For the House of Lords, the unelected counterpart of the House of Commons, Wednesday could mark a rare moment in British politics: the ermine-clad barons and baronesses of that old chamber will vote on whether to leave an elected British Prime Minister must brave above a flagship. policy.

The Lords will hold a crucial debate on the policy, which would put asylum seekers on single flights to Rwanda. They are attached several amendments to the bill in an attempt to weaken it; the government, with its large conservative majority in the House of Commons, has systematically stripped them down.

No one, least of all the Lords themselves, believes that the Senate will ultimately torpedo the legislation. In the unequal clash between the elected Commons and the unelected Lords, the Lords invariably yield. But they could delay its passage by another week or two, which could be enough to jeopardize Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s goal of putting the first flight to Rwanda in the air by the end of May.

That would thrust the House of Lords into Britain’s electoral politics in a way that is unusual for an institution that sees itself as a cool-headed, measured check on the more unruly House of Commons.

The prospect of sending asylum seekers to an East African country – and overruling a High Court ruling – has provoked so much opposition, even from Conservative peers, that it has shaken the Lords from their usual deference.

“This is about people who have a fundamental objection to a piece of government legislation,” said Simon McDonald, a former head of Britain’s diplomatic service who became a contrarian or non-partisan member of the House of Lords, where he is known. as Baron McDonald of Salford, in 2021.

“Personally, I would be disappointed if we just gave in,” he said. “For me, we have to work hard on the conditions that must be met before the law comes into effect.”

The Rwandan government, Mr McDonald said, had to show it had taken safeguards to ensure the rights of asylum seekers arriving there from Britain were not breached. Several Lords amendments aim to do this, but the government has rejected them on the grounds that they are simply another legal hurdle preventing flights from taking off.

Timing is important for the government. Mr Sunak has defended the Rwanda policy as the best way to deter migrants making the dangerous crossing of the English Channel in small boats. Under the law, they would remain in the African country even if they were granted refugee status.

Stopping those Channel crossings is one of his government’s five fundamental objectives, and Mr Sunak hopes the flights will help the Conservatives close a yawning poll gap with the opposition Labor party.

But the policy has run headlong into concerns about human rights and the rule of law, which have roiled the normally equal Lords. The Supreme Court ruled in November that Rwanda was not a safe country for refugees, prompting the government to reform policies to address these concerns — insufficient, according to critics.

Several members of the chamber are retired judges and civil servants who see themselves as guardians of the courts and of Britain’s adherence to international law. They use the levers they have to force the government to correct the legislation.

“The way the Lords operates, like much of the British constitution, is based on convention rather than rules,” said Richard Newby, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in the House of Lords. “The question is how far you push a convention, rather than whether you break a rule.”

Mr Newby predicted that Mr Sunak’s Conservative government would not muster the votes of enough members on Wednesday to force the Lords to overturn the amendments. That means the bill will be returned to the House of Commons, most likely with fewer amendments.

The resulting back and forth could ensure that the bill does not become law until after the Easter holidays. However, Mr Sunak has appealed to the Lords not to “frustrate the will of the people”. recent poll suggests that a majority of the British public do not support the policy.

The House of Lords, the largest legislative assembly outside China, has about 800 members, including 91 who have inherited titles, and 26 archbishops and bishops. Its ranks include former politicians, advisors and diplomats; most are appointed for life.

The Lords meet in an ornate hall that has too few seats on busy days. Below them is a gilded throne, inlaid with rock crystals and covered in red velvet, from which King Charles III speaks when he opens Parliament.

Members, who can shape laws and ask questions without the inconvenience of running for office, can claim up to 342 pounds, or $435, in per diem. There are also other advantages: an office in the parliament complex; a parking lot; and luxurious, subsidized food and drink options, including the wood-paneled Bishops’ Bar.

But the members also work.

“The Lords is where you get effective supervision,” says Jill Rutter, a senior research fellow at UK in a Changing Europe, a research institute. “The House of Commons virtually did not examine the Rwanda bill because it was passed very quickly.”

“The problem,” she added, “is that the Lords actually know it is a ridiculous and illegitimate institution, which is why it almost always collapses.”

Yet, even within these limitations, the House can influence and even change policy. In 2015, the Lords convinced the government to reconsider cuts to social benefits. Just last week it was the prospect of defeat over an amendment to a bill in the Lords that prompted the government to promise new rules banning foreign state ownership of British newspapers and magazines.

David Lipsey, a Labor member of the Lords, said he expected his party to push for around half a dozen amendments. He said it was “fairly unlikely” that Labor would continue its opposition beyond Wednesday, even if there were good reasons for it.

“The Lords have always had the role of a backstop in stopping governments from doing things outside the bounds of democratic and legal decision-making,” said Mr Lipsey, who became a member in 1999 as Baron Lipsey of Tooting Bec.

While Labour’s double-digit poll lead means it is likely to form the next government, the party’s leaders know that if elected they would not automatically have a majority in a chamber where many members are uncommitted.

“Labor doesn’t particularly want to set the precedent that it’s OK for the Lords to throw out a flagship piece of government legislation because there may be things they want to do,” Ms Rutter said.

The elections, most likely scheduled for this fall, have also given non-aligned members pause. Some worry that they are being portrayed by the government as obstructionists, who could weaponize the unelected body in a campaign. Others worry about constitutional reforms that could threaten their status.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, spoke out strongly against an earlier version of the Rwanda bill last year, saying it “fails to deliver on our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests.”

But in an interview last December he said: ‘I would like to play as small a role as possible in the debate. We are within a year of the election.”

The head of Brazil’s state oil company looked out at the cluttered landscape of Rio de Janeiro through his office window. Looking back, he saw, on the other side of the city’s dilapidated apartment buildings, the looming statue of Christ the Redeemer. Hawks circled an overflowing garbage dump. Plumes of smoke rose from a fire in a hillside slum.

His company, Petrobras, plans such a rapid increase in oil production that it could become the world’s third-largest producer by 2030, a transformation he believes could play a role in reducing the poverty he sees lies on. This, even as his country positions itself as a leader in the fight against climate change, which is of course primarily driven by the burning of oil and other fossil fuels.

Petrobras pumps about as much crude oil annually as ExxonMobil, according to market research firm Rystad Energy. Oil is expected to surge past the national oil companies of China, Russia and Kuwait in the coming years, leaving only Saudi Arabia and Iran to surpass Petrobras by 2030.

It’s a huge predicament for Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula, who has molded himself into the pre-eminent global leader on climate issues. By all accounts, Mr. Lula has come to believe in recent years that climate change is a major cause of poverty and inequality, which he has vowed to eradicate in his decades-long political career.

Since his election in 2022, Mr. Lula has dramatically reduced deforestation in the Amazon and overseen a significant build-out of renewable energy. But he will also preside over Petrobras’ oil boom and a period of growing gas imports, both of which will facilitate Brazil’s growing appetite for cheap flights, meatier diets and air-conditioned homes.

As counterintuitive as that may seem, it’s only fair, said Petrobras CEO Jean Paul Prates, high up in his company’s gleaming headquarters.

“We will not give up that privilege,” he said, “because others do not also make their own sacrifices.”

It’s an argument that’s hampering global efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Industrialized countries such as the United States, which have become economic superpowers by emitting enormous amounts of greenhouse gases, are still the world’s largest producers and consumers of fossil fuels per capita.

And if they don’t want to stop, why would Brazil?

Lula’s chief adviser on climate change, Ana Toni, a longtime director of several nonprofits, said Petrobras would ideally cut oil production and invest more heavily in renewables, essentially transforming itself into a new kind of company. But she echoed Mr Prates, saying developing countries would hesitate to make their own sacrifices until the whole world stood together, with the richest leading the way.

Like many in Brazil, Ms. Toni pointed to the cautionary example of neighboring Colombia, whose president laid out an ambitious plan, the first for any oil-producing country, to phase out fossil fuel production.

“Colombia’s courageous decision is being interpreted by the market as creating economic uncertainty. It really is the worst-case scenario,” she said. “I wish countries richer than ours would have a real conversation about taking such steps, and not leave it to us vulnerable ones.”

That tension has dominated years of climate negotiations and will take center stage again this year at the United Nations-sponsored summit to be held in Azerbaijan in November. There, negotiators from almost every country in the world hope to tackle the thorny issue of how richer countries can funnel more money to poorer countries to help them adopt cleaner energy sources and adapt to the effects of climate change.

After Azerbaijan, Brazil itself will be the next host of the UN climate summit. The summit will take place in Belém, a city on the edge of the Amazon, near a place where Petrobras had proposed to explore for oil. But in one of the few cases where the Brazilian government restricted the oil industry, this idea was blocked. Mr Prates said Petrobras was appealing the decision.

Meanwhile, Petrobras plans to spend more than $7 billion over the next five years exploring potential offshore drilling sites along other parts of Brazil’s coast to boost its already growing output.

Petrobras, like many other oil and gas companies, internally expects demand for its products to remain stubbornly high. Accordingly, the company is making a very different set of assumptions than those of the International Energy Agency and others who say oil demand has already peaked or is close to peaking.

That leaves countries like Brazil in a kind of do-it-all gray area, says Mercedes Bustamante, a professor and ecologist at the University of Brasilia, and a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, an independent group of scientists.

Brazil grows both renewable energy sources and fossil fuels. This year it joined OPEC, the global oil cartel, as an observer, while next year it also plans to host the UN’s global climate negotiations. According to Rystad data, the country will become the world’s fifth largest oil producer by 2030.

This dynamic is also reflected in forests, Ms. Bustamante said. Land clearing in the Amazon has been restricted, but at the same time it is increasing in the Cerrado, a vast savannah that covers much of central Brazil.

“Working both ways is very much part of Brazil’s policy DNA,” says Oliver Stuenkel, professor at the Fundação Getulio Vargas School of International Relations in São Paulo. “We are becoming a green superpower, yes, but we are not going to take unnecessary risks. This means that we must prepare for a world in which oil will play an important role for a long time and the transition will take longer than expected.”

Mr. Prates said he spoke to Mr. Lula every two weeks and pushed him to understand that a transition away from fossil fuels must be “sensibly slow.”

“That doesn’t mean slow because we don’t want to make a transition, but slow because we have to meet the expectations of the market for oil, gas and its derivatives,” he said. “Petrobras will rise to the end of the last drop of oil, just as Saudi Arabia or the Emirates will do the same.”

Petrobras has some serious long-term upside, even if oil demand peaks. The cost of producing oil from Brazil’s offshore locations near Rio and São Paulo is roughly $35 per barrel, well below the international benchmark of $90. That’s partly because its production is less energy intensive, making it marginally cleaner and more desirable for some emissions-conscious buyers.

Lula’s government also faces a polarized electorate that, according to recent surveys, generally does not view climate change as a voting issue. “Half the population does not have access to treated sewage,” Mr. Stuenkel said. “Brazil has very different public demands than richer countries. There is still a long way to go to convince Brazilian voters that a painful reorganization of society is needed to avert climate change.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Lula is deeply concerned, said Ms. Toni, his climate adviser.

The world is looking to Brazil for leadership in this area, and the country has made ambitious pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those promises are more ambitious, she noted, than those of the United States or many other countries that have higher living standards than Brazil.

She believes it is a good sign that Brazil is under pressure to reconsider its oil expansion. To her, this means that they have been so successful at deforestation that people are holding them to a higher standard.

But it’s all in vain if the biggest players don’t match that ambition. “Even if Brazil stops oil production tomorrow,” she said. “The US, Russia and others will not stop.”

Antony J. Blinken landed in Beijing on Sunday morning, making him the first US Secretary of State to visit since 2018. Strained relations have delayed the trip for months: He had planned to visit in February but postponed after the Pentagon announced that a Chinese surveillance balloon was floating over the continental United States.

Mr Blinken and other US officials have expressed hope that the visit will usher in a more constructive era of diplomacy. But China has taken a confrontational stance in recent weeks, expressing concern that meetings in Beijing could become more hostile than friendly.

Both sides are bringing a list of grievances and issues to discuss in two days of meetings that are likely to provide a critical gauge of whether China and the United States can soon mend the fences.

What problems are on Blinken’s list?

US officials have stressed that restoring high-level diplomacy is their priority. They say the two sides should establish communication channels to ease existing tensions that could escalate during a crisis, such as a naval or aircraft collision in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea.

Security issues are likely to weigh heavily. US officials have become increasingly concerned about close contacts with the Chinese military in the seas around China. The United States is also closely monitoring Chinese efforts to establish military bases in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and has warned China not to give lethal military aid to Russia for its war in Ukraine.

Mr. Blinken plans to talk to Chinese officials about global issues where the two nations may have shared interests, including climate change and global economic stability, said Daniel J. Kritenbrink, the State Department’s top East Asian official.

Mr Blinken is also likely to ask China to release some US citizens who are detained, imprisoned or banned from leaving the country, and to try to restart some people-to-people exchanges. That could include expanding the small number of journalist visas each country had agreed to give each other early in the Biden administration before relations deteriorated.

US officials also say they expect to talk to China about limiting the export of substances used to make fentanyl, a drug that has led to a deadly addiction problem in the United States and other countries.

What is China likely to say?

China is expected to raise a litany of grievances that reflect Beijing’s view that the United States is a declining hegemony determined to stay in power by restraining China economically, militarily and diplomatically.

At the top of China’s list is Taiwan, a de facto independent island that Beijing claims as its own territory and receives military aid from Washington.

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, has described Taiwan as “the core of China’s core interests” and has accused the United States of supporting “pro-independence” forces and interfering in China’s internal affairs.

China is also likely to express deep frustration at US-led efforts to restrict Chinese access to advanced semiconductor chips and manufacturing equipment. The restrictions, which the United States says are necessary to prevent American technology from falling into the hands of the People’s Liberation Army, could delay China’s technological development for years. China sees the ban as an example of “zero-sum competition” driving the two countries toward confrontation.

Despite China’s rapid military buildup, Beijing is expected to accuse Washington of provoking conflict by deepening security ties with regional powers including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and India.

China says it ultimately wants the United States to treat it as an equal power so that it has equal say on the world stage and does not feel threatened by the US military presence in Asia.

Will Xi meet Blinken in person?

A big question that hangs during the journey is whether Mr. Blinken will meet Mr. Xi. US and Chinese officials spent the last week working out the final details of Mr Blinken’s schedule, and confirmation of a meeting between the two may not arrive until the last minute. Much will depend on how Sunday and early Monday meetings go.

However, the two men have spoken to each other before. Mr Blinken has met Mr Xi on several occasions, including in 2011 when he traveled to Beijing and Chengdu as the national security adviser to Mr Biden, who was then the vice president and charged with traveling to China to meet Mr. getting to know Biden. Xi, his counterpart at the time.

Possibly plead for an action by Mr. Xi for his and other Chinese officials’ efforts to put on a more diplomatic face to the world recently, including his hosting a series of foreign leaders in China this year.

Viviane Wang reporting contributed.