Global energy leaders convened in Paris this week for the International Energy Agency’s Ministerial Meeting, underscoring the agency’s expanding role in shaping international cooperation at a time of rising demand, geopolitical tensions, and accelerating energy transitions.

The two-day gathering drew senior government representatives from a record 54 countries, around 40 of them at ministerial level. Executives from 55 companies — representing a combined market capitalisation of $14 trillion — joined leaders of intergovernmental organisations in what became the largest Ministerial Meeting in the agency’s history.

At the heart of the discussions was a clear message: energy security, affordability and sustainability can no longer be pursued in isolation. They require deeper multilateral coordination, stronger data systems, and expanded institutional alliances.

Expanding the IEA Family

Member governments unanimously agreed to move forward on strengthening institutional ties with Brazil, Colombia, India and Viet Nam. In a major step, Colombia was invited to become the IEA’s 33rd Member. Brazil was invited to begin the process toward full membership following a request from its government. Ministers also welcomed recent progress in discussions with India regarding its request for full membership. Viet Nam joined as the newest Association country in the IEA Family.

The expansion significantly alters the geometry of global energy governance. With these additions, the IEA Family’s share of global energy consumption now exceeds 80%, up from less than 40% a decade ago — reflecting a profound shift in the agency’s global reach.

“This Ministerial Meeting, our largest ever, affirmed the immense value of the IEA at a moment when global energy demand is rising and the challenges facing the energy system are intensifying. In this context, our wide range of objective data and analysis is more important than ever,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

“In a strong step forward for global energy governance, key countries such as Brazil, Colombia, India and Viet Nam are strengthening their ties with the IEA. This puts the IEA Family’s share of global energy use at more than 80%, up from less than 40% ten years ago. With major energy issues high on the international agenda, we stand ready to support governments with the insights they need to plan for the future, helping leaders deliver on their goals of ensuring greater energy security, affordability and sustainability.”

Deputy Prime Minister Sophie Hermans of the Netherlands, who chaired the Ministerial, framed the discussions in terms of resilience amid uncertainty.

“These two days in Paris have reaffirmed how essential energy is to our daily lives – it is the invisible driving force behind everything we do. Under the umbrella of knowledge of the International Energy Agency, we have once again seen that international cooperation is key,” she said. “Our priority is clear: secure, affordable and sustainable energy – and resilient systems that can endure in an uncertain world.”

In a video address opening the meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron emphasised the IEA’s analytical leadership. “Through its in-depth analyses, and the technical expertise of its team, the IEA, under the leadership of its Executive Director Fatih Birol, plays an essential role. It enlightens us to help us guarantee our energy security and steer the energy transition.”

Beyond institutional expansion, the Ministerial marked a strong endorsement of deeper cooperation on critical minerals — increasingly viewed as the backbone of clean energy technologies.

In a special declaration, Ministers backed expanding collaboration under the IEA Critical Minerals Security Programme to address mounting risks to global supply chains. They called for strengthened data tools, collaborative exercises and clearer guidance on measures such as stockpiling, aimed at diversifying supply chains and building resilience against supply shocks.

Clean Cooking and Energy Access

Member countries also approved the integration of the Clean Cooking Alliance into the IEA, positioning the agency as the principal multilateral forum for advancing clean cooking solutions. The move seeks to accelerate access for the more than two billion people worldwide who still lack clean cooking technologies.

The integration comes ahead of the IEA’s second Summit on Clean Cooking in Africa, scheduled for July 2026 in Nairobi, where governments and industry leaders are expected to review progress since the inaugural 2024 summit and outline new financing and policy pathways.

Energy Security in the Age of Electricity

Two high-level dialogues during the Ministerial focused on safeguarding energy security in what officials termed the “Age of Electricity,” and on supporting Ukraine’s energy system amid ongoing disruptions. Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy Denys Shmyhal participated in discussions on rebuilding and securing Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

As energy demand continues to climb and transition pathways grow more complex, the IEA’s expanding membership and programme scope suggest that multilateral coordination — once largely confined to oil security — is now being repositioned as the backbone of a rapidly electrifying and mineral-intensive global energy system.

The climate impact of FTAs is becoming a defining issue for India’s trade negotiations, as carbon-linked rules like the EU’s CBAM increasingly shape market access and industrial competitiveness.

As India accelerates negotiations on free trade agreements (FTAs) with the European Union, United Kingdom, EFTA countries and the United States, a parallel transformation is unfolding — one where trade policy is increasingly shaped by climate-linked conditions.

A recent policy discussion summarised in India’s FTAs: Trade, Climate and Strategic Choices, organised by Climate Trends, argues that the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) represents not a marginal environmental tool, but a structural shift in global trade governance. The deeper question is whether India’s trade engagements are effectively becoming instruments of climate policy — and if so, under whose terms.

CBAM: From Environmental Tool to Structural Trade Instrument

Ajay Srivastava, Founder and CEO of GTRI, cautioned against viewing CBAM as a narrow carbon levy limited to a handful of sectors. While the current scope covers steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, hydrogen and electricity, the EU has stated its intention to expand the mechanism to all industrial products by 2033.

“What most people ignore about CBAM is that it will not only hurt six products,” Srivastava said. “After a few years when CBAM is in full form, then the normal CBAM liability on exports will range anywhere between 20% to 35%, and even 50% or more for products like aluminium.”

India’s average applied tariffs into the EU are currently around 3–3.5%. CBAM, by contrast, could impose carbon-linked charges many times higher. “Instead of 3% custom duties… exporters may pay 20%-40% under CBAM. And in return, all EU goods will be entering India at zero tariffs. Such a deal appears asymmetric,” he added.

From this perspective, CBAM is less a climate safeguard and more a structural replacement of tariffs with carbon-linked entry costs — one that sits outside the formal FTA framework while reshaping its economic value.

Climate Compliance as Market Entry Condition

The broader concern is cumulative compliance. CBAM does not operate in isolation. The EU Deforestation Regulation, supply-chain traceability rules, and ESG-linked disclosure expectations together create what analysts describe as an embedded climate cost for market access.

Colette van der Ven, Founder and Director of Tulip Consulting, noted that CBAM was a key sticking point in EU–India negotiations. “Even if the Indian government’s press statements suggest that there are provisions around MFN treatment, that may, in practice, not have very much value… giving country-specific flexibilities was already off the cards for the EU.”

In effect, climate-linked measures are emerging as non-negotiable features of trade architecture.

Divergent Impact: Large Firms vs MSMEs

The climate-trade shift is not uniform in its impact.

Large integrated producers such as Tata Steel and JSW, according to van der Ven, are relatively insulated. Many operate European subsidiaries, have internal monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems, and possess capital for cleaner technologies. For them, CBAM is a manageable compliance cost.

However, the situation is starkly different for MSMEs.

Ajay Srivastava pointed to early evidence from CBAM’s reporting phase, which began in October 2023. “In FY25, our exports of steel and aluminium to the EU were down by 24%. Why? Because MSMEs could not supply data, and EU-based importers stopped placing orders from them. So, MSMEs will be the hardest hit. It will soon be a game only for large players.”

Van der Ven added that default carbon values under CBAM are punitive. “Even if you have relatively clean production, but you cannot measure it, you are still going to be getting a default value that is a lot higher than the actual carbon emissions… That means that your competitiveness level goes down.”

The key barrier is not necessarily emissions intensity, but data asymmetry and compliance infrastructure.

Trade Policy as Domestic Climate Policy

Suranjali Tandon, Associate Professor at NIPFP, framed the issue more fundamentally: “All matters of trade policy are also matters of domestic economic policy.”

She argued that Indian firms will require domestic carbon pricing, measurement systems, and industrial support mechanisms to respond effectively. “Indian companies need to have their own carbon pricing to be able to respond to such measures… The best thing that can be done is to have measurement systems in place while ensuring that there are domestic policies that support increasing production capacity.”

Without robust domestic support — incentives, certification regimes, transitional demand buffers — exporters may struggle to absorb external carbon costs.

Fragmented Global Carbon Regimes

A central tension lies in fragmentation. EU-bound exports account for roughly 20% of India’s trade. The remaining 80% flows to markets without CBAM-style requirements.

Srivastava highlighted the dilemma: Indian firms may need separate production processes for EU markets, raising costs across their operations. Producing “green” goods for a minority of export destinations could erode competitiveness elsewhere.

This fragmentation complicates investment decisions. Without globally harmonised carbon pricing, unilateral measures risk distorting trade patterns rather than aligning them.

Strategic Choices Ahead

The discussion suggests that FTAs are no longer purely about tariffs and quotas. They increasingly interact with carbon pricing systems, sustainability standards, and domestic regulatory reforms.

Recommendations emerging from the dialogue include:

>> Prioritising measurement and MRV infrastructure, especially for MSMEs

>> Designing selective emissions trading systems, beginning with large emitters

>> Aligning industrial, trade, and climate policies domestically

>> Viewing FTAs as platforms for cooperation, rather than solutions in themselves

Archana Chaudhary of Climate Trends summarised the broader shift: “Trade seems to be forcing domestic climate action and capital is being steered in that direction. These new trade deals and the carbon-linked rules are going to be shaping up India’s real economy.”

Climate Alignment or Competitiveness Risk?

The deeper climate perspective is complex. On one hand, CBAM aligns with long-term decarbonisation goals. On the other, its current design places disproportionate adjustment burdens on developing economies and smaller firms.

Van der Ven suggested that alignment exists beneath the friction. “Beyond the differences, there is alignment between the EU and India in wanting to decarbonize. We must think towards these win-win opportunities along the supply chain.”

The outcome, however, will depend less on individual FTAs and more on whether India can integrate trade, industrial, and climate strategies coherently at home.

As climate-linked trade measures proliferate, India’s FTAs may increasingly serve not just as economic agreements — but as de facto climate policy instruments reshaping the country’s industrial future.

Global warming is usually associated with rising temperatures—but a new Nordic report warns it could drive parts of northern Europe into far colder conditions if a major Atlantic ocean current collapses.

Greenland, Norway and Sweden could experience significantly colder climates as the planet warms, according to a new report by the Nordic Council of Ministers that examines the risks linked to a possible collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

The report, A Nordic Perspective on AMOC Tipping, brings together the latest scientific evidence on how global warming is slowing the AMOC—one of the world’s largest ocean circulation systems, responsible for transporting heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. While a full collapse is considered unlikely, the authors warn that it remains possible even at relatively low levels of global warming, with potentially disruptive consequences for northern countries.

The Reversal

If the circulation were to weaken rapidly or cross a tipping point, the report notes, northern Europe could cool sharply even as the rest of the world continues to warm. Such a reversal would have wide-ranging effects on food production, energy systems, infrastructure, and livelihoods across the Nordic region.

“The AMOC is a key part of the climate system for the Nordic region. While the future of the AMOC is uncertain, the potential for a rapid weakening or collapse is a risk we need to take seriously,” said Aleksi Nummelin, Research Professor at the Finnish Meteorological Institute, in a media statement. “This report brings together current scientific knowledge and highlights practical actions for mitigation, monitoring and preparedness.”

A climate paradox

The AMOC plays a central role in maintaining the relatively mild climate of Northern Europe. As global temperatures rise, melting ice from Greenland and increased freshwater input into the North Atlantic are expected to weaken this circulation. According to the report, such changes could reduce heat transport northwards, leading to colder regional conditions—particularly during winter—even under a globally warming climate.

Scientists caution that the impacts would not simply mirror gradual climate change trends. Instead, an AMOC collapse could trigger abrupt and uneven shifts, including expanded sea ice, stronger storms, altered rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels along European coastlines. Some of these impacts would occur regardless of when or how quickly the circulation weakens.

The report also highlights global ripple effects. A slowdown of the AMOC could shift the tropical rain belt southwards, with potentially severe consequences for monsoon-dependent regions such as parts of Africa and South Asia, underscoring that AMOC tipping is not a regional concern alone.

Calls for precaution and preparedness

Given the uncertainty surrounding when—or if—the AMOC might cross a critical threshold, the report urges policymakers to adopt a precautionary approach. It stresses that any additional global warming, and prolonged overshoot of the 1.5°C target, increases the risk of triggering a collapse.

Key recommendations include accelerating emissions reductions, securing long-term funding for ocean observation networks, and developing an early warning system that integrates real-world measurements with climate model simulations. The authors argue that such systems should be embedded directly into policymaking to enable rapid responses.

The report also calls for climate adaptation strategies that account for multiple futures—including scenarios in which parts of Northern Europe cool rather than warm. It emphasises that AMOC collapse should be treated as a real and significant risk, requiring comprehensive risk management frameworks across climate, ocean, and disaster governance.

Science driving policy attention

The findings were developed through the Nordic Tipping Week workshop held in October 2025 in Helsinki and Rovaniemi, bringing together physical oceanographers, climate scientists, and social scientists from across Nordic and international institutions. The initiative was partly motivated by an open letter submitted in 2024 by 44 climate scientists, warning Nordic policymakers that the risks associated with AMOC tipping may have been underestimated.

By consolidating current scientific understanding and translating it into policy-relevant recommendations, the report aims to shift AMOC collapse from a theoretical concern to a concrete risk requiring immediate attention.