The 30th "Conference of the Parties" (COP30) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will take place from 6-21 November 2025 in Belém, Brazil. It will bring together world leaders, scientists, non-governmental organizations, and civil society to discuss priority actions to tackle climate change. COP30 will focus on the efforts needed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C, the presentation of new national action plans (NDCs) and the progress on the finance pledges made at COP29.
By Gabriel Labbate
NAIROBI, Kenya, Nov 3 2025 (IPS)
A new global study has challenged a key assumption in climate planning: that the planet’s geological “carbon vault” is vast enough to hold all the carbon dioxide (CO₂) we might one day choose to bury underground after we remove it from the atmosphere. It isn’t.
After accounting for seismic zones, protected areas, and densely populated regions, researchers estimate that the prudent planetary limit for geological carbon storage is about 1,460 GtCO₂—still a significant amount, but a fraction of the 11,800 GtCO₂ often cited as “technical” potential.
That finding merits a rethink of any strategies that hinge on essentially limitless underground storage. It also strengthens the case for a diversified portfolio approach that utilizes every credible tool at our disposal, rather than placing too much reliance on a single bet.
We need to adopt a pragmatic approach to achieve both integrity and scale. For too long, the debate has been framed as “permanent” versus “non-permanent” climate solutions—as if the only climate value that counts is storage measured in centuries or millennia. Regardless of the geological storage available, that is a cardinal mistake. Climate risk unfolds across multiple time horizons; therefore, our response must also be multifaceted.
There is real value in decadal-scale reductions and storage. Lowering atmospheric CO₂ over the coming years reduces peak warming, a key driver most associated with triggering irreversible tipping points—from forest dieback to ice-sheet instability and shifts in ocean circulation.
Even if some carbon is later re-emitted, the avoided heat during those crucial decades buys time for technologies to scale, protects people and nature from compounding impacts, and lowers the probability of crossing dangerous thresholds.
Engineered removals and geologic storage may deliver ultra-long-lived storage, but, as this report shows, there is still much to be learned. At the same time, nature-based solutions—especially forests and other ecosystems—can deliver large, near-term emission reductions and removals while providing irreplaceable co-benefits: biodiversity, water security, community resilience, and livelihoods.
Both are essential. Pitting them against each other wastes time we do not have.
Uncertainty about the long-term stability of land carbon stocks does not mean all nature “will go up in smoke.” It means we need risk management, not exclusion. Take, for example, the permanence standard that was recently adopted for Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, which equates “negligible risk” with storage effectively guaranteed over a 100-year horizon.
Framed that way, most nature-based solutions are ruled out because uncertainties accumulate over time. The right test is whether systems deliver real, additional, and durable climate benefits over relevant timeframes—and whether risks are transparently accounted for and continually reduced.
Every financial advisor teaches the same lesson: diversify to manage risk and improve returns. Climate strategy is no different. No single approach—technological or nature-based—can deliver the speed, scale, and durability we need. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report underscores that nature-based solutions, particularly forests, can cost-effectively close a substantial share of the near-term ambition gap—on the order of 4–6 GtCO₂ per year by 2030.
That is a vast climate asset if stewarded with integrity and social safeguards. It is also a necessary condition for the success of the Paris Agreement.
A portfolio approach matches tools to time horizons, hedges systemic risk, and multiplies co-benefits. Durable geologic storage should be prioritized for the hardest-to-abate residual missions and for genuinely permanent removal needs; and high-integrity natural climate solutions should be accelerated now for the heavy near-term lifting that lowers peak warming and keeps tipping points out of reach.
If any strand underperforms, the others continue delivering climate benefit. And by investing in nature, societies gain adaptation, biodiversity, and development dividends that pure storage cannot provide.
Policy must catch up to this reality. Integrity and oversight should be strengthened across all solutions so markets function with trust—robust baselines, conservative accounting, credible buffer pools, insurance against reversal risk, high-quality MRV, and clear liability rules.
Standards should move away from effectively impossible definitions of “negligible risk” and toward recognizing decadal climate value, requiring strong safeguards, and using diversified portfolios. Governments should incentivize innovation across the full spectrum of solutions rather than picking winners; technology-neutral frameworks that reward verified climate outcomes—and that recognize different but complementary durability profiles—will channel capital where it does the most good.
The science does not give us permission to wait for perfect solutions. It calls for an “everything, everywhere, all at once” approach—applied wisely. The new storage estimates should focus minds, not fuel fatalism. Scarcity is a guide to strategy: use geologic capacity where it delivers the greatest long-term value, and scale high-integrity nature-based and demand-side actions now to bend the curve this decade and reduce the chances of dangerous tipping points.
That is what a prudent, diversified climate portfolio looks like.
We will not solve a multidimensional crisis with one lever. We will solve it by pulling all credible levers at once, with integrity, urgency, and a bias for learning.
The toolbox is full. It’s time to use it.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Excerpt:
Air Algérie et Qatar Airways ont signé un accord de partage de codes (code-share). Il s’agit d’un partenariat stratégique qui permettra à la compagnie aérienne […]
L’article Nouveaux vols vers l’Asie et le Moyen-Orient : Air Algérie étoffe son réseau est apparu en premier sur .
Cette semaine, l’Autriche va mener une campagne au Conseil pour repousser l’application des règles anti-déforestation de l’UE à la fin 2026, dans le but de gagner du temps et d’obtenir des modifications qui exempteraient la plupart des États membres du bloc du respect des règles.
The post L’Autriche va faire pression au Conseil pour retarder l’application des règles anti-déforestation appeared first on Euractiv FR.
The thematic report “Raw Materials for a Resilient Europe: The EU’s Strategic Partnership with the Western Balkans” is a result of ELIAMEP’s initiative think nea – New Narratives of EU Integration, supported by the Open Society Foundations – Western Balkans.
The initiative contributes to reimagining the EU’s engagement with the Western Balkans, as well as the region’s attractiveness for the EU in order to ensure a resilient EU integration strategy and ever-closer integration with a full membership perspective in mind.
This thematic report authored by Dr. Ana Krstinovska (Research Fellow, South-East Europe Programme, ELIAMEP & Senior Researcher, think nea – New Narratives of EU Integration) and Dr. André Wolf (Non-Resident Reseach Associate, think nea – New Narratives of EU Integration & Head of Division, CEP Berlin) examines the strategic potential of the Western Balkans in the context of the EU’s efforts to secure critical and strategic raw materials essential for its competitiveness, green transition, and defence readiness. It argues that the region which is geographically proximate, economically interlinked with the EU, and engaged in the accession process, represents a crucial yet underutilized partner in strengthening Europe’s strategic autonomy and industrial resilience.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), adopted in 2024, highlights the strategic importance of securing reliable and diversified access to critical and strategic raw materials
(CRMs/SRMs) essential for Europe’s competitiveness, green transition, and defence capabilities. As global supply chains are increasingly subject to geopolitical pressures, the Western Balkans offer a unique opportunity for the EU. The region is geographically close, economically intertwined with the EU, formally engaged in the accession process, and endowed with significant reserves of copper, aluminium (bauxite), nickel, antimony, lithium, and rare earth elements.
Despite this potential, the Western Balkan’s contribution to European raw materials security remains underdeveloped. A recurring pattern emerges across countries: raw ores and concentrates flow mostly to China, while processed or semi-processed goods are exported to the EU. Serbia exports most of its copper ores to China, while processed copper is split between the EU and Chinese buyers. Montenegro ships bauxite largely to China, but aluminium articles to the EU. Albania exports raw copper to China but processed copper to the EU. In North Macedonia, domestic processing of bauxite has relied heavily on Chinese inputs. This structure secures greater value for China in the global supply chain, while constraining the EU’s strategic autonomy.
At the same time, the Western Balkans capture limited economic value from their resources. Processing, recycling, and advanced technology investments remain underdeveloped. Outdated geological data, obsolete technologies, weak governance frameworks, and fragile investment climates further constrain efforts to move up the value chain. The lack of regional integration compounds these problems: national strategies often duplicate efforts rather than complement them, leading to inefficiency and missed economies of scale.
Mining and extraction are politically sensitive and socially contested across the region. The legacy of polluting industries, opaque privatization, and unresolved environmental “hotspots” has fuelled public distrust and citizen mobilization. Serbia’s Jadar lithium project, suspended in 2022 following widespread protests but recently revived, is emblematic of the risks of pursuing extractive partnerships without transparent governance and robust safeguards.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, local opposition has slowed or blocked several projects in lithium and magnesium. In North Macedonia, civic mobilization successfully halted the Ilovica-Štuka gold-copper project. These cases underscore that raw material development is not only a technical or economic challenge; it also requires political legitimacy and social trust.
Weak rule of law and institutional capacity further aggravates these risks. Geological data often dates back to the 1970s–1980s, permitting processes are fragmented and slow, inspection services lack resources, and corruption remains pervasive. Governance deficiencies drive up costs for investors, fuel social opposition, and undermine the credibility of governments. Without visible guarantees that mining will meet the highest environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, even economically viable projects risk becoming politically toxic and socially unsustainable.
The Western Balkans’ raw materials potential should not be treated as isolated national resources, but instead as part of Europe’s broader industrial ecosystem. The EU has already launched instruments such as the Single Market Highway and the Reform and Growth Facility, and Western Balkan partners have access to Horizon Europe. These can serve as platforms for joint projects, standards alignment, and technology transfer. Embedding raw materials cooperation into the enlargement framework, including through Chapter 20 (Industrial Policy), Chapter 27 (Environment), and the Fundamentals cluster, can reinforce EU credibility while incentivizing reforms.
Regional cooperation is equally critical. Restoring value chains that once spanned the former Yugoslavia, covering exploration, smelting, refining, and processing, would generate economies of scale and reduce inefficiencies. EU-led processes such as the Berlin Process can serve as vehicles for fostering such cross-border integration. This report proposes five overarching policy priorities:
By pursuing this agenda, the EU can simultaneously strengthen its strategic autonomy and support sustainable economic development in the Western Balkans. For the region, the path forward lies not in exporting raw ores but in developing modern, EU-aligned value chains that create jobs, generate revenues, and build public trust. For the EU, engaging early and systematically is the best way to prevent critical assets from reinforcing the influence of rival powers, while accelerating the accession process and securing the raw materials needed for
Europe’s future. By aligning raw materials cooperation with the EU’s enlargement policy, the Union and the Western Balkans can transform shared resources into shared prosperity—building a sustainable, competitive, and strategically autonomous Europe that includes the Western Balkans as equal partners.
You can read the full report here.
Un geste d’incivilité a semé la pagaille sur les rails du tramway d’Alger. Ce lundi matin, la société Société d’exploitation des tramways (Setram) a signalé […]
L’article Les automobilistes avertis : poursuites et amendes salées pour ceux qui gênent le tramway d’Alger est apparu en premier sur .
C’est une excellente nouvelle pour la promotion du tourisme algérien : l’Ambassade d’Algérie aux États-Unis a annoncé le lancement d’une série documentaire spéciale consacrée aux […]
L’article Washington découvre l’Algérie : une semaine entière dédiée au tourisme national sur ABC7 est apparu en premier sur .