The host of this year’s United Nations climate summit has called for a major acceleration in the electrification of transport, buildings and industry, arguing that a larger share of global energy consumption should come from electricity within the next decade to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Turkey’s environment minister Murat Kurum, who will preside over the COP31 climate conference in November alongside Australia, said the world should aim for electricity to provide 35% of final energy demand by 2035. Electricity currently accounts for about 20% of final energy use worldwide.

The proposal was presented as part of discussions among governments preparing priorities for the COP31 summit, which will be held in Antalya, Turkey.Electricity already represents a significant share of global power generation, with around one-third of electricity produced from renewable sources.

However, major energy-consuming sectors including transport, heating and heavy industry remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels.Nearly four-fifths of final energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels, according to current global energy patterns, leaving many economies dependent on coal, oil and gas for everyday activities and industrial production.

Kurum said expanding electrification across the economy would help accelerate the transition toward a lower-carbon energy system.He argued that replacing fossil fuel use with electricity in areas such as vehicles, buildings and manufacturing could reduce exposure to unstable energy markets while supporting climate goals.

The call came as governments gathered in Bonn for climate negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The meetings are focused on shaping the agenda and priorities for COP31.Australia’s climate change minister Chris Bowen, speaking alongside Kurum and UN climate chief Simon Stiell, said electrification and investment in clean energy had become central themes in early discussions.

Bowen said reducing fossil fuel dependence could help address both climate-related disasters and concerns over energy security.He pointed to examples ranging from industrial electrification in major manufacturing economies to clean cooking initiatives in African communities and renewable energy projects replacing diesel power in Pacific island nations.Renewable energy, he said, had become increasingly competitive as technology costs declined.

The push for electrification comes as countries face renewed concerns over energy prices and supply security. Recent geopolitical tensions, including the Iran war, have contributed to volatility in fossil fuel markets and pushed oil prices above $100 a barrel.Electric vehicles and heat pumps are among the technologies already available to support electrification.

However, adoption rates vary widely between countries due to differences in infrastructure, investment levels and government policy.Supporters of electrification argue that replacing direct fossil fuel use with electricity generated from renewable sources can significantly reduce emissions. However, the climate benefits depend on the carbon intensity of electricity systems and the pace at which renewable capacity expands.

The COP31 discussions are expected to focus on practical measures for increasing clean energy deployment, strengthening energy resilience and supporting countries as they transition away from fossil fuels.Kurum said the proposed 35% electricity target would be a central priority of Turkey’s COP31 presidency.

The summit will bring together governments seeking to balance emissions reductions with economic development, energy security and the need to adapt to increasingly severe climate impacts.

Energy experts have criticised former British prime minister Tony Blair’s call for greater oil and gas extraction, arguing that moving away from the country’s net zero targets would increase long-term economic and climate risks.

The criticism followed an essay by Blair in which he argued that the United Kingdom should use its remaining oil and gas reserves and reconsider its target of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Blair’s position has renewed debate over the future of the UK’s energy policy, particularly as the country faces rising concerns over energy security, extreme weather and the cost of living.Energy specialists said expanding fossil fuel production would not provide a reliable solution to energy challenges and could expose households and businesses to continued volatility in international fuel markets.

Ed Matthew, UK programme director at the climate thinktank E3G, described Blair’s intervention as out of step with current energy and environmental pressures.Matthew said recent heat records and international energy disruptions demonstrated the risks associated with continued dependence on fossil fuels.

He argued that renewable energy offered a more stable alternative because operating costs were low once infrastructure was built.Blair’s comments came as the UK recorded periods of unusually high temperatures and increased solar power generation. Scientists have linked rising temperatures and more frequent heat extremes to climate change driven largely by greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Medical professionals warned that extreme heat could increase health risks, particularly for older people and young children. Farmers also reported pressure on livestock and crops, with economic losses expected to exceed hundreds of millions of pounds.The debate has centred on whether the UK should prioritise domestic fossil fuel extraction or accelerate investment in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies.

Supporters of increased oil and gas production argue that domestic resources could improve energy independence and reduce reliance on imported fuels. Critics say fossil fuel markets remain globally connected and that new extraction would not shield consumers from international price changes.

The UK has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, a target that requires substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across electricity generation, transport, industry and buildings.Experts opposing Blair’s proposal said abandoning the target could weaken investment certainty for clean energy industries and slow the development of technologies needed for the transition.

Renewable energy capacity has expanded in recent years, with falling costs making technologies such as solar and wind increasingly competitive. However, the transition also requires improvements in energy storage, grid infrastructure and industrial adaptation.

Blair has previously questioned aspects of current climate policy and argued that energy strategies should focus more heavily on technological development and economic competitiveness.His latest comments have drawn attention because they come during a period of heightened global energy uncertainty.

International conflicts and supply disruptions have contributed to fluctuations in oil and gas prices, reinforcing arguments on both sides of the energy debate.Climate policy experts said the central challenge for governments was balancing energy reliability, affordability and emissions reduction.

They argued that investment decisions made now would influence the UK’s energy system for decades, with consequences for both economic resilience and climate risks.

Australia’s One Nation party has proposed a resource policy modeled in part on Norway’s approach to oil and gas wealth, arguing that greater public participation in energy projects could deliver stronger returns for taxpayers and create a sovereign wealth fund for future generations.

The proposal has attracted attention for its ambition but also prompted questions from energy analysts about investment risks, expected timelines for returns, and its compatibility with Australia’s climate objectives.One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has pointed to Norway’s success in capturing value from its petroleum resources through close cooperation between government and industry.

Under the party’s proposal, the Australian government would be able to acquire ownership stakes in new offshore oil and gas developments through a dedicated investment vehicle.Unlike Norway’s system, however, participation would not be mandatory. Companies would retain the option of whether to accept government investment and public ownership in their projects.

Supporters argue that the approach would allow Australians to benefit more directly from the development of national resources. Critics counter that the voluntary structure could significantly limit the policy’s effectiveness.

According to David Hanson, who has advocated for a Norway-style model, the Scandinavian country’s experience demonstrates the benefits of partnership between governments and energy companies supported by strong fiscal incentives.However, the opt-in nature of One Nation’s proposal creates important differences from Norway’s framework.

Because companies would be free to decline government participation, analysts suggest that projects most likely to seek public investment could be those facing the highest levels of commercial uncertainty.Josh Runciman, lead gas analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the proposal raises questions about whether taxpayers should be exposed to exploration and appraisal risks in an industry where governments typically do not possess the same technical expertise as private-sector operators.

The concern reflects a broader challenge in resource investment. Early-stage exploration projects carry significant uncertainty, with many failing to reach commercial production despite substantial investment.Under One Nation’s proposal, the government would reportedly act as a passive commercial partner, operating at arm’s length from day-to-day project decisions.

At the same time, Hanson has suggested that the government would have greater influence over how its share of production is used once projects begin generating oil or gas.According to the policy outline, the government’s share of production could be directed toward domestic priorities, including fertilizer manufacturing, energy generation and fuel refining.

Surplus production could then be exported, with proceeds used to reduce public debt and build sovereign wealth.The proposal is designed to increase domestic benefits from Australia’s natural resources without imposing higher taxes on energy companies. However, analysts note that this feature may also limit the scale and speed of any financial returns.

Because the plan applies only to future offshore exploration projects and relies on voluntary participation, the timeline for generating revenue is expected to be lengthy.Runciman estimates that many of the projects likely to fall under the policy remain at very early stages of development.

As a result, substantial production and associated government returns may not materialize for at least a decade.That means even if the policy were enacted in the near future, significant additional public revenue would probably not begin flowing until the late 2030s.The delayed timetable also raises questions about how quickly a sovereign wealth fund could accumulate assets sufficient to influence Australia’s long-term fiscal position.

The debate has inevitably drawn comparisons with alternative proposals that seek to increase public returns from resource extraction through taxation rather than direct ownership.One frequently cited model comes from the Superpower Institute, chaired by former competition regulator Allan Fels and supported by businessman and climate advocate Ross Garnaut.

The institute has proposed a 40% two-way cashflow tax, described as a “fair share levy,” that would apply to oil and gas projects.Under that framework, the effective marginal tax rate on oil and gas production would rise to 58%, while companies would also receive a 40% refund on losses.

Advocates argue that the structure mirrors key features of Norway’s resource taxation system by sharing both risks and rewards between government and industry.Unlike One Nation’s proposal, the tax would apply to existing projects as well as future developments.

The institute estimates that it could generate approximately A$9.5 billion annually during an initial transition period, with revenues potentially exceeding A$18 billion in 2031 before gradually declining as global demand for fossil fuels falls over time.Supporters of the levy argue that it would deliver more immediate and substantial public returns than ownership-based approaches limited to future projects.

The debate extends beyond fiscal policy into broader questions surrounding Australia’s energy future.One Nation’s proposal is part of a wider policy agenda that supports continued oil and gas exploration and opposes Australia’s existing net-zero emissions commitment.

Hanson has repeatedly called for the country’s climate targets to be abandoned.That position places the proposal at the center of an increasingly contentious national discussion about balancing energy security, economic growth and emissions reduction.Runciman said aspects of Norway’s resource taxation system have merit because they are designed to preserve investment incentives while ensuring governments receive a larger share of resource profits.

However, he questioned whether expanding support for new gas developments is politically sustainable at a time when many voters expect stronger action on climate change.The policy therefore faces two distinct tests. The first is whether voluntary public participation in future resource projects can generate meaningful financial returns for taxpayers.

The second is whether expanding support for new fossil fuel developments aligns with Australia’s evolving climate and energy priorities.

As debate continues, the proposal highlights a broader challenge confronting resource-rich economies: how to maximize public benefit from natural resources while managing financial risk and navigating the transition toward lower-emissions energy systems.

Eva Lighthiser, a 20-year-old college student from Montana, has emerged as the lead plaintiff in a youth-led constitutional lawsuit challenging executive actions by U.S. President Donald Trump that support expanded fossil fuel development.

The case, Lighthiser v Trump, was filed by 23 young Americans who argue that federal policies promoting fossil fuel extraction and production violate constitutional protections by worsening climate-related harms affecting younger generations. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal court last year, but the plaintiffs appeared before the ninth circuit court of appeals in Portland, Oregon, in April seeking reinstatement.

Lighthiser, who studies in Colorado and is considering a major in environmental studies, said balancing university life with high-profile litigation has altered the course of her early adulthood.“I said, ‘Hey, I’ve got to go to bed, I’m flying out to Portland tomorrow,’” she recalled while describing a recent college gathering. “Then follow-up questions get raised. I’m like, ‘Well, it’s a lot to explain.

”Outside the appeals court, Lighthiser accused the federal government of prioritizing fossil fuel development despite growing evidence of climate-related damage.“We are challenging this administration for sacrificing the lives of myself and my fellow plaintiffs by expanding fossil fuels for the sake of power,” she said during remarks delivered outside the courthouse.

The case reflects the growing prominence of youth-led climate litigation in the United States, where environmental groups increasingly seek constitutional arguments to challenge government policies tied to fossil fuel production. Legal advocates argue that climate change threatens rights relating to health, safety and environmental protections, while critics say courts are not equipped to direct national energy policy.

Lighthiser grew up in Livingston, Montana, a town surrounded by mountain ranges and river systems that have become central to her environmental activism. Her parents met while hiking, and she spent much of her childhood camping, climbing and traveling through national parks. During her first year of high school, she was homeschooled while traveling with her family across the western United States.

Her involvement in climate litigation began in 2020 after learning about Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit legal organization focused on youth climate cases. She later joined Held v Montana, a constitutional challenge alleging that state policies favoring fossil fuels violated protections in Montana’s constitution guaranteeing a “clean and healthful environment.”Filed on Lighthiser’s 14th birthday, the Montana lawsuit became one of the first youth climate cases in the United States to proceed to trial.

During testimony, she described growing fears about climate-related environmental instability affecting the state she called home.“My future feels uncertain,” she said during the proceedings.In 2023, the court ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs in what was widely regarded as a landmark climate decision.

The plaintiffs later argued that Montana lawmakers enacted additional legislation conflicting with the court’s findings, prompting continued legal disputes over implementation and enforcement.Lighthiser said discussions about a federal challenge accelerated after the start of Trump’s second administration in 2025.

According to Julia Olson, the organization quickly identified the possibility of a broader constitutional case focused on federal executive actions supporting fossil fuel expansion.“It became clear early in the second Trump administration that a federal case was something to pursue,” Olson said.

Lighthiser said she was contacted while preparing for an overnight cycling trip near Montana’s Paradise Valley and asked whether she would consider becoming the lead plaintiff.“The lawsuit also would be called Lighthiser v Trump,” she said. “That was really a moment when it clicked.

My name against his name.”Montana occupies a complex position in the U.S. environmental debate. The state’s economy has long depended on natural resource extraction industries, including mining and coal production, while simultaneously cultivating a strong outdoor conservation culture. Critics have described the state as a “resource colony” whose raw materials historically benefited outside commercial interests.

Lighthiser said environmental concerns often transcend political divisions in Montana, where many residents identify closely with local ecosystems regardless of party affiliation. She pointed to polling conducted in April indicating that a large majority of residents considered conservation issues important when evaluating elected officials.

“There’s a lot of people who may not believe in climate change or be resistant to conversion to renewables,” she said. “But there’s also a sense that everyone knows how special this place is.”Livingston, located near the Yellowstone River and framed by the Gallatin and Absaroka mountain ranges, has experienced multiple environmental disruptions in recent years.

Coal trains regularly pass through the area, dispersing coal dust, while warming river conditions contributed to a parasite outbreak that killed large numbers of fish in 2016.Flooding has had an especially direct impact on Lighthiser’s family. In 2018, the Shields River overflowed near the family’s former home, damaging infrastructure and forcing major transportation detours.

Four years later, severe flooding along the Yellowstone River caused widespread destruction across southern Montana, resulting in an estimated $128 million in damages.Lighthiser said those events deepened her sense of urgency while also reinforcing the importance of community response efforts.“In the following weeks, I remember there were a lot of efforts to clean up homes and help each other out,” she said.

“I thought that was a really special thing.”Other plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit said Lighthiser’s public role has encouraged younger activists to participate. Jorja McCormick, a 17-year-old co-plaintiff from Livingston, said hearing Lighthiser speak publicly made the legal process appear more accessible.“I definitely look up to the older plaintiffs like Eva,” McCormick said.Lighthiser’s parents have expressed both pride and concern over the case’s visibility.

Her mother, Erica, said the family understood the political sensitivity attached to directly challenging a sitting president in federal court.“Look, it’s our last name next to the president’s last name,” she said.Legal scholars remain divided over the long-term implications of such cases.

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert at Vermont Law School who has supported youth climate litigation efforts, warned that broad constitutional challenges may face substantial resistance from federal courts.“The courts are not able to reform the energy system of the United States,” Parenteau said.

“They’re not going to entertain requests for them to do that.”When dismissing the case last year, Montana district judge Dana Christensen described the plaintiffs’ requests as “unworkable” and beyond the jurisdiction of the court, though he said the dismissal came “reluctantly.”Parenteau said an unfavorable ruling from higher courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, could establish precedents limiting future environmental litigation.

“You’re playing with fire with courts nowadays,” he said. “I believe in their cause, because what they’re arguing is what the law ought to be, but it’s not what the law is.”Olson rejected suggestions that ambitious constitutional climate arguments should be avoided because of potential legal setbacks.

She compared the strategy to earlier civil rights litigation efforts that initially faced skepticism before reshaping U.S. law.“The answer has never been to step back from the courthouse door,” Olson said. “Children are being harmed right now.”

Lighthiser said she believes the legal risks are outweighed by the need to challenge policies that contribute to climate-related damage affecting younger generations.

“There are risks,” she said. “But if you never take risks, nothing good happens.”

The resolution, scheduled for debate on Wednesday, was spearheaded by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, which led a successful 2024 campaign urging the ICJ to clarify states’ duties under international law regarding climate action.

Last year, the Hague-based court concluded that governments are legally obligated to take measures against climate change and warned that failure to meet those obligations could expose states to claims for reparations from countries most vulnerable to climate impacts.

The latest draft resolution describes the ICJ opinion as “an authoritative contribution to the clarification of existing international law” and calls on countries to comply with obligations aimed at protecting the global climate system.

The text also reiterates support for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and references the international commitment adopted at the 2023 climate summit in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

Negotiations over the resolution, however, resulted in significant revisions after opposition from several major greenhouse gas emitters and industrial economies, according to diplomatic sources.

An earlier proposal to establish an “International Register of Damage” documenting climate-related losses and injuries was removed from the current version after objections from countries including the United States, China, Japan, members of the European Union and oil-producing states.

Those governments argued the mechanism extended beyond the scope of the ICJ opinion and raised concerns about potential pathways toward compensation claims or reparations linked to historical emissions.

Vanuatu Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu defended the revised text, saying the resolution does not create new legal obligations or assign liability to individual states.

“For Vanuatu and for many climate-vulnerable states, this is ultimately about survival,” Regenvanu said, adding that the measure was intended to strengthen multilateral cooperation on climate governance.

Despite the dilution of several provisions, climate advocates said the resolution remains politically significant because it reinforces the growing role of international law in shaping climate accountability.

Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, described the current draft as “still a strong text” despite intense diplomatic pressure during negotiations.

Diplomatic sources said the resolution may not secure the broad consensus achieved during the General Assembly’s original request for the ICJ opinion in 2024, with at least one member state expected to call for a formal vote.

The draft also requests that United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres prepare a report outlining options to advance compliance with obligations identified in the ICJ ruling.

The Copernicus Climate Change Service said sea surface temperatures in April were the second-highest ever recorded for the month, with warming accelerating across parts of the Pacific Ocean as neutral conditions transition toward El Niño.

Samantha Burgess, strategic lead for climate at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, said daily ocean temperatures in recent days had moved close to surpassing the previous records set in 2024.

“It’s a matter of days before we are back in record-breaking ocean SSTs again,” Burgess told AFP, referring to sea surface temperatures.

Copernicus said marine heatwaves reached unprecedented levels in waters between the tropical Pacific and the United States during April, reflecting broader warming trends tied to both natural climate variability and long-term greenhouse gas emissions.

Last month, the World Meteorological Organization said El Niño conditions could emerge between May and July. The climate phenomenon, linked to warming Pacific Ocean waters and shifting trade winds, alters global weather systems and raises the likelihood of drought, heavy rainfall and severe heat events.

Scientists say El Niño is unfolding against a backdrop of persistent global warming, with oceans absorbing roughly 90 percent of excess heat generated by human-driven emissions from fossil fuels.

The previous El Niño contributed to 2023 and 2024 becoming the second- and hottest years on record respectively, according to climate agencies. Some forecasters believe the developing event could rival the strength of the “super” El Niño recorded in the late 1990s.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, said last week that a strong El Niño could significantly increase the chances of 2027 becoming the hottest year ever observed globally.

Burgess cautioned that forecasting the intensity of El Niño during the Northern Hemisphere spring remains difficult because of seasonal uncertainties in climate models. She said, however, that the event was already likely to have substantial global consequences.

“We’re likely to see 2027 exceed 2024 for the warmest year on record,” Burgess said, noting that El Niño’s strongest influence on global temperatures often emerges in the year after it peaks.In its monthly climate bulletin, Copernicus said April temperatures globally were 1.43 degrees Celsius above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average, making it the third-warmest April on record.

The agency also reported Arctic sea ice levels remained near historic lows during April, while Europe experienced contrasting weather conditions that could increase the risk of drought and wildfires during the coming summer.

Climate researchers say the persistence of marine heatwaves, shrinking ice cover and rising global temperatures underscores the intensifying impact of climate change, even before the full effects of El Niño materialize.

The proposed 650-mile pipeline, often referred to by critics as “Keystone Light” because of its similarities to the scrapped Keystone XL line, would transport up to 550,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Saskatchewan into northeastern Montana before extending through Montana and Wyoming to connect with existing U.S. pipeline infrastructure.

Trump signed the permit in the Oval Office, authorizing the line to cross the U.S.-Canada border and allowing the transport of crude oil as well as petroleum products including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas.“Slightly different from the last administration. They wouldn’t sign a pipeline deal.

And we have pipelines going up,” Trump said after approving the project.At full capacity, the pipeline would carry roughly two-thirds the volume planned for Keystone XL, which was partially constructed before former President Joe Biden revoked its permit in January 2021 on his first day in office, citing climate concerns.

Trump had approved Keystone XL during his first term, but the project became a flashpoint in North American energy politics after Biden’s reversal angered Canadian officials and Alberta’s provincial government, which had invested more than $1 billion in the venture.

Unlike Keystone XL, the Bridger Pipeline Expansion would not cross Native American reservations, a key point of contention in past pipeline disputes. Company officials said more than 70% of the route would be built within existing pipeline corridors and about 80% would cross private land.

Bridger Pipeline LLC said the line would transport several grades of crude, including oil from Canada’s oil sands region, for refining or export in the United States.The project still requires additional state and federal environmental approvals before construction can begin. Company officials said they expect construction to start in 2027, with completion targeted for late 2028 or early 2029, potentially before Trump leaves office in January 2029.

Environmental groups have already signaled opposition, citing the risk of spills and the broader climate implications of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure.“The biggest concern we see right now is the concern inherent in all pipeline projects which is the risk of spills,” said Jenny Harbine, an attorney with environmental law group Earthjustice.

“Pipelines rupture and leak. It’s just a fact of pipelines.”Groups opposing the project include the Montana Environmental Information Center and WildEarth Guardians.Bridger Pipeline and subsidiaries of parent company True Companies have faced scrutiny over previous major spills, including more than 50,000 gallons of crude oil released into Montana’s Yellowstone River in 2015, contaminating a city’s drinking water supply, and a 2016 North Dakota spill of more than 600,000 gallons that affected the Little Missouri River and a tributary.

Subsidiaries of True Companies later agreed to pay a $12.5 million civil penalty to settle a federal lawsuit related to the Montana and North Dakota incidents. A separate 45,000-gallon diesel spill occurred in Wyoming in 2022.Company spokesperson Bill Salvin said Bridger has since introduced an AI-based leak detection system designed to accelerate incident response and plans to place pipeline sections 30 to 40 feet beneath major rivers including the Yellowstone and Missouri to reduce spill risks.

“We designed the pipeline with integrity and safety in mind,” Salvin said, adding that emergency response systems were in place in the event of a leak.Casper, Wyoming-based Bridger operates more than 3,700 miles of gathering and transmission pipelines across North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The approval marks another step in Trump’s broader effort to expand domestic and cross-border fossil fuel infrastructure as part of his second-term energy agenda, reversing several climate-focused restrictions imposed under Biden.

Ministers are set to gather in Santa Marta against the backdrop of fuel shortages and rising prices following what the International Energy Agency has described as the largest oil supply shock on record, driven in part by constraints around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit route for global energy supplies.

The conference, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, was initiated amid frustration with the pace of negotiations under United Nations climate frameworks, where consensus-based processes have struggled to produce a clear pathway for reducing fossil fuel dependence.

Organisers say the current energy crisis has reinforced the strategic need for a managed transition, even as some governments increase coal use in the short term to stabilise domestic supply.Energy security considerations are expected to weigh as heavily as climate commitments during the discussions, reflecting the policy dilemma facing both advanced and developing economies.

Countries including Australia, Canada and Norway are expected to attend alongside emerging producers such as Angola, Mexico and Brazil, as well as coal-reliant economies like Turkiye and Vietnam. European nations including Germany, France and the United Kingdom are also set to participate.

However, several of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers and consumers, including the United States, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, will not be represented, limiting the scope of any immediate global alignment.Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres said the meeting has gained increased relevance in light of recent geopolitical developments, describing it as an opportunity to foster more direct engagement between producers and consumers on an issue often constrained in multilateral forums.

Analysts say the smaller, focused format may allow for more candid discussions but could also dilute outcomes given the diversity of national interests. Climate scientist Bill Hare of Climate Analytics noted that broader participation can make it harder to reach specific commitments, while supporters argue the inclusion of fossil fuel-producing nations marks a necessary step in advancing negotiations.

Participants from climate-vulnerable states, including Tuvalu and Vanuatu, are expected to push for accelerated timelines, citing the disproportionate impact of climate change and their reliance on imported energy. Officials from these countries have framed the current crisis as further evidence of the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Global investment in clean energy now outpaces spending on fossil fuels by roughly a factor of two, yet emissions from coal, oil and gas reached a record high in 2025, underscoring the gap between policy commitments and implementation.

The Santa Marta meeting is not expected to yield binding agreements but will contribute to a voluntary roadmap on fossil fuel transition being developed under Brazil’s leadership, as countries continue to grapple with balancing climate goals and energy security.

The UK government has said expanding oil and gas drilling in the North Sea would increase exposure to volatile global energy markets, as political divisions intensify over the country’s long-term energy strategy.

Energy secretary Ed Miliband told Labour MPs that continued reliance on fossil fuels leaves the UK vulnerable to external price shocks. He argued that recent geopolitical tensions, including the ongoing conflict involving the United States and Iran, have reinforced the risks associated with global gas markets.

Miliband said the central lesson from recent crises was that countries dependent on fossil fuel imports remain “price takers not price makers,” and therefore exposed to fluctuations beyond their control. He added that accelerating the transition to domestically generated clean power is essential for achieving what he described as “energy sovereignty” and strengthening national security.

Energy minister Michael Shanks echoed this position, stating that the UK must reduce its exposure to fossil fuels to prevent households from bearing the cost of international disruptions. He said previous price shocks had already demonstrated the economic risks tied to dependence on gas markets.

The government’s stance has been challenged by opposition parties and some Labour MPs, who argue that domestic oil and gas production remains critical for energy security and economic growth.

The Conservative Party is expected to use a parliamentary debate to call for the removal of restrictions on new North Sea drilling. Its proposals include scrapping the windfall tax on oil and gas companies, lifting the ban on new exploration licences, and approving projects such as the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field.

Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said increasing domestic gas production would help meet national demand and reduce reliance on imports. She argued that failing to develop available resources during a period of supply instability would undermine energy security.Within the Labour Party, dissent has also emerged.

MP Henry Tufnell called for a reassessment of the current policy, suggesting that renewed drilling could support economic activity, reduce unemployment in industrial regions and limit the offshoring of carbon emissions. However, other Labour MPs indicated that there was limited support for reversing the party’s existing commitments.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to outline measures aimed at mitigating the impact of rising energy costs linked to geopolitical tensions. These include proposals to protect consumers from higher bills driven by disruptions in global oil and gas markets.

Reeves is also expected to introduce a framework to address potential profiteering, particularly in the retail fuel sector. The measures are intended to prevent excessive price increases in response to international events, including recent military activity involving Iran and its regional counterparts.

Miliband defended the continuation of the windfall tax on energy companies, stating that it has generated approximately £12 billion in revenue since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war. He argued that removing the levy would primarily benefit corporate profits while reducing the government’s capacity to support households facing higher energy costs.

The government has positioned investment in clean and nuclear energy as a central component of its long-term strategy. Officials say reducing reliance on fossil fuels will help stabilise energy prices and insulate the economy from external shocks.

Reeves is expected to confirm that recommendations from the Fingleton review, aimed at accelerating nuclear power development, will be implemented through legislation. These reforms are intended to streamline project approvals and reduce delays linked to legal challenges.

The government is also considering mechanisms to provide indemnities for critical energy infrastructure projects, allowing them to proceed more quickly in the face of litigation. This approach is designed to address longstanding barriers to large-scale energy development.

According to a government spokesperson, the strategy includes £120 billion in public investment across energy infrastructure, including support for the Sizewell C nuclear plant and the development of small modular reactors in north Wales. These projects are intended to expand domestic energy capacity and reduce exposure to imported fuels.

Ministers argue that prioritising domestically controlled energy sources will enhance resilience against future crises while supporting economic stability.

The debate over North Sea drilling highlights a broader policy divide between short-term supply measures and long-term structural transition within the UK’s energy system.

At an international energy forum in Athens, the United States reaffirmed its support for reliable oil and gas supplies while encouraging innovation and investment in renewable energy to ensure global energy stability and economic growth.

The United States has reiterated its commitment to energy security in Europe by emphasizing a balanced approach that includes both traditional energy sources and the gradual integration of renewables.

Speaking at a major international energy conference in Athens, senior U.S. energy officials highlighted the importance of maintaining dependable oil and gas supplies while continuing to invest in new technologies that enhance sustainability and efficiency.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright stressed that global energy transitions must be practical and inclusive, ensuring stability while advancing toward cleaner solutions.

He noted that while renewables have made important progress, oil and gas remain essential to supporting Europe’s immediate energy needs — particularly as the continent continues to reduce its reliance on Russian energy imports.

“The United States stands ready to support Europe with secure, reliable, and affordable energy,” Wright stated, emphasizing ongoing cooperation between U.S. energy firms and European nations.

This partnership has already resulted in multiple agreements to expand natural gas supplies and strengthen transatlantic energy infrastructure.

The U.S. shale boom has positioned the country as one of the world’s leading exporters of oil and gas, supplying nearly one-fifth of global output.

This capacity enables the U.S. to act as a stabilizing force in international energy markets while supporting Europe’s diversification goals.

While acknowledging challenges in renewable energy development, U.S. officials encouraged continued investment in technologies such as wind, solar, and hydrogen.

Wright pointed out that over $4 trillion has already been invested globally in renewable infrastructure — a testament to growing international commitment.

However, he emphasized the need for realistic timelines and balanced energy policies that maintain economic growth and energy reliability.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum added that the future of energy lies in “addition rather than substitution,” noting that emerging technologies should complement, not replace, existing resources.

He called for innovation-driven strategies that expand the global energy mix while ensuring resilience against supply disruptions.

The discussions in Athens also highlighted alignment between the U.S. and its European partners on long-term sustainability goals, even as approaches differ.

The European Union recently reaffirmed its target of reducing emissions by 90% by 2040, reflecting a shared commitment to climate responsibility and technological advancement.

Experts at the conference agreed that collaboration between major producers and renewable innovators will be essential in shaping a secure and sustainable energy future.

The U.S. continues to advocate for a pragmatic energy framework — one that secures today’s needs while building tomorrow’s cleaner systems.

This balanced vision underscores the U.S. role as both a global energy leader and a partner in innovation, combining traditional strength with forward-looking investments in renewable capacity, efficiency, and climate adaptation.