

Ten years ago, those of us present in Paris cried tears of resolve and pride when Republic of the Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, Tony De Brum, masterfully led the High Ambition Coalition to negotiate and secure what we now know as the Paris Agreement. The world then followed suit with their national emissions targets, some worthy of the phrase “climate action”, and some not. In 2022, Tuvalu became the first country to call for a Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty, with 135 cities and subnational governments today backing that same call. Over the years, Pacific Island states have attempted to set high bars for climate ambition and prayed that those with the power to impact global emissions saw our survival as worth fighting for.

Today, this call-and-response is again at play for the Pacific. When we became aware of Australia’s intentions to host COP31 as an Australia-Pacific COP, we saw the opportunity to chart a path encouraging Australia’s climate leadership. But it has been no easy feat. When the Australian government signalled its addiction to gas expansion in Canberra last May, a group of Pacific Islanders took to parliament lawns calling for a renewable energy transition instead – both domestically and within the Pacific region. Climate Minister Chris Bowen’s recent visit to the Pacific indicated that Australia’s direction, at least in terms of a Pacific energy transition, could be looking positive. On this four-nation tour, Australia committed $16.4 million to upgrade Palau’s electricity network and shift to renewable energy. This includes the 15MW Palau Solar Farm, one of the Pacific’s largest solar power projects. However, President Surangel Whipps Jr of Palau has made it clear that a “Pacific COP” would require more than renewable energy investments. It would call on Australia to address its gas addiction and position as one of the top-three fossil fuel exporters in the world.

The issue of Australia’s coal and gas exports is the stain on Australia’s potential climate legacy. Even as Australia courts Pacific leaders in their bid for COP31, Environment Minister Murray Watt recently approved the extension of the Woodside’s North West Shelf gas plant, one of the world’s biggest fossil gas projects, prolonging its life from 2030 to 2070. The extension is expected to be responsible for about 87.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year in the decades ahead. Acts of hypocrisy like this make it increasingly difficult to trust Australia as a partner to Pacific peoples, as continued fossil fuel exports exacerbate climate disasters across our islands.

So as we skate dangerously close to the 1.5 degree target set in Paris, we cannot allow the next five years to be where we lose our fight against the climate crisis. Australia’s current emissions reduction target of 43% by 2030 is woefully short of what’s required to keep global heating below 1.5 degrees, and predictions of its revised emissions target due this year are still unclear. As a potential COP host within this critical timeframe, Australia has the opportunity and responsibility to up its climate game significantly – but only by listening to Pacific co-hosts and following our lead.

We have dreams and pathways for a Pacific free from fossil fuels and climate catastrophe, and we are actively trying to secure the resources and relationships to make that a reality. We have employed everything at our disposal to realise this dream, from diplomacy to litigation to grassroots activism. It is clear that both history and international law are on our side. What remains to be seen is how Australia responds to the role they’ve been cast in the story of our survival.

Author: Fenton Lutunatabua, 350.org Deputy Head of Regions and founder of the Pacific Climate Warriors.

Photo: ABC News

The post An international court ruling, proof that the world can follow the Pacific’s lead on climate action appeared first on Climate Council.

Climate Council Preliminary Analysis, “Obligations of the States in Respect of Climate Council”.

The advice shows:

1. Countries have very strong obligations under international law to cut climate pollution and prevent significant harm to the global climate that sustains human life. 

The Court refers both to climate treaties and other bodies of international law.

2. Australia is obligated to set strong, science aligned climate targets.

The Court makes clear that it “considers the 1.5°C threshold to be the parties’ agreed primary temperature goal for limiting the global average temperature increase under the Paris Agreement.” It states that countries “Nationally Determined Contribution” (NDC),  which includes the 2035 climate target, must be in line with the Paris Agreement goal to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C. The advice further emphasises that each country must “do its utmost to ensure that the NDCs it puts forward represent its highest possible ambition in order to realize the objectives of the [Paris] Agreement.” 

Yesterday, the Climate Council released the latest scientific data showing that this goal is almost out of reach for Australia due to a decade of delayed action (2013-2022). That research shows net zero by 2035 is the only climate target available to Australia with a strong chance of contributing to holding global warming below 2°C.  However, the Court makes clear that to be aligned with Paris obligations a country’s actions should be consistent with holding warming to 1.5°C. Therefore Australia may be obligated to contribute to global efforts to slash climate pollution as well as take steps at home – for instance building new industries (e.g. green iron) and preventing new fossil fuel projects.

The Federal Government has accelerated climate action in the last three years, including reaching 43% renewable power in Australia’s main grid. The action must now be strengthened to meet our international obligations.

The Australian Government is expected to make its decision on Australia’s 2035 climate target in the coming months. The Court’s advice makes clear that a target should be as strong as possible and accompanied by plans and policies to implement that target. It can further be argued that, to comply with international law, this judgement requires Australia to both set a strong national target and take action on exported emissions to help hold global heating to 1.5°C.

3. On-going production, consumption and granting of licenses and subsidies for fossil fuels could constitute wrongful acts under international law. Wrongful acts may trigger obligations to compensate other countries suffering from climate harm. 

The Court states that: “What constitutes a wrongful act is not the emissions in and of themselves, but actions or omissions causing significant harm to the climate system in breach of a state’s international obligations.”

The Federal Government has argued that Australia is not responsible for the emissions from Australia’s vast exports of coal and gas. The Court disagrees. Australia is one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels, therefore there is a strong case that ongoing support and expansion of Australia’s export industry constitutes “significant harm to the climate system”.

The Court finds that individual countries can still be found responsible, even if it is hard to identify a specific share of harm they have caused. The Court notes that it is “scientifically possible to determine each State’s total contribution to global emissions, taking into account both historical and current emissions.” 

Given Australia has consistently been one of the highest per capita polluters in the world and one of the world’s most prolific fossil fuel exporters, it can also be argued that Australia’s relative share of harm is significant. This will also likely be argued in respect to other countries that are major polluters and fossil fuel exporters.

The Court states that wrongful acts – which could include breaching treaty obligations or failing to regulate climate pollution – under international law could trigger repatriation obligations, including obligations to compensate other countries harmed by climate disasters. 

The Court also finds an obligation for countries to limit climate pollution from private actors in its jurisdiction. This appears to be a broad definition that would apply to fossil fuels production for international or domestic use.

The Court’s advice gives the Australian government reason to consider the totality of Australia’s contribution to climate harm, including our exported climate pollution. In particular, the Court’s decision is pertinent to the Federal Government’s review of Australia’s national environment laws. Currently, when the Federal Environment Minister considers whether to approve new fossil fuel projects there is no provision in the act to consider the climate pollution from that project. Given the Court’s very strong findings, it will be difficult for the Australian government to argue that it has the “highest possible ambition in order to realize the objectives of the [Paris] Agreement”, if it does not reform the environment laws and/or take other substantive measures to prevent the expansion of Australia’s fossil fuel industry.

The post Implications of the International Court of Justice decision for Australia appeared first on Climate Council.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read the original article. Written by Climate Council Fellow Wesley Morgan and Liam Moore.

Australia has long tried to be two things at once – a trusted friend to Pacific nations in a bid to reduce China’s influence, and a giant exporter of fossil fuels. This diplomatic tightrope has become increasingly hard to walk, as Pacific nations see climate change as an existential threat.

This week, Australia’s government was forced to make a choice in a very public forum. It chose fossil fuels.

Disappointed by the slow pace of United Nations climate talks, Vanuatu and other Pacific nations launched a case at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands to clarify the obligations countries have to prevent harm to the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations.

While international climate negotiations are often conducted behind closed doors, this case is being broadcast in public. We can clearly see the arguments Australia has laid out and the countries it has aligned itself with.

In the courtroom on Monday, Australia sided with major emitters and fossil fuel exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and China to try and minimise their legal liability in contributing to climate change.

What’s at stake in this case?

This week marks a milestone in a five-year legal campaign, travelling from a university tutorial in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, through the halls of the United Nations in New York and now to the world’s court in the Hague. The International Court of Justice is the only international court able to settle disputes between United Nations member states.

In 2019, 27 law students at the University of the South Pacific were given a challenge: find the most ambitious legal pathways towards climate justice. They decided filing a case with the world court fitted the bill.

In 2023, Vanuatu and other nations succeeded in passing a resolution at the UN General Assembly requiring the world court to give an advisory opinion on two questions – what obligations do states have under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions, and what are the legal consequences for states causing “significant harm” to the earth’s climate?

Ahead of the hearing, the world court has received a record number of written submissions. Justices will hear two weeks of oral submissions. They will then produce an advisory opinion, expected to set a new benchmark in international law, by clarifying the legal obligations countries have to tackle emissions.

While an advisory opinion is not binding, the court’s findings will feed into national court cases and UN climate talks.

For Australia, this case presents a direct challenge. It has no plans to phase down fossil fuel exports. In fact, it plans to expand them.

If the court’s opinion draws clear lines between fossil fuel exporters and climate damage, it could have severe implications for Australia. It could, for instance, pave the way to compensation lawsuits for climate damage.

Since 2000, Australia has approved more than 700 oil, gas and coal projects. Dozens more are in the approvals pipeline. Just this week the federal government cleared the way for three new coal mines.

Australia is now one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and gas. This is relatively new. While coal has been exported since 1801, large-scale exports of liquefied natural gas only began a decade ago.

When burned overseas, emissions from Australia’s fossil fuel exports are now more than double those of its entire domestic economy. These emissions damage our global climate, increasing risk of harm to people in Australia and worldwide.

What did Australia argue at the Hague?

In bringing the case, Vanuatu has argued actions causing climate change are unlawful under a range of international obligations including the law of the sea, human rights law and environmental law.

Australian delegates commended Vanuatu’s leadership in bringing this case and reiterated Australia’s commitment to working with the Pacific on climate.

But after the diplomatic niceties, Australian Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue got down to business. He told the court only the Paris Agreement – which requires countries to set targets to cut domestic emissions – should apply when it comes to mitigating climate change.

Donaghue also argued greenhouse gas emissions are different to, say, one country’s toxic waste damaging the environment of another. This, he argued, was because emissions have many sources. Donaghue and the Australian delegation argued the court should take a narrow view of obligations to cut emissions and suggested responsibility for harms caused by climate change could not be pinned on individual states. Australia has also argued protecting human rights does not extend to obligations to tackle climate change.

In 2022, Torres Strait islanders told a UN Human Rights Committee that a failure to address climate change violated their human rights. In response, the Australian government used very similar arguments, claiming climate change was best addressed through UN climate negotiations.

What does this mean?

The court’s opinion will be handed down next year.

Despite Australia’s arguments, recent rulings by other courts and tribunals suggest the court may not decide in our favour.

For example in May, the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea found greenhouse gas emissions were a form of marine pollution (because they acidify and heat the ocean), which countries have obligations to prevent. The tribunal rejected arguments that state obligations were limited to implementing the Paris Agreement.

A ruling on a similar case from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected before the end of the year. Relationships with Pacific states are likely to come under strain as the proceedings in the Hague roll on. Matters could come to a head next year, when the court will release its advisory opinion.

A decision is still pending on whether Australia will host COP31, the 2026 UN climate talks, alongside Pacific island countries.

If our COP bid succeeds, it could give Canberra a chance to signal a shift away from fossil fuel exports in favour of green exports such as critical minerals and green iron. Doing so would align Australia’s interests with the Pacific – and present it much more clearly as a partner of choice.

The post Trusted partner to the Pacific, or giant fossil fuel exporter? This week, Australia chose the latter appeared first on Climate Council.

Read the original article. Written by Climate Council Fellow Wesley Morgan

Japan has a very clear vision of what the Asia-Pacific’s clean energy future looks like – decarbonisation, but done slowly and with a longer role for coal, oil and gas.

It was on full display this week as energy ministers from nine South-East Asian nations, Japan and Australia gathered in Jakarta to hash out a shared vision for Asia’s energy future, under Japan’s Asian Zero Emissions Community (AZEC) initiative launched last year.

But there’s a clear problem here. Japan’s vision clashes directly with Australia’s efforts to become a green export superpower. And worse, Japanese investment is a key reason why Australia has emerged as an unlikely gas export giant.

Energy security is front of mind for Japanese policymakers worried about keeping the lights on across their import-dependent archipelago. While Tokyo does have green energy plans, its short-term push is all about prolonging the life of fossil fuels – coupled with carbon capture.

Labor came to power promising to act faster on climate change. By decade’s end, Australia should be largely run on renewables, and Canberra wants to make clean exports a reality.

But Japan is making that harder by financing gas exploitation in Australia. This could lock our fast-growing and energy-hungry region into much longer reliance on dirty fossil fuels and questionable carbon capture plans.

There’s a real danger Australia’s green export plans could be washed away by a tide of new fossil fuels.

So what are Japan’s zero emission plans?

In 2022, the Japanese Prime Minister Kishido Fumio began promoting a triple breakthrough – efforts combining decarbonisation, economic growth and energy security. Fumio launched the Asian Zero Emissions Community to encourage the idea.

While these goals sound reasonable, the devil is in the detail. The world’s fourth-largest economy, Japan has long been dependent on imported coal, oil and gas – and more so after the 2011 Fukushima disaster forced nuclear plant shutdowns. Even as the world belatedly scrambles to tackle climate change, Japanese policymakers are still focused on keeping fossil fuels flowing. Many AZEC projects aim to use fossil fuels for electricity.

The government’s energy policies explicitly aim to secure long-term supplies of fossil fuels and encourage Japanese firms to be involved. Japan is now the world’s second-largest public financier of international fossil fuel projects, spending more than A$7 billion every year.

How does this align with net zero? Japan claims new fossil fuel plants can slash emissions by burning ammonia in coal plants, blending hydrogen with fossil gas in gas plants and ramping up carbon capture and storage.

Each of these technologies is expensive and largely unproven. They cannot cut emissions at anywhere near the scale or speed needed. And every million spent on propping up fossil fuels is a million not spent on renewables and storage.

Japanese funding makes Australian gas flow

Japan sees Australia as a friendly nation with huge fossil fuel resources and longstanding trade links.

Any changes to coal and gas extraction have been met with Japanese lobbying. When Queensland hiked coal royalties in 2022, Japan’s ambassador to Australia, Shingo Yamagami, pushed back hard. The move, he warned, could have “widespread effects on Japanese investment beyond the coal industry”.

When the federal government strengthened the Safeguard Mechanism, our main industrial emissions policy, costs increased for some gas projects. In response, Yamagami dialed up his rhetoric, warning the neon lights of Tokyo would go out without Australian energy exports.

Japan isn’t burning it all at home. It on-sells more liquefied natural gas (LNG) to other Asian nations than it imports from Australia. Without Japan’s funding on favourable terms, our LNG producers would not be able to compete with lower-cost producers such as Qatar.

Given a global gas glut is now forecast to arrive by 2026, Australia should be looking to dial down LNG. But Japan won’t let that happen.

Just this year, Japan loaned $2.5 billion to help Woodside develop Western Australia’s massive Scarborough gas field.

Independent and green – or dependent and dirty?

Domestically, Australia is greening. Coal is retiring as renewables and storage rush in. Last year, 40% of the power in our main grid came from clean energy and more than 80% of Australia’s total power needs should be provided by renewables by 2030. But internationally, we’re now the second-largest exporter of carbon emissions from fossil fuels.

With major reserves of critical minerals (essential for renewables and batteries) and world class renewable resources, Australia is ideally placed to export green commodities to the region.

The Albanese government is promoting Australia as a “renewable energy superpower” and will invest public money through the Future Made in Australia plan to give local green industries a chance of global success.

But Japan has a different vision. Funding flows from Tokyo have already distorted Australia’s energy market and boosted demand for gas in the region. Worse, it has made it harder for Australian leaders to create future-focused industries. New gas projects pull investment, workers and supply-chain capacity away from clean energy industries.

It’s not that Japan is anti-renewable. It’s just slow to move. Tokyo has ambitious plans to become the world’s top producer of energy from offshore wind.

Recent modelling shows Japan could achieve 90% clean energy by 2035, gaining far greater energy independence and slashing reliance on expensive fossil fuels. If Japan took this route, we would likely see its Australian investments shift from gas to green exports.

But right now, Japan’s focus is on keeping fossil fuels flowing.

Australia has to help shape Asia’s energy transition. If we don’t, we risk our future being made in Tokyo.

The post Which future? Japan’s net zero vision for the region boosts gas and threatens green exports in Australia appeared first on Climate Council.

Read the original article. Written by Senior Researcher Wesley Morgan

The current visit to Australia by China’s Premier Li Qiang may have taken the heat out of recent tensions between the two nations. But Australia remains embroiled with China in a tussle for influence in the Pacific – a fight in which climate ambition is key.

That’s why, at a diplomatic level, we should be concerned about Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s suggestion the Coalition would abandon Australia’s 2030 emissions target should it win the next election. Such a move would be damaging on many levels. Not least, it would undermine Australia’s relations with our Pacific neighbours – nations that regard climate action as vital to their survival, and for whom Australia aims to be the security partner of choice.

Winding back Australia’s 2030 target – a 43% reduction in emissions, based on 2005 levels – would go against the spirit of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The deal requires countries to communicate national targets to cut emissions, and to set stronger targets every five years. No other country has wound back their climate targets.

Even if the Coalition wins office, Dutton is unlikely to have the Senate numbers to scrap the 2030 target. But the potential implications of such a move for our standing in the Pacific are well worth considering

How is China travelling on the Paris Agreement?

When it comes to climate action, China is a paradox. It is the world’s biggest consumer of coal and the largest carbon emitter. But it is also leading the world’s shift to clean energy.

Renewables in China are booming – especially solar. China installed more solar capacity in 2023 than the whole world did in 2022, and is expected to install even more this year. China is also a world leader in electric vehicles. Battery and hybrid cars make up almost 40% of all new cars sold there.

Under its current Paris Agreement target, China plans to reach more than 1,200 gigawatts of installed wind and solar power by 2030. It’s on track to achieve the target next year – five years ahead of schedule.

China also pledged to reach peak emissions before 2030 and there are signs this target has already been met. Now, China has indicated it may strengthen its 2030 target, and at the same time will set a new 2035 target.

Such a move by China would help strengthen global cooperation on climate. All parties to the Paris Agreement are expected to set new, stronger, targets every five years and the next round of targets are due before the United Nations climate meeting, COP30, in Brazil next year.

China’s growing presence in the Pacific

At the same time as making good progress on its climate commitments, China has been expanding its presence in the Pacific. This has changed the dynamic of a region that has long been aligned with the West – notwithstanding concerns such as France’s role in New Caledonia and the impacts of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands.

In recent years China has become a major provider of aid for Pacific island countries, especially for much-needed infrastructure projects.

China is also seeking new security arrangements in the Pacific. In April 2022, for example, it signed a security deal with Solomon Islands. The details were not made public. However, a leaked draft contains provisions allowing for Chinese military presence and ship resupply. China has also sought regional security arrangements with Pacific island countries.

Defence officials in Canberra are increasingly concerned about the prospect of China using infrastructure loans as leverage to secure a naval base in the Pacific, or even to station missiles in the region. This would critically undermine Australia’s long-held strategic interest in denying access to our maritime approaches for powers with interests different to our own.

For our Pacific neighbours, climate action is crucial

In light of all this, what would happen if Australia weakened its 2030 emissions targets? We would be isolated on the global stage and branded as a climate laggard. And island nations in our Pacific region would be paying close attention.

Pacific island countries have long been clear that climate change is their greatest security threat. As Fiji’s then-defence minister Inia Seruiratu told a regional security dialogue in 2022:

machine guns, fighter jets, grey ships and green battalions are not our primary security concern. Waves are crashing at our doorsteps, winds are battering our homes, we are being assaulted by this enemy from many angles.

In Australia, successive governments have expanded coal and gas exports and have been slow to cut emissions. For this reason, Canberra has struggled to convince our Pacific neighbours it is serious about regional security.

Since the current Labor government legislated a 2030 emissions target, there has been something of a rapprochement. However, Pacific leaders want a stronger target still, and remain concerned about the approval of new fossil fuel projects.

The Coalition’s foreign affairs spokesman, Simon Birmingham, knows climate ambition is important for our regional relations. During a tour of the Pacific in 2022, he said the Coalition should have heeded Pacific calls to set a stronger 2030 target while it was in office.

However Dutton, should he become prime minister, would have a tough time convincing Pacific leaders he is serious about their main security threat. Who could forget that low moment in 2015 when, as immigration minister, he was caught on a hot-mic making jokes about island nations disappearing beneath the waves?

Winding back Australia’s 2030 emissions target would undermine our standing in the Pacific, and damage Australia’s prospects of countering China’s influence.

Ultimately, Pacific island countries want both Australia and China to shift to renewables and move away from fossil fuels as fast as possible. Expectations are high that Australia will do its part. That’s only fair, if Australia wants to cement its place in the Pacific family.

The post Peter Dutton’s plan to cut the 2030 climate target would be an own goal for Australia’s Pacific ambitions appeared first on Climate Council.

Read the original article. Written by Senior Researcher Wesley Morgan

Without funding from Japan, many of Australia’s gas projects wouldn’t have gone ahead. Massive public loans from Japanese taxpayers are propping up Australia’s now-enormous fossil gas industry. Japan is also becoming a major gas trader and today exports more gas to other countries than it imports from Australia.

Even as the world rapidly shifts to a clean energy future, Japan is emerging as a fossil fuel holdout. The world’s fourth biggest economy, Japan has long been dependent on foreign sources of fossil fuels. Even as China has filled its deserts with solar farms, Japan has focused on gas.

These projects make it harder for Australia to achieve its climate goals and undermine the shift to clean energy industries. New gas projects threaten to divert workforce and investment away from these export industries.

But this can change. As Australia spends big on green power, green manufacturing and green exports – as part of the government’s Future Made in Australia policies – the enduring partnership between the two nations could go green.

Developing new clean energy partnerships with energy-hungry Asian nations such as Japan, China and South Korea could boost climate cooperation, grow new clean energy exports and promote investment.

Japanese funding, Australian gas

Worried about energy security, Japan is subsidising new offshore gas projects in Australia which probably wouldn’t go ahead otherwise.

Japan is the world’s largest provider of international public finance for gas production. While other nations – including Australia – have pledged to end international finance for fossil fuels, Japan has kept the money flowing.

For example, last month, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation provided Australia’s biggest gas corporation, Woodside, with A$1.5 billion in loans to develop the Scarborough gas field offshore from Western Australia. Japanese power utility JERA also received $1.2billion from the Japanese bank to acquire a 15% stake in the project, gaining rights to a share of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced.

Without this kind of financial support, new gas projects would be less likely to proceed.

It is not certain other funders would step in. Gas production in Australia is relatively expensive, due to remote locations and high operating costs. Over the past decade, Australian gas projects have typically been delivered late and over budget and have delivered poor returns for investors.

In the years ahead, Australian gas projects will struggle to deliver gas at internationally competitive prices. In 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a surge in demand for LNG. Now, the world is facing a massive oversupply of gas.

In two years time, large new LNG volumes will come online from lower-cost producers in the Middle East – mainly Qatar – and in North America, just as demand for gas falls in key markets. The Australian government’s own analysis projects a much lower price of LNG from these producers than the cost of production in Australia.

If we left it up to the market, Australia’s increasingly uncompetitive gas exports would lose market share. But it’s not being left up to the market. Japan is underwriting new gas projects to make money-losing projects seem viable. And that makes it much harder for Australia to shift to a lucrative green economy.

Tokyo’s neon lights will keep glowing

Last year, Japanese ambassador Yamagami Shingo claimed Australian gas exports were crucial to keeping the neon lights of Tokyo glowing.

In reality, Japan is now reselling more LNG to other Asian nations than it imports from Australia. Japanese gas corporations are contracted to buy more gas over the next decade than Japan will use at home, and are planning to sell excess gas in other markets in Asia.

This is a direct result of official policy, which aims to create new demand for gas in Southeast Asia by offering financial support for gas import terminals and gas-fired power plants and supporting Japanese corporations to supply that demand.

This is not hidden. It’s an open goal. By 2030, the Japanese government wants its corporations to “handle” 100 million tonnes of LNG each year – far more than Japan will use to meet its own energy needs.

Why? Japan’s government sees maintaining influence in the region’s LNG market as important to its own energy security.

Renewables offer Japan true energy security

The gas industry has tried to brand gas as cleaner than coal or a transition fuel. In reality, gas is a dangerous fossil fuel. It’s largely methane, 80 times more potent in heating the planet than carbon dioxide. Methane has added almost a third (30%) of the extra heat building up since the industrial revolution.

Woodside chief Meg O’Neill claims Australian gas exports “can help Asia to decarbonise by replacing coal”. But gas can be just as polluting as coal. Methane leaks are very common across the gas supply chain. You only need a very low amount of leakage for gas to be on par with coal for pollution.

While Japan buys and resells Australian gas, it’s own power grid is greening. The government now plans to double the role of renewables – rising from 18% of power generation in 2019 to 37% by 2030 – while gas-fired power shrinks.

Japan’s demand for gas at home is already falling. It fell 18% in the decade to 2022. In 2023 alone, demand for gas fell by 8%.

Shifting to renewables even faster would improve Japan’s energy security by reducing dependence on imported gas. Recent analysis suggests Japan could achieve a 90% clean energy system by 2035.

Without Japanese funds, Australian gas would be dwindling

In the five years to 2017, Australia’s gas industry grew enormously. By 2019 Australia became the world’s largest LNG exporter. Analysis from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis points out this is remarkable given how remote and relatively small Australia’s gas reserves are.

International subsidies – including Japan’s largesse – helped turn Australia into a fossil fuel giant. But these subsidies will not serve our interests long term. Continuing to allow subsidised investment in new gas projects diverts investment, workforce, and supply-chain capacity away from the green industries the government wants to grow for the future.

This doesn’t mean turning our back on Japan. Japan has a huge need for energy. But it can get it without resorting to fossil fuels. Japan could partner with Australia to supply critical minerals and green metals for batteries and renewables, green ammonia for fertilisers and industry, and green hydrogen for transport and industry.

Acknowledgements: Ben McLeod (Quantitative analyst, Climate Council) and Josh Runciman (Lead analyst, Australian Gas, IEEFA) provided data used in the article.

The post Climate holdout Japan drove Australia’s LNG boom. Could the partnership go green? appeared first on Climate Council.

These are positive steps that will help Australia continue to rebuild its reputation on the world stage and regain the trust of communities across our region. Our delegation has an opportunity to keep building on this momentum in the final push for progress before the conference ends. 

With Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen now in Dubai for the second week of the Conference, firm commitments and leadership are needed from the Albanese Government. The main measure of Australia’s success on the international stage will be its support for an orderly and just phase out of coal, oil and gas.

To be successful at COP28, Australia will need to do three things:

1. Commit to a global phase out of fossil fuels

The world’s reliance on coal, oil, and gas is polluting our atmosphere and overheating the planet. The impacts are all around us with 2023 now certain to be the hottest year ever recorded. Every new coal, oil, or gas development further endangers us all. This is why all countries, including Australia, need to commit to a phase out of fossil fuels like coal and gas. If we don’t start cutting pollution rapidly then we risk triggering catastrophic and irreversible changes that will lead to even more extreme weather events and widespread devastation.

Negotiations in Dubai are now focused on securing a global agreement to move rapidly away from coal, oil and gas. In the interests of all Australians, our government should be firmly backing this in.

2. Financially contribute to the Loss and Damage Fund

The new international fund set up to address ongoing climate losses and damage is a vital step forward and a hard-fought win by Pacific Iisland countries and other vulnerable communities worldwide. With other nations – including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, United Arab Emirates and Germany – already contributing to the fund, Australia must also do its part. We need to support our Pacific neighbours by actively contributing to this global fund, and recognising our responsibilities as a major fossil fuel producer. 

3. Support Pacific priorities

Our Pacific neighbours are fighting tooth and nail to secure our shared future, and Australia can’t keep adding fuel to the fire. We should stand alongside vulnerable countries in our region and give our all to secure a better future for everyone. Backing a fossil fuel phase out will build trust with Pacific island nations, which is vital if Australia is to successfully co-host this event in our region in three years’ time. We need to tell the world that we are ready to move away from our polluting past as a fossil fuel heavyweight, towards our future as a clean energy powerhouse.

Find out what makes COP28 important here

The post To be successful at COP28, Australia will need to do three things appeared first on Climate Council.