You are here
The Carbon Brief
DeBriefed 22 May 2026: UN adopts landmark resolution | Trump takes on ‘RCP8.5’ | Climate migration
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
ICJ OPINION: The UN has adopted a resolution backing a landmark world court opinion stating that countries have a legal obligation to address climate change, reported the Guardian. Some 141 countries voted in favour of the resolution, while only eight voted against: the US; Israel; Iran; Russia; Belarus; Saudi Arabia; Yemen; and Liberia. There were also 28 absentations, including India and Turkey, the host of COP31.
‘DETERMINED’: The text adopted by the UN general assembly “stresses” that “climate change is an unprecedented challenge of civilizational proportions” and says the assembly is “determined” to “translate the court’s findings into enhanced multilateral cooperation and accelerated climate action at all levels, consistent with international law”. The text “urges” states to implement measures including “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. It also “requests” the next UN secretary general to report on progress in 2027 and adds a formal follow-up to the agenda of the UN general assembly in 2028.
AMENDMENTS REJECTED: A UN press summary detailed how countries rejected four proposed amendments to the text by a group of largely Arab nations. These amendments would have undercut the world court’s legal advice on countries’ climate obligations by saying its views should only be taken into account “as appropriate”. They also would have added a reference to 2C, instead of focusing on 1.5C alone, got rid of the formal follow-up process in 2028 and added a reference to the role of carbon capture and storage.
Scenario sceptic‘GOOD RIDDANCE’: US president Donald Trump declared “good riddance” to a very high emissions modelling scenario in a Truth Social post on Saturday, misleadingly stating that “the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!” The post was quickly picked up by right-leaning media, including Fox News, the New York Post and the Australian.
NEW SCENARIOS: Trump’s claim follows the publication of a new set of emissions scenarios that will underpin research cited in the next set of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In a guest post for Carbon Brief, scientists explained that the very high emissions scenario has “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends”.
TRUMP FACTCHECKED:Carbon Brief published a factcheck of Trump’s claims. It noted that the IPCC does not develop, control or own climate scenarios and has not published anything stating that any climate scenario is “wrong”. It added: “Projections suggest that the world is still on course for between 2.5C and 3C of warming…previously described as ‘catastrophic’ by the UN.”
- ADAPTATION NEEDED: The UK’s Climate Change Committee outlined how investing in adaptation now could produce “long-term savings”, Carbon Brief reported. UK ministers are preparing to accept a CCC recommendation to “set a legally binding goal of cutting emissions 87% by 2040”, reported the Times.
- ELECTRIFY EVERYTHING: COP31 president-designate Murat Kurum told the Copenhagen climate ministerial that countries should be “decarbonising the way we generate electricity, but also expanding electrification into every sphere of life”, according to Climate Home News.
- STAFF CUT: Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, is preparing to fire one-third of the team working on the national climate model that provides future projections, reported the Guardian.
- TARGET MISSED: An independent body has warned that Germany is expected to miss its 2030 climate goals and emit more CO2 than previously forecast, reported Reuters. According to Deutsche Welle, the country could breach its goal by up to 100m tonnes of CO2.
- PEAK POWER: India’s peak power demand “smashed all records” on Tuesday, after the country’s ongoing heatwave drove a “sharp rise” in electricity consumption, according to the Economic Times. The record fell again on Thursday, said Reuters.
The number of countries in the world that have net-zero targets.
2Major emitters that do not have a net-zero target – a group comprising Iran and the US, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Latest climate research- Global warming above 4C is projected to cause large decreases in “climate connectivity” between habitats for land animals | Nature Climate Change
- Around 6% of respiratory deaths in Brazil from 2010-20 were attributable to “non-optimal temperatures”, accounting for more than 66,000 excess deaths | PLOS Climate
- Fungi that cause diseases in plants will approximately double in abundance around the Antarctic Peninsula by 2100 under a moderate emissions scenario | Global Change Biology
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
CapturedThe world added nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity in 2025 – the equivalent of roughly 100 large coal plants – according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM). This is a ten-year high, according to Carbon Brief’s coverage, which noted that the world’s coal plants nevertheless generated less electricity. The chart above shows that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China last year.
Spotlight Climate migrationThis week, Carbon Brief speaks to experts at a conference on migration and climate change in London about what their research could mean for how people move around the world in the future.
Prof Kerilyn Schewel, assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel HillWe have moved beyond a ‘push factor’ narrative – that climate change is coming and uprooting communities – to a more nuanced perspective that recognises that people are already moving for all kinds of reasons… [For example] the more that young people are accessing formal education, the more they want to leave – particularly rural communities. We have to be very careful not to assume that when people want to leave, it is always driven by climate change. There are other developmental factors that are also shaping desires to move. This is a research frontier – seeing how environmental factors intersect with these other social or developmental outcomes.
Dr Aromar Revi, founding director of the Indian Institute for Human SettlementsThe future of mobility is much more certain than [climate change is]. People have been mobile for a very long time. That’s been an important part of the transformation of societies and economies for centuries…mobility is part of the solution [to climate change]. It is not the full solution, but it’s part of the solution. People are voting with their feet and with their aspirations to make a change.
Prof Nitya Rao, a professor of gender and development at the University of East AngliaThere are many things that the system can do to welcome migrants and be more sensitive to different types of migrants and their needs… In the short term, [migrants] need piped water, a proper home, care for young children…In the longer term, we have to address structural inequality. There are still barriers to people accessing resources – especially productive assets such as land, capital and livestock…And these barriers are split by gender, class, ethnicity and so on. These need to be addressed, I think, to really make migration a case of [climate] adaptation and not just survival.
Prof Jon Barnett, professor in the school of geography, earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of MelbourneIn the Pacific islands, international migration isn’t driven by climate change. It’s enabled by the capacity of people to cross borders, so it’s all about migration agreements. As climate change amplifies pressures on people’s livelihoods, we may end up with a whole series of transnational populations that are kind of constantly in churn – where they’re not just living on the island, but also in Australia, New Zealand, the US.
Dr Maria Franco Gavonel, lecturer in global social policy and international development at the University of YorkThe migration response towards almost any climate event is short lived and short distance, so it will mostly affect internal movement rather than international…So all these narratives about climate refugees – like human rights related to international migration – are overstating the extent to which this is going to happen.
Dr Benoy Peter, the executive director of the Centre for Migration and Inclusive Development in IndiaEvery one of us, including you and me, have benefited from migration. Migration is the fastest way for intergenerational upward social mobility for people from socially and economically disadvantaged populations. So I see migration as a [climate] solution.
Cecilia Keating also contributed to this spotlight. Read more of Carbon Brief’s coverage of the conference.
Watch, read, listenTICE QUESTIONED: The Bloomberg Zero podcast interviewed Richard Tice, the deputy leader of the hard-right Reform UK party, who exposed his rejection of climate science and support for the oil and gas industry.
‘CLIMATE CROSSROADS’: The Guardian examined how Colombia’s upcoming election could leave the major oil-and-gas producer at a “climate crossroads”.
LAND GRAB: A Floodlight investigation for Inside Climate News examined “Trump officials, billionaires and the quiet reshaping of America’s public lands”.
Coming up- 24 May: Cyprus elections
- 28-29 May: Blue economy and finance forum, Monaco
- 28 May: International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Investment 2026 report launch
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, editor in chief | Salary: $140,000-$160,000. Location: Washington DC, Chicago or New York City
- Climate Outreach, researcher | Salary: £44,000. Location: Remote (UK)
- University of Manchester, research associate, energy and climate governance | Salary: £37,694-£46,049. Location: Manchester, UK
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 22 May 2026: UN adopts landmark resolution | Trump takes on ‘RCP8.5’ | Climate migration appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Experts: Why migration is ‘not a failure of adaptation’ in a warming world
Hundreds of scientists gathered in London this week to discuss the role of migration as a way for communities to adapt to climate change.
The impacts of a warming world, such as sea level rise and worsening extremes, are pushing many people around the world to leave their homes.
As a form of climate adaptation, a decision to migrate involves an array of different factors, such as politics, conflict and economic opportunity.
The conference unpacked these topics, as well as the impacts of climate change on livelihoods, relocation and gender norms across Africa and Asia.
The event had a strong focus on urban areas, with one co-convenor stating that “half of the world’s population now lives in the cities…A lot of the battles of climate adaptation will be won and lost in cities.”
Another co-convenor told Carbon Brief that the conference’s “focus really is on the climate change adaptation community, showing that migration is not a failure of adaptation – it is part of adaptation”.
Carbon Brief attended the conference to report on the sessions and speak to world-leading experts on climate-driven migration.
- Migration as adaptation
- Cities and livelihoods
- Immobility and relocation
- Legal pathways
- Changing narratives
The two-day conference on “mobility in adaptation to climate change” was held at Wellcome’s headquarters in London. It gathered more than 100 leading experts in migration, adaptation and climate change from countries across Europe, Africa and Asia.
On day one of the conference, co-convenor Prof Neil Adger, a professor from the University of Exeter, told Carbon Brief:
“Our focus really is on the climate change adaptation community, showing that migration is not a failure of adaptation – it is part of adaptation.”
In his opening address, Adger highlighted that there were still many unknowns on climate migration – such as how and when it is an appropriate way to adapt to climate change, and who benefits and loses in these situations.
Prof Neil Adger from the University of Exeter, opening the conference. Credit: Hemant Kumar from the IIHS Media Lab.Dr Manuela Di Mauro – the head of climate-adaptation research at the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office – took to the stage next. She told attendees that mobility has always been a part of human life, stating:
“We are all migrants. We are all part of the same history.”
She urged the scientific community to “learn the language and the political perspective” needed to support and engage with policymakers about climate-driven migration.
Conference co-convenor Dr Chandni Singh from the Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IIHS) then delivered the first in-depth talk of the conference, outlining the current state of knowledge on climate change and migration.
She explained that cross-border migration is “emotionally and economically arduous” adding “under a changing climate, people choose to move within national borders first”. (Estimates suggest that around three-quarters of total global migration is internal.)
Singh emphasised that “mobility choices are extremely complex and nuanced, based on one’s aspirations and capabilities, social norms and asset bases”. She continued:
“Some [people] are forced to move or are displaced, others are relocated preemptively to move people out of harm’s way and others choose to stay despite escalating risk – or because resilience-building measures allow people to stay.”
She stressed that people need resources to migrate, so the poorest people are often unable to move – leaving them in a state of “immobility”. However, she also noted that most people do not want to leave their homes, stressing the “visceral reality of place attachment”.
Singh explained that many families “live dual lives”, in which family members work in the city to save money for a life back in their village. This dynamic of living across two locations is often referred to as “translocality”.
For example, Singh shared the story of residents from the Indian village of Kolar, who travel more than 100km to and from Bangalore for work every day, or else live there in informal settlements.
These workers send the money they earn back home, where it is often used to dig bore wells to access water. However, Singh warned that climate change and poor water management mean these wells often fail year after year, trapping people in this cycle of travelling to Bangalore to earn more money.
Singh also stressed the prevalence of rural-to-urban migration. She cited UN estimates (that do not explicitly include climate-driven migration), which find that around 2.5 billion people are expected to migrate from rural to urban areas by 2050. It adds that 90% of the change occurring in Africa and Asia.
Singh added:
“Half of the world’s population now lives in the cities…A lot of the battles of climate adaptation will be won and lost in cities.”
She noted that although migration “helps to manage risks”, it also has “significant financial, personal and social costs”.
Singh went on to discuss the global goal on adaptation – a set of 59 indicators to measure global progress on adaptation. Singh said that “migration and mobility are completely invisible…and therefore completely overlooked” in the goals.
She concluded by discussing the importance of new narratives on climate change and migration, saying:
“It’s the narratives and stories we tell of this moment that can help us first acknowledge what is happening, help subvert misinformation and untruths, and really demand accountability.”
Cities and livelihoodsMigration from villages to cities was a central theme of the conference.
On day two of the conference, Dr Aromar Revi, founding director of the IIHS, told delegates that the “root cause of the climate emergency is maldevelopment” and emphasised the importance of pursuing adaptation, mitigation and development goals together.
Dr Aromar Revi, founding director of the IIHS, addressing conference attendees. Credit: Hemant Kumar from the IIHS Media Lab.He noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is currently working on a special report on climate change and cities and argued that “cities will play a decisive role in shaping global climate futures”.
He continued:
“Cities concentrate opportunities, but they also concentrate poverty, inequality and risk. And that’s something that we really don’t know how to understand, especially in a changing climate.”
Throughout the conference, many of the delegates presented nuanced stories of rural-to-urban migration from individual communities. These case studies highlighted the complex, interlinking factors that drive a person’s decision to move and the wide range of outcomes.
Dr Aysha Jennath from the IIHS presented the results from her research, which unpacks the experiences of migrants who have moved from rural to urban areas, for a range of reasons including the changing climate and for better livelihoods.
Jennath and her colleagues interviewed thousands of migrants living in informal settlements, or working in informal jobs, in large cities in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal. The researchers’ questions aimed to understand the migrants’ “wellbeing, adaptive capacity and precarity”.
Overall, Jennath found that migrants in large cities are vulnerable to poor housing, unsafe working conditions and a lack of basic social services.
Dr Binaya Pasakhala and Dr Sabarnee Tuladhar from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, presented initial results from the Climate Adaptation and Resilience (CLARE) project, in which researchers interviewed households across Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal about migration patterns.
They conducted hundreds of surveys to identify how households are adapting to the changing climate and grouped responses into a series of “pathways” describing the impacts of rural-to-urban migration on their livelihoods.
Dr Binaya Pasakhala and Dr Sabarnee Tuladhar from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and Halvard Buhaug Peace Research Institute Oslo answering questions in a panel discussion. Credit: Hemant Kumar from the IIHS Media Lab.For example, Tuladhar noted that in Bhutan, there is a huge emphasis on education, which has “changed the aspirations of the community – especially the youth”. This drives “huge depopulation” from rural areas as young, educated people migrate to urban areas or internationally, she said.
This mass movement into the cities provides opportunities for young people. It also provides money for the families back home – a type of finance known as remittances.
However, it also “weakened resilience” in the villages through “gungtong” – a phrase which translates literally to “empty houses”.
However, they also described the case of Nepal’s Baragon mountain community, where remittances from people who moved to urban centres has allowed communities in the villages to shift livelihoods away from subsidence farming towards commercialised farming and tourism. In this case, “migration has actually strengthened the resilience of the community”, Tuladhar said.
Prof Nitya Rao is a researcher in gender and development at the University of East Anglia (UEA), also presented research funded by CLARE.
She told the conference that when men are forced to leave for work, due to a lack of other options, a lot of their earnings go towards “survival” and less is saved. On the other hand, “mixed migration” – such as the movement of a father and son – is often “aspirational”. It typically yields higher remittances and improves adaptive capacity back home, according to Rao.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Rao argued that in order to “make migration a case of adaptation and not just survival in the short term”, destination cities need to do more to welcome migrants.
Prof Nitya Rao addressing conference attendees. Credit: Hemant Kumar from the IIHS Media Lab.Dr Maria Franco Gavonel, a lecturer at the University of York and Prof Mumuni Abu, a senior lecturer from the University of Ghana, explored the concept of “social tipping points” in migration decision-making.
They suggested that as a drought intensifies, there may be a threshold at which households decide to leave. The authors compared drought indices to immigration patterns across communities in Ghana, Mali, Kenya and Ethiopia, but did not find evidence of a social tipping point.
This could be because households anticipate severe droughts and leave before they hit, the speakers suggested. They also noted that there are many government-led policy responses to drought that could affect a household’s decision to stay or leave.
For example, Kenya has a livestock-insurance policy to help families who lose animals during drought. Similarly the African Union uses satellite data to assess the severity of droughts and provide compensation to affected households.
In the final session of the conference, Dr Kasia Paprocki, an associate professor of environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, provided a counterpoint to the idea that the vast majority of villagers want to abandon farming and move to the city.
She argued that people are often displaced from rural communities and unable to live farming lifestyles, even if they want to, adding:
“I have found that agrarian dispossession is being intensified through development interventions that are today being referred to as climate change adaptation.”
She argued for the need to “reorganise economies” to enable people to stay “if they would like to”, adding:
“Climate change adaptation and climate migration without meaningful agrarian reform will not produce climate justice.”
Immobility and relocationMovement from rural to urban areas was not the only migration pattern discussed in the conference. Experts also discussed movement patterns including planned relocation and immobility.
The graphic below – adapted from the 2021 Groundswell report and originally published in Carbon Brief’s 2024 explainer on climate-driven migration – shows different categories of mobility and immobility due to climate change.
Different categories of human mobility and immobility due to climate change. Source: Adapted from the Groundswell report (2021).Dr Roman Hoffmann from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis’s migration and sustainable development research group opened a session on “immobility” by presenting a way of defining and measuring the phenomenon.
He told Carbon Brief that immobility is “basically the absence of movement”, adding:
“The are different types of immobility. We have voluntary and involuntary immobility – and sometimes these different forms are not so clearly distinguishable, but there’s more sort of a continuum. Basically, the question is whether people are able to realise their aspirations to move or to stay.”
In his talk, Hoffman noted that media narratives around migration often focus on large movements of people, while the topic of immobility “falls between the cracks”.
Immobility is often seen as a problem experienced by the poorest and most vulnerable members of society – for example, because people cannot find or afford the resources they need, such as food or transportation, because they are not healthy enough to move or because they do not have the social network they require to make such a big change.
However, Dr Joyce Soo from the Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, explained that there are also instances when “wealth enables immobility”.
Soo explained that in coastal regions of Sweden that are exposed to extreme events, many residents there choose to stay, as there is “strong trust in government protection”, such as coastal defences. She explained that in this instance “immobility is linked to identity and status”.
A separate session at the conference focused on planned relocation – the organised movement of a group of people away from a site that is highly vulnerable to climate extremes.
Dr Ricardo Safra de Campos, a senior lecturer in human geography at the University of Exeter, told the delegates that planned relocation is “arguably the most controversial aspect of mobility as a response to climate change” and is usually implemented when “all other forms of in-situ adaptation have failed”.
Safra de Campos and Nihal Ranjit, a senior research associate at IIHS, worked with a team of researchers to interview people who underwent planned relocation programmes in India and Bangladesh.
They told delegates that planned relocation is often implemented when people feel unsafe – for example due to climate extremes – resulting in an “erosion of habitability”.
However, Ranjit explained “safety alone doesn’t make relocation successful”. He argued that the most important aspect of planned relocation is to ensure that migrants do not lose their livelihoods.
He presented the example of Ramayapatnam – a fishing village in India where houses were slowly being lost to coastal erosion. Ranjit explained that a planned relocation programme was set up to move people away from the coast, but that many people refused to move, as doing so would mean losing their only means of earning money.
He also noted the many Indian citizens hold a deep mistrust of the government and question the authorities’ intentions.
Relocation must be “rights-based, participatory, livelihood-centred and attentive to culture, community and long-term wellbeing”, Ranjit said.
Meanwhile, Dr Annah Pigott-McKellar, a human geographer at the Queensland University of Technology, compared two case studies of relocation in Australia.
When devastating flash floods hit Queensland in January 2011, a relocation programme led by the local government was set up to move people. The first houses were built within a year, and people were moved in “extremely fast”, Pigott-McKellar said. She explained that the goal was to keep the town together and “keep some level of social continuity”.
Conference attendees asking questions to the panel. Credit: Hemant Kumar from the IIHS Media Lab.Conversely, when northern New South Wales faced severe flooding in 2022, the response was slow, according to Pigott-McKellar. She explained that different members of the community were offered varying levels of assistance by the state. For example, some households offered buybacks for their lost properties, while others were not.
The result was a “fragmented and dispersed mobility pathway” that saw the community split up and mistrust in the government grow.
Pigott-McKellar emphasised the importance of follow-through and continuity in relocation, stating:
“Relocation isn’t a moment in time. It is a process that unfolds over months or years”.
Legal pathwaysMost human migration happens within borders. However, conference delegates also discussed cases in which people move to other countries, with a focus on the possible legal pathways.
Prof Jon Barnett, professor in the school of geography, Earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Melbourne, explained migration patterns in the south Pacific islands.
He told delegates that climate change is causing “significant social impacts” across the islands, adding:
“While we can’t say that climate change is a major factor in migration decisions…there is a “fingerprint of climate change in [all] migration decisions.”
Barnett outlined legal migration routes for Pacific islanders, such as Fiji’s climate relocation trust fund, which has already had more than 2,000 requests, or seasonal worker schemes to New Zealand, which have already issued 137,000 visas.
However, he noted that there is a “massive burden” for the women who stay on the Pacific islands when their husbands leave. He explained that not only do women substitute for the labour of the men, but climate change can also amplify their workload by making farming more difficult and illnesses more widespread.
He concluded:
“Migration cannot be the only adaptation strategy we offer to the Pacific Islands. It’s got to be one strategy in the portfolio.”
Speaking separately to Carbon Brief, he said:
“As climate change amplifies pressures on people’s livelihoods, we may end up with a whole series of transnational populations that are kind of constantly in churn – where they’re not just living on the island, but also in Australia, New Zealand, the US.
“That’s not necessarily a bad thing, I think, so long as people still have a right to return to their islands and can do so – and are making informed choices…to manage their climate risk.”
Demographer Prof Raya Muttarak, from the University of Bologna, told delegates that Italy is the only EU country with explicit legislation for climate-related protection.
This six-month residence permit was introduced in 2018, for people who are found to have faced a “contingent and exceptional calamity”. However, she noted that there are flaws in the evidence base for making these claims, which can make it difficult for people to obtain the permits.
Changing narrativesMany speakers discussed the framing of climate change and migration in their talks. There was also a workshop on how to develop and promote “new narratives” around migration as an adaptation response to a changing climate on the first day of the conference.
Workshop on “new narratives”. Credit: Hemant Kumar from the IIHS Media Lab.Dr Reetika Subramanian, a senior research associate at UEA who helped to organise the conference, told Carbon Brief that many media narratives around migration are “alarmist” and “crisis-based”, with a focus on people from poorer countries illegally entering wealthier countries.
However, explained that the conference convenors wanted to begin work on developing a new framing for migration – both in response to climate change and more generally – focusing on its “adaptive aspects”.
Dr Benoy Peter, the executive director of the Centre for Migration and Inclusive Development, told Carbon Brief that “far right” media and politics often “leverage” migration to present a negative framing.
However, he said that he sees migration as a “solution”, describing it as the “fastest way for intergenerational upward social mobility for people from socially and economically disadvantaged populations”.
Prof Kerilyn Schewel, assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told Carbon Brief that the migration community has “moved beyond a ‘push factor’ narrative – that climate change is coming and uprooting communities – to a more nuanced perspective that recognises that people are already moving for all kinds of reasons”.
She said the new “research frontier” is “seeing how environmental factors intersect with these other social or developmental outcomes”, such as education.
Liby Johnson, the executive director of development organisation Gram Vikas, told the conference his reason for hope:
Attendees of the “mobility in adaptation to climate change” conference. Credit: Hemant Kumar from the IIHS Media Lab.“Communities are figuring this out. They are not rejecting mobility – they are asking for mobility that is safer, fairer and more dignified. Communities affected by climate uncertainty are not simply enduring crises – they are actively using mobility to diversify risk, protect dignity and build better futures.”
Revi, from the IIHS, told Carbon Brief:
“The future of mobility is much more certain than the climate futures are. People have been mobile for a very long time. That’s been an important part of the transformation of societies and economies for centuries…Mobility is part of the solution. It is not the full solution, but it’s part of the solution. People are voting with their feet and with their aspirations to make a change.”
CCC: Investing in ‘urgent’ UK adaptation action ‘cheaper than climate damages’
Risk and adaptation
|UN report: Five charts which explain the ‘gap’ in finance for climate adaptation
Risk and adaptation
|Guest post: How adaptation has cut flood deaths and losses in Europe
Attribution
|Guest post: More than 70% of adaptation plans for European cities are ‘inconsistent’
Guest posts
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_10b02f6ed41c891ef11a8af13f810e62 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Experts: Why migration is ‘not a failure of adaptation’ in a warming world appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How CMIP7 will shape the next wave of climate science
Hundreds of scientists in dozens of institutions are embarking on the next phase of the world’s largest coordinated climate-modelling effort.
Climate-modelling groups use supercomputers to run climate models that simulate the physics, chemistry and biology of the Earth’s atmosphere, land and oceans.
These models play a crucial role in helping scientists understand how the climate is responding as greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere.
For four decades, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has guided the work of the climate-modelling community by providing a framework that allows for millions of results to be collected together and compared.
The resulting projections are used extensively in climate science and policy and underpin the landmark reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Now, the seventh phase of CMIP – CMIP7 – is underway, with more than 30 climate-modelling centres expected to contribute more than five million gigabytes of data – so much that downloading it using a fast internet connection would take two and a half years.
Here, we look at what is new for CMIP7, including its model experiments, updated emissions scenarios and “assessment fast track” process.
What is CMIP?Around the world, climate models are developed by different institutions and groups, known as modelling centres.
Each model is built differently and, therefore, produces slightly different results.
To better understand these differences, CMIP coordinates a common set of climate-model experiments.
These are simulations that use the same inputs and conditions, allowing scientists to compare the results and see where models agree or differ.
The figure below shows the countries that have either produced or published CMIP simulations.
Countries that have contributed modelling or data infrastructure for CMIP. Credit: CMIPDuring this time, scientists use new and improved models to run experiments from previous CMIP phases for consistency, as well as new experiments to investigate fresh scientific questions.
These simulations produce a trove of data, in the form of variables – such as temperature, rainfall, winds, sea ice extent and ocean currents. This information helps scientists study past, present and future climate change.
As scientific understanding and technical capabilities improve, models are refined. As a result, each CMIP phase incorporates higher spatial resolutions, larger ensembles, improved representations of key processes and more efficient model designs.
CMIP7 objectivesEach CMIP phase has an “experimental design” that outlines which climate-model experiments should be run and their technical specifications, including the time period the models should simulate.
The CMIP7 experimental design has several components.
As in CMIP6, for a modelling centre to contribute, they are asked to produce a suite of experiments that maintain continuity across past and future CMIP phases.
This suite of experiments is known as the “diagnostic, evaluation and characterisation of klima” (DECK) and is used to understand how their model “behaves” under simple, standard conditions. These experiments are designed and requested directly by CMIP’s scientific governing panel.
Alongside the DECK, CMIP also incorporates experiments developed by model intercomparison projects (MIPs) run by different research communities. For example, experiments exploring what the climate could look like under different levels of emissions or those that explore how sea ice might have changed between the last two ice-ages.
Currently, CMIP is working with 40 MIPs. These groups investigate specific scientific questions at their own pace, rather than on timelines prescribed by CMIP.
Running a large number of simulations can take modelling centres a long time. To speed up the process, CMIP7 has launched the “assessment fast track”.
This is a small subset of CMIP7 experiments, drawn from past and present community MIPs, identified through community consultation as being critical for scientific and policy assessments.
Data from the assessment fast track will be used in the reports that will together form the seventh assessment (AR7) of the IPCC.
It will also be used as an input by other groups that create climate information, including organisations involved in regional downscaling and modelling climate impacts and ice-sheet changes.
The figure below shows the different components of CMIP7. It shows how a subset of CMIP7 experiments will be delivered on an accelerated timeline, while the majority of experiments will be led by MIPs.
The different components of CMIP7. Credit: CMIP CMIP7 experimentsThere are three categories of experiments set to take place in CMIP7:
- Historical experiments, which are designed to improve scientific understanding of past climates. Model runs exploring the recent historical period also allow scientists to evaluate the performance of models by checking how well they replicate real-world observations.
- Prediction and projection experiments, which allow scientists to analyse what different climates could look like under varying levels of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as near-term (10-year) prediction experiments.
- Process understanding experiments, which are designed to better understand specific processes and isolate cause-and-effect relationships. For example, a set of experiments might change the emissions of one greenhouse gas at a time to see how much each pollutant contributes to warming or cooling the climate.
Modelling centres typically produce and publish their data for the historical and projection experiments first.
CMIP expects the first datasets to be available by this summer, with broader publication recommended by the end of the year, in time to be assessed by IPCC AR7 authors.
Drafting of the reports of AR7 is currently underway. However, countries are yet to agree on the timeline for when they will be published. This presents a challenge for the climate-modelling community, given the difficulties of working with a moving deadline.
(For more on the ongoing standoff between countries around the timing of publication of the reports, read Carbon Brief’s explainer.)
New emissions scenariosScientists use emissions scenarios to simulate the future climate according to how global energy systems and land use might change over the next century.
Crucially, these scenarios – also known as “pathways” – are not forecasts or predictions of the future.
The group tasked with designing the scenarios for CMIP phases, as well as producing the “input files” for climate models, is the “scenario model intercomparison project”, or ScenarioMIP.
In a new paper, the group has set out the new set of scenarios for CMIP7:
- High (H): Emissions grow to as high as deemed plausibly possible, consistent with a rollback of current climate policies. This scenario will result in strong warming.
- High-to-low (HL): Emissions rise as in the high scenario at first, but are cut sharply in the second half of the century to reach net-zero by 2100.
- Medium (M): Emissions consistent with current policies, frozen as of 2025, leading to a moderate level of warming.
- Medium-to-low (ML): Emissions are slowly reduced, eventually reaching net-zero emissions by the end of the century.
- Low (L): Emissions consistent with likely keeping warming below 2C and not returning to 1.5C before the end of the century.
- Very low (VL): Emissions are cut to keep temperatures “as low as plausible”, according to the paper. This scenario limits warming to close to 1.5C by the end of the century, with limited overshoot beforehand.
- Low-to-negative (LN): Emissions fall slightly slower than in the VL scenario, with temperatures just rising above 1.5C. Emissions then rapidly drop to negative to bring warming back down.
The figures below show the emissions (left) and the estimated global temperature changes (right) under the seven new scenarios for CMIP7, from the low-to-negative emissions scenario (turquoise) to a high-emissions scenario (brown).
The greenhouse gas emissions for each of the CMIP7 climate scenarios (left) and the associated estimated average temperature change from 1850-1900 (right) using the FaIR emulator. Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren et al. (2026)As a set, the ScenarioMIP scenarios “cover plausible outcomes ranging from a high level of climate change (in the case of policy failure) to low levels of climate change resulting from stringent policies”, the paper says.
Compared to the scenarios in CMIP6, the range in future emissions they cover is now narrower, the authors say:
“On the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends…At the low end, many CMIP6 emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020-30 period.”
Put simply, progress on climate policies and cheaper renewable technologies means that scenarios of very high emissions have now been ruled out.
However, this progress has not been sufficient to keep society on track for the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C goal. The paper notes that, “at this point of time, some overshoot of the 1.5C seems unavoidable”.
[The change to the high end of the scenarios has sparked misleading commentary in the media and on social media – even from US president Donald Trump. A Carbon Brief factcheck unpacks the debate.]
Also notable in the new scenarios is the “low-to-negative” pathway, which has the explicit feature of emissions becoming “net-negative”. In other words, through carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, society reaches the point at which more carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere than is being added through greenhouse gas emissions.
Reaching net-negative emissions is fundamental to “overshoot scenarios”, where global warming passes a target and then is brought back down by large-scale CDR.
Overshoot scenarios allow scientists and policymakers to investigate the impacts of a delay to emissions reductions and better understand how the world might respond to passing a warming target. This includes the question of whether some impacts of climate change, such as ice sheet melt, are reversible.
CMIP has encouraged modelling centres to run simulations using the “high” and “very low” scenarios first to ensure downstream users of the data – including groups working on regional climate projections (CORDEX), climate impacts modelling (ISIMIP) and ice-sheet modelling (ISMIP) – have enough time to produce their data for IPCC reports.
These two scenarios were selected as they sit at opposite ends of the spectrum of climate outcomes. The high scenario will demonstrate how models behave under high emissions, while the very low scenario will demonstrate how models behave when emissions are rapidly reduced.
CMIP has recommended that modelling centres then run the “medium” and “high-to-low” scenarios. The remaining scenarios should then follow and no official recommendation has been made yet on their production order.
Other new featuresIn addition to the assessment fast track and new scenarios, CMIP7 has a number of other new developments.
Updated data for simulationsClimate models use input datasets to define the set of external drivers – or “forcings” – that have caused the global warming observed so far. These drivers include greenhouse gases, changes to incoming solar radiation and volcanic eruptions.
CMIP recommends modelling groups use the same input datasets, as this makes it easier to compare model results.
In CMIP7, the historical forcing datasets available for modelling groups to use have been improved to better represent real-world changes and extended closer to the present day. The historical simulations will be able to simulate the past climate from 1850 through to the end of 2021, whereas CMIP6 only simulated the past climate through to 2014.
CMIP is also planning to extend these historical datasets through to 2025 and maybe further throughout the course of CMIP7.
Emissions-driven simulationsCMIP7 introduces a new focus on CO2 emissions-driven simulations, providing a more realistic representation of how the climate responds to changes in emissions.
In older generations of climate models, atmospheric levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations have been needed as an input to the model. These levels would be produced by running scenarios of CO2 emissions through separate carbon cycle models. The resulting climate-model runs were known as “concentration-driven simulations”.
However, many of the latest generation of models are now able to run in “emissions-driven mode”. This means that they receive CO2 emissions as an input and the model itself simulates the carbon cycle and the resulting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This development is important, as climate policies are typically defined in terms of emissions, rather than overall atmospheric concentrations.
This new development in modelling will enable a more realistic representation of the carbon cycle and a better understanding of how it might change under different levels of warming.
Enhanced model documentation and evaluationAll CMIP7 models will be required to supply standardised model documentation that ensures consistency across model descriptions and makes it easier for end users to understand the data.
Additionally, CMIP scientists have developed a new open-access tool that dramatically speeds up the evaluation of climate models.
This “rapid evaluation framework” allows researchers to compare model outputs with real-world observations, providing immediate insight into model performance.
.shadeBg{ background: rgba(0,0,0,0.2); }Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
Climate modelling
|Limiting global warming to 2C would not ‘rule out’ extreme impacts
Climate modelling
|Guest post: Investigating how volcanic eruptions can affect climate projections
Climate modelling
|Meeting 1.5C warming limit hinges on governments more than technology, study says
1.5C
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_53da2abc24be377e70777a8c0ae2afdb .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Guest post: How CMIP7 will shape the next wave of climate science appeared first on Carbon Brief.
New coal plants hit ‘10-year’ global high in 2025 – but power output still fell
The number of new coal-fired power plants built around the world hit a “10-year high” in 2025, even as the global coal fleet generated less electricity, amid a “widening disconnect” in the sector.
That is according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM), which finds that the world added nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity in 2025, the equivalent of roughly 100 large coal plants.
It adds that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China.
Yet GEM says that the amount of electricity generated with coal fell by 0.6% in 2025 – with sharp drops in both China and India – as the fuel was displaced by record wind and solar output, among other factors.
The report notes that there have been previous dips in output from coal power and there could still be ups – as well as downs – in the near term.
For example, nearly 70% of the coal-fired units scheduled to retire globally in 2025 did not do so, due to postponements triggered by the 2022 energy crisis and policy shifts in the US.
However, GEM says that the underlying dynamics for coal power have now fundamentally shifted, as the cost of renewables has fallen and low usage hits coal profitability.
China and India dominate growthIn 2025, coal-capacity growth hit a 10-year high, with 97 gigawatts (GW) of new power plants being added, according to GEM.
(Capacity refers to the potential maximum power output, as measured in GW, whereas generation refers to power actually generated by the assets over a period of time, measured in gigawatt hours, GWh.)
This is the highest level since 2015 when 107GW began operating, as shown in the chart below. This makes 2025 the second-highest level of additions on record.
Coal-fired power capacity that began operation each year from 2000 to 2025, GW. Source: Global Energy Monitor.The majority of this growth came from China and India, which added 78GW and 10GW, respectively, against 9GW from all other countries.
Yet GEM points out that, even as coal capacity in China grew by 6%, the output from coal-fired power plants actually fell 1.2%. This means that each power plant would have been running less often, eroding its profitability. Similarly, capacity in India grew by 3.8%, while generation fell by 2.9%.
China and India had accounted for 87% of new coal-power capacity that came into operation in the first half of 2025. The shift up to 95% in the year as a whole highlights how increasingly just those two countries dominate the sector, GEM says.
Christine Shearer, project manager of GEM’s global coal plant tracker, said in a statement:
“In 2025, the world built more coal and used it less. Development has grown more concentrated, too – 95% of coal plant construction is now in China and India, and even they are building solar and wind fast enough to displace it.”
Both China and India saw solar and wind meet most or all of the growth in electricity demand last year.
Analysis for Carbon Brief last year showed that, in the first six months of 2025 alone, a record 212GW of solar was added in China, helping to make it the nation’s single-largest source of clean-power generation, for example.
However, the country continues to propose new coal plants. In 2025, a record 162GW of capacity was newly proposed for development or reactivated, according to GEM. This brought the overall capacity under development in the country to more than 500GW.
China’s 15th “five-year plan”, covering 2026-2030, had pledged to “promote the peaking” of coal use, while a more recent pair of policies introduced stricter controls on local governments’ coal use.
For its part, in India some 28GW of new coal capacity was newly proposed or reactivated last year, bringing the total under development to 107.3GW and under-construction capacity to 23.5GW.
The Indian government is planning to complete 85GW of new coal capacity in the next seven years, even as clean-energy expansion reaches levels that could cover all of the growth in electricity demand.
Outside of China and India, GEM says that just 32 countries have new coal plants under construction or under development, down from 38 in 2024.
Countries that have dropped plans for new coal in 2025 include South Korea, Brazil and Honduras, it says. GEM notes that the latter two mean that Latin America is now free from any new coal-power proposals.
This means that both electricity generation from coal and the construction of new coal-fired power plants are increasingly concentrated in just a few countries, as the chart below shows.
Top 10 countries for total operating coal power-plant capacity (left) and for newly added capacity (right), GW. Source: Global Energy Monitor.Indonesia’s coal fleet grew by 7% in 2025 to 61GW, with a quarter of the new capacity tied to nickel and aluminium processing, according to GEM.
Turkey – which is gearing up to host the COP31 international climate summit in November – has just one coal-plant proposal remaining, down from 70 in 2015.
The amount of new coal capacity that started to operate in south-east Asia fell for the third year in a row in 2025, according to GEM.
Countries in south Asia that rely on imported energy are increasingly looking to other technologies to protect themselves from fossil-fuel shocks, such as Pakistan, which is rapidly deploying solar, states the GEM report.
In Africa, plans for new coal capacity are concentrated in Zimbabwe and Zambia, the report shows, with the two countries accounting for two-thirds of planned development in the region.
‘Persistence of policies’While new coal plants are still being built and even more are under development, GEM notes that the global electricity system is undergoing rapid changes.
Crucially, the growth of cheap renewable energy means that new coal plants do not automatically translate into higher electricity generation from coal.
Without rising output from coal power, building new plants simply results in the coal fleet running less often, further eroding its economics relative to wind and solar power.
Indeed, GEM notes that electricity generation from coal fell globally in 2025. Moreover, a recent report by thinktank Ember found that renewable energy overtook coal in 2025 to become the world’s largest source of electricity.
GEM notes that coal generation may fluctuate in the near term, in particular due to potential increases in demand driven by higher gas prices.
It adds that gas price shocks, such as the one triggered by the Iran war, can cause temporary reversals in the longer-term shift away from coal.
According to Carbon Brief analysis, at least eight countries announced plans to either increase their coal use or review plans to transition away from coal in the first month of the Iran war. However, a much-discussed “return to coal” is expected to be limited.
GEM’s report highlights that global fossil-fuel shocks can have an impact on the phase out of coal capacity over several years.
In the EU, for example, 69% of planned retirements did not take place in 2025, due to postponements that began in the 2022-23 energy crisis triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to the report. Countries across the bloc chose to retain their coal capacity amid gas supply disruptions and concerns about energy security.
Yet coal-fired power generation in the bloc is now more than 40% below 2022 levels. Again, this highlights that coal capacity does not necessarily translate into electricity generation from coal, with its associated CO2 emissions.
Overall, GEM notes that “repeated exposure to fossil-fuel price volatility is as likely to accelerate the shift toward clean energy as it is to delay it”.
GEM’s Shearer says in a statement:
“The central challenge heading into 2026 is not the availability of alternatives, but the persistence of policies that treat coal as necessary even as power systems move increasingly beyond it.”
In the US, 59% of planned retirements in 2025 did not happen, according to GEM. This was due to government intervention to keep ageing coal plants online.
Five coal-power plants have been told to remain online through federal “emergency” orders, for example, even as the coal fleet continues to face declining competitiveness.
Keeping these plants online has cost hundreds of millions of dollars and helped drive an annual increase in the average US household electricity prices of 7%, according to GEM.
Despite such measures, Trump has overseen a larger fall in coal-fired power capacity than any other US president, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Meanwhile, according to new figures from the US Energy Information Administration, solar and wind both set new records for energy production in 2025.
Despite challenges with policy and wider fossil-fuel impacts, the underlying dynamic has shifted, says GEM, as “clean energy becomes more competitive and widely deployed” around the world.
It adds that this raises the prospect of “a more sustained decoupling between coal-capacity growth and generation, particularly if clean-energy deployment continues at current rates”.
Analysis: Trump has overseen larger coal decline than any other US president
Coal
|Analysis: Coal power drops in China and India for first time in 52 years after clean-energy records
China energy
|IEA: Declining coal demand in China set to outweigh Trump’s pro-coal policies
Coal
|Guest post: China and India account for 87% of new coal-power capacity so far in 2025
China energy
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_6bf27e867b7b6a742135442872019748 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post New coal plants hit ‘10-year’ global high in 2025 – but power output still fell appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Cropped 20 May 2026: Deforestation roadmap | Melanesian Ocean Summit | Returning pet parrots to the wild
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.
COP30 ROADMAP: Brazil’s global roadmap away from deforestation will involve countries producing their own voluntary pathways to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, according to a first outline covered by Climate Home News. At the COP30 climate talks in Belém last year, some 93 countries called for a deforestation “roadmap” to be part of the summit’s formal outcomes. Despite this, countries failed to agree to one – leading host nation Brazil to promise to bring forward a voluntary roadmap as a compromise.
FOREST FORUM: Speaking at the UN Forum on Forests earlier this month, Juliano Assunção, an advisor to the COP30 presidency on deforestation, presented a first outline of the roadmap, said Climate Home News. According to the publication, Assunção said the roadmap “will not prescribe a single model”, but would instead invite countries to convert their pledges “into forest roadmaps grounded on regional and national diagnosis”. Elsewhere at the forum, Indonesia announced carbon-offsetting plans involving the restoration of 12m hectares of degraded land, said Reuters.
GOALS REPORT: Amid the talks, the UN published its latest assessment on achieving six global forest goals for 2017-30, concluding that “progress is evident, but insufficient”. Down to Earth reported that, according to the report, the world remains off track on two of the “key” targets: ending deforestation and eliminating extreme poverty among forest-dependent populations. Sustainability magazine reported that the goals set a target of increasing global forest area by 3% by 2030, but that, in reality, forest area has declined by more than 40m hectares since 2015.
Melanesian Ocean SummitSEA SOLIDARITY: The leaders of Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Vanuatu signed a declaration to establish the Melanesian Ocean Corridor of Reserves, reported the Pacific Islands News Association. The corridor will “establish joint border governance, enforcement and marine science frameworks” across five Pacific nations and territories, said the outlet. Vanuatu’s prime minister, Jotham Napat, told the Melanesian Ocean Summit that the corridor “reminds us that our solidarity, not the legacy of colonial rule, determines our future”, according to Vanuatu’s Daily Post.
SEA SOVEREIGNTY: Part of the Melanesian corridor is a new marine protected area the size of the UK, announced by Papua New Guinea at the summit, said Oceanographic magazine. The new MPA will “prohibit all fishing within its boundaries”, reported the outlet. Meanwhile, Tuvalu’s Post Courier reported that the country is “currently developing its first-ever national-security policy, which will place maritime conservation and management at the absolute centre of the country’s strategic architecture”. Prime minister Feleti Teo stated: “The ocean is our sovereignty.”
CONSIDER THE OCEAN: In a comment article in the journal npj Ocean Sustainability, Dr Carlos García-Soto from the Spanish National Research Council wrote that there is a “structural weakness” in UN climate processes. He noted that the final decision text from COP30 “omitted the ocean entirely”, despite the summit “deliver[ing] the strongest ocean-related initiatives ever presented at a UN climate conference”. García-Soto also outlined five key priorities for integrating ocean considerations into climate governance.
News and views- CANADA OWN GOAL: The Canadian government has no plans to enshrine into law commitments meant to ensure the nation meets its international nature goals, despite hosting the pivotal COP15 biodiversity summit less than four years ago, said CBC News.
- CREDIT CHANGE: Brazil’s national monetary council has postponed a regulation that would have blocked farms involved in deforestation from receiving rural credits, reported Folha de São Paulo. The change occurs “following pressure from agribusiness groups to relax the rules”, said the outlet, and means the requirement will now not take effect until January 2027.
- SAND CRISIS: A growing global appetite for sand is outstripping demand and threatening ecosystems, according to a new UN report covered by Reuters.
- LAOS DAMMED: A natural world heritage site in northern Laos is being put at risk by a $3.5bn dam project, reported Nikkei Asia.
- RAPID RESPONSE: The European Commission released its fertiliser action plan to “provide rapid support to farmers…and prevent rising food prices” amid the conflict in the Middle East, said Agenzia Nova.
- MARSH REVIVAL: Rising water levels are “beginning to revive” southern Iraq’s Cibayish marshes following a years-long drought and “drawing buffalo herders and fishermen back to areas once abandoned”, said Reuters. The country’s water ministry was able to “release growing volumes” of water from reservoirs following heavy winter rains, added the newswire.
This week, Carbon Brief visits a conservation project working to return former pet parrots to the wild in Colombia.
Beautiful feathers. The playfulness and intellect of a small child. On occasion, the ability to partake in some pleasant conversation.
Parrots have captured the attention of humans for centuries. But their unique qualities have also contributed to their decline in the wild.
Some 16m parrots were moved across borders to be sold as pets over 1975-2016, according to one study, making them the most internationally traded bird in the world.
In Colombia, the world’s most biodiverse country by area, the introduction of tougher laws in 2016 means keeping a wild animal as a pet is now viewed as a “crime against the environment”, punishable with monetary fines.
These stricter rules led to greater numbers of wild parrots being seized by the police and more people giving up their birds voluntarily.
But this clampdown created a new conundrum: What will the Colombian authorities do with their growing population of these, formerly pet, parrots?
A charity called Fundación Loros – “Parrot Foundation” in English – hopes to have the answer.
Parrot rehabilitationThe foundation is based on 33 hectares of tropical dry forest in Bolívar – around a 40-minute car ride from the popular tourist city of Cartagena on Colombia’s Caribbean coast.
The deafening screeches of parrots when entering through the site’s gates were impossible to ignore.
Inside, foundation guide Corina walked Carbon Brief through the various stages of pet parrot rehabilitation.
Former pet parrots that are released directly into the wild are unlikely to survive. This is because they often lack the necessary skills, such as how to find food or stay away from predators, including monkeys and coatis.
Parrots arriving at the foundation follow a seven-stage process.
First, they are checked over by a vet and given a tag, so they can be continuously monitored.
Following this, they are kept in a large enclosure and slowly reintroduced to the types of food they might encounter in the wild, including wild fruits and nuts.
After this, they undergo “flight training” – many of the parrots will have been kept in a small cage and never learned how to travel long distances. This involves workers encouraging the birds to fly greater distances in exchange for rewards.
They also join other birds for “flock cohesion” lessons. In the wild, parrots are highly social animals who rely on their group to survive and raise chicks.
A scarlet macaw eats a small mango at its release site in Bolívar, Colombia. Credit: Daisy DunneFollowing these steps, parrots are taken deeper into the foundation’s forest reserve – away from loggers and poachers.
There, they spend some time in an enclosure getting acquainted with their new surroundings.
After this, the door to the cage is opened – allowing them to fly free, but return for shelter and food if they need. Eventually, the birds settle back into the wild.
Waiting listIn addition to their parrot rehabilitation programme, the charity built a series of nest boxes and installed them high in the tree canopy across the reserve.
Their continuous monitoring of the birds has shown that many of the former pets have started raising wild chicks.
The work is hugely rewarding, said Corina, but the charity currently has a waiting list that is “months long”, given the growing number of wild animals needing rehabilitation across Colombia.
Despite helping the authorities with their wild animal problem, the charity largely relies on private donations to continue, she said. The hope is to develop an eco-tourism model to make more revenue in the future, she added.
Watch, read, listenCARBON CONSULTATIONS: The Diplomat explored whether local residents were properly consulted on a carbon-offsetting programme in Cambodia.
FISH FIGHTS: The Ghanaian Times examined the tensions surrounding marine conservation in the country and how it is unduly burdening small-scale fisherfolk.
DELTA WORK: Mongabay reported on how the world’s “great deltas” are sinking, leading to the loss of a “global food system”.
LITHUANIA PEAT BOGS: The New York Times reported on Lithuanian efforts to restore peat bogs in order to “reinforce the border” and “lock away” carbon.
New science- Coastal marshes are encroaching on uplands “nearly twice as fast” on agricultural land as they are on forestland, suggesting that agricultural practices are “accelerat[ing] the impacts of saltwater intrusion” | Nature Sustainability
- Fungi that cause diseases in plants will approximately double in abundance around the Antarctic Peninsula by 2100 under a moderate emissions scenario | Global Change Biology
- Conserving Ethiopia’s protected areas currently involves managing “trade-offs between nature and people” that are “central to whether global biodiversity commitments can be delivered” | Nature Ecology and Evolution
- 20-22 May: Informal consultations of parties to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement | New York City
- 30 May-6 June: Meeting of the Global Environment Facility Assembly | Samarkand, Uzbekistan
- 31 May: Colombian presidential elections
- 8-18 June:Subsidiary body meetings of the UNFCCC | Bonn, Germany
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne and Orla Dwyer. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org
The post Cropped 20 May 2026: Deforestation roadmap | Melanesian Ocean Summit | Returning pet parrots to the wild appeared first on Carbon Brief.
CCC: Investing in ‘urgent’ UK adaptation action ‘cheaper than climate damages’
Investing in flood defences, air conditioning and other measures to protect the UK from climate change will provide “long-term savings” for the country, according to the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
The government’s climate advisors have proposed a set of climate-adaptation actions that would require at least an extra £11bn per year in spending, largely from the private sector.
Most of this investment would go towards keeping buildings cool and protecting them from floods, as well as building reservoirs and supporting water-efficiency measures.
The committee says this is a “manageable level of investment” that will shave billions of pounds off climate change-driven damages that the UK will experience in the coming years.
Crucially, the CCC stresses that this approach would be “cheaper than facing the damages”.
This analysis comes from the CCC’s new “well-adapted UK” report, which sets out more than 100 actions that the committee says could help the UK prepare for global warming up to 2C above pre-industrial levels by 2050.
The CCC highlights 20 overarching objectives and a set of measurable targets that it says should be prioritised in the coming years, such as curbing deaths related to extreme heat.
This first-of-its-kind “solutions-focused” report will feed into the UK government’s upcoming fourth climate-change risk assessment, due in 2027, and inform its approach to climate adaptation.
Here, Carbon Brief provides an overview of the key messages in the 554-page report, including the actions highlighted by the CCC and the policy levers required to implement them.
- What is the ‘well-adapted UK’ report?
- What are the climate risks facing the UK?
- How much will it cost to prepare the UK for climate change?
- What measures does the CCC recommend?
The CCC’s new report on how to create a “well-adapted UK” sits alongside a legal process designed to ensure the country is prepared for the impacts of climate change.
It warns that the UK has not yet done enough to adapt to climate change and sets out priorities – as well as potential solutions – for the challenges ahead.
The CCC’s work stems from the Climate Change Act 2008, under which the UK government must publish a Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) every five years. This must set out the risks and opportunities the nation is facing due to climate change.
A key pillar of the act is the creation of the CCC, an independent body that provides advice on the climate-related risks facing the UK and how it should adapt.
The CCC has previously produced three technical reports to advise the government on adaptation. Today sees the publication of the fourth set of advice, officially known as the CCRA4-IA technical report. The “well-adapted UK” report sits alongside this.
(The CCC also makes more frequent assessments of adaptation strategies produced by England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland individually.)
This is the first time the CCC has produced “well-adapted UK”, which it describes as a “solution-focused report” providing suggested government actions to address adaptation needs.
Speaking during a press briefing ahead of the report launch, Baroness Brown, chair of the CCC’s adaptation committee, said:
“It’s a first for us, the first time we’ve produced a report of this sort.It forms part of our independent assessment for the fourth climate-change risk assessment and it contains our advice to government.
“It’s now nearly 20 years since the Climate Change Act was passed and, despite making very strong progress on reducing emissions since 2008, I think we all agree that we have done nothing like enough to address the increasing risk from the impacts of climate change to the UK today.”
The CCC report offers evidence to support action by individual UK governments, as well as other organisations focused on adaptation.
It highlights three priority areas as the UK prepares for 2C of warming by 2050: providing cooling to protect from heat; increasing flood preparedness; and improving water management.
The report says that deploying adaptation at scale around these priorities will help avoid loss of life, as well as disruption to people and the economy.
It also sets out climate risks, actions and enablers across 14 key systems, breaking the analysis down into sectors to allow for clear recommendations on what needs to be done and accountability for delivering progress.
However, the report notes that “climate risks do not simply sit in single systems. Many of the most dangerous risks will cascade across them.”
The CCC states that “adaptation cannot wait”, adding that the duty of the state to keep people safe and secure is being compromised by climate change. As such, it says adaptation needs the same level of focus and commitment as geopolitical and other threats.
The report says:
“Damage is already happening, which can be avoided. Taking action today is cheaper than taking action tomorrow. The main challenge is leadership, getting adaptation underway at sufficient scale and speed.”
Finally, the CCC states that adaptation cannot replace efforts to limit warming, but is instead an “essential complement” to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It describes adaptation action as “both necessary and achievable, but also urgent”.
What are the climate risks facing the UK?The UK is already facing increased threats of heatwaves, extreme rainfall and sea level rise due to human-driven burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, says the report.
Since 2000, the UK has experienced all 10 of its hottest years on record and temperatures passed 40C for the first time in 2022. There is a 50% likelihood of reaching those temperatures again in the next 12 years, says the CCC.
Warmer air can hold more moisture than colder air, with the result that these warmer temperatures have been accompanied by heavier and more intense rainfall in all seasons of the year across the UK.
Additionally, the UK has experienced about 200 millimetres of sea level rise since 1901, with this occurring at an accelerating rate over the last three decades, notes the CCC. The largest increases in sea levels have occurred on the country’s southern coast.
The level of risk facing the country in the future will be determined largely by the level of global emissions, states the report.
Under current emissions pathways, the world will reach around 2C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures by 2050, climbing to nearly 3C by the end of the century.
Lower warming levels are still possible, if countries strengthen their current climate policies and accelerate global emissions reductions. At the same time, scenarios involving even higher levels of warming “should be considered in long-term planning”, says the report.
The table below summarises potential changes to the UK’s climate hazards at 2C of global warming in 2050 and at 4C of global warming in 2100.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();In addition to direct impacts on the UK, says the report, the country “cannot be isolated” from global climate risks, such as destructive extreme-weather events.
The report notes that risk is based on three components: hazard; exposure; and vulnerability.
Hazard refers to the physical event that can cause damage. Exposure refers to the presence of people or assets in the area that may be affected by a hazard. Vulnerability is how susceptible something or someone is to experiencing damage if it is exposed to a hazard, accounting for the ability to take adaptation measures.
Current vulnerability and exposure are both highly variable across the country, with marginalised groups likely to be disproportionately impacted by climate change. How these will change in the future is highly uncertain, it says.
How much will it cost to prepare the UK for climate change?The CCC estimates that delivering its package of adaptation actions will require additional investment of at least £11bn per year, shared between public and private sectors.
(The report notes that, given limits in available information, this is “likely to be an underestimate, but it gives a sense of the scale of investment needed”.)
Roughly a third of this investment will likely be needed for air conditioning and passive cooling measures, according to the committee. Another third will be required for flood defences and water conservation.
Overall, the CCC says around 36% of the expected investment is in areas “that have tended to be funded by the public sector”, while 41% will likely fall to the private sector. The remaining costs are “undetermined”.
The committee stresses that “acting now is cheaper than acting later” and that investing in adaptation is “cheaper than facing the damages” caused by climate change.
Climate-related damages are already costing the UK economy and could grow to around 1-5% of GDP by 2050 – roughly £60-260bn per year – under scenarios of around 2C global warming, according to the CCC.
(The CCC has previously suggested that cutting emissions to net-zero would require investments of £20-40bn per year, yielding savings of a similar magnitude.)
In this context, the £11bn a year “is a manageable level of investment for the UK economy” that will deliver “long-term savings for both public and private actors”, states the report.
CCC analysis of a new adaptation package covering heat and health, urban heat and water scarcity suggests that these measures alone could save up to £12bn a year in climate-damage costs by the 2050s. This can be seen in the chart below.
Potential for a package of additional adaptation measures (light blue) to reduce costs from climate-change impacts, £bn, compared to existing adaptation measures (dark blue). Source: CCC analysis.At a launch event, Baroness Brown expanded on the figures, noting that climate change is already costing up to 2% of GDP per year. She added that this figure amounts to £60bn, which could rise to £260bn (5% of GDP) by 2050 without action.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }The CCC stresses that many adaptation actions are “low-cost or low-regret”, highlighting numerous examples that show very favourable benefit-cost ratios. For example, flood resilience measures tend to produce benefits five-times greater than their costs.
In addition, 53 of the 120 adaptation actions for which costs were assessed provided additional “co-benefits”, such as the energy and water bill savings that can result from water-efficiency improvements.
While the CCC does not provide a comprehensive estimate of the financial impact of such co-benefits, it says they “strengthen the case for action”.
The report also emphasises that it makes financial sense to target adaptation measures at people or assets that are particularly vulnerable to and at-risk from climate impacts.
What measures does the CCC recommend?The CCC’s report sets out a range of climate risks and required adaptation actions across 14 “key systems”, including health, land and the economy as a whole.
As well as proposing more than 100 “actions”, the committee lays out the kind of policies that could be implemented to achieve them. For example, actions in the building sector might require changes to planning policy.
The report also sets out key “enablers” for adaptation in each of these key systems. Common enablers are adequate financial resources, better monitoring processes and improved public awareness of adaptation issues.
The CCC sets out 20 overarching objectives and 39 proposed targets to guide the UK’s adaptation progress out to 2050, which “set out a clear and measurable ambition for a well-adapted UK”. These objectives and targets can be seen in the table below.
(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();The committee says its goals are “clearly measurable and time-bound” and will rely on actions being implemented – often cutting across different systems. For example, curbing deaths linked to extreme heat will rely on the construction of cooler buildings.
For each of the 14 key systems identified, the CCC says it has applied “10 principles for effective adaptation” in order to “inform meaningful recommendations to national government departments”.
Among other things, these principles include preparing for 2C of warming by 2050 and “considering” 4C of warming by 2100.
The following headings break down the key threats facing each of the key systems identified by the CCC – and the actions needed to prepare them for climate change.
HealthClimate change poses a direct threat to population health, with extreme heat linked to everything from increased threat of heart attacks to the spread of climate-sensitive infectious diseases.
At the same time, heatwaves and flooding can disrupt the normal functioning of the UK’s health and social-care system, which can also harm people’s health.
The CCC identifies the following “priority adaptation actions” to protect people from climate change, with a particular focus on minimising excess heat-related mortality and morbidity:
- Behavioural changes – supported by information services – to avoid health risks during hot weather;
- Public cooling spaces to protect vulnerable people during heat events;
- Visits by healthcare or community workers to high-risk people;
- Mental health treatment for people exposed to flooding;
- Surveillance and monitoring of climate hazards and climate-sensitive diseases;
- Early warning systems, including the expansion of heat alerts beyond England;
- Expanding natural areas that can provide shade and reduce the urban heat island effect;
- Maintaining “safe” water bodies that reduce breeding of endemic mosquitoes and harmful algal blooms.
The CCC also identifies priority actions to protect health and social-care facilities from extreme weather:
- Cooling measures in healthcare facilities, including retrofitting buildings with “passive cooling” measures and installing air conditioning;
- Flood defences and other protective measures, such as waterproofed electricals, at hospitals and care homes;
- Training for health professionals that focuses on climate-related health risks;
- Business continuity planning to manage staff absences during extreme-weather events;
- Occupational support to protect healthcare staff during extreme weather;
- Emergency scenario planning for climate-related emergencies.
Many of the required actions would fall to devolved governments and rely on public funding.
The CCC says the UK government could ensure facilities are built to cope with climate extremes by embedding adaptation in statutory health, building and environmental standards. It adds that there is also a need for education programmes to encourage behavioural change.
Crucially, the committee also highlights the need for sustained government funding for adaptation-specific measures. In total, the CCC says the known investment required to deliver adaptation in the health system could be around £0.7-1.7bn per year.
Built environment and communitiesClimate change presents numerous risks to the UK’s settlements, buildings and communities, according to the CCC.
The report notes that already, more than half of UK homes are at risk of overheating, 6.3m properties are located in flood-risk areas and extreme weather is causing millions of pounds of damage to properties every year.
Without additional adaptation measures by 2050, it says that the risk of overheating is projected to be 4.2 times higher and that 27% more homes are projected to be at risk of flooding and coastal erosion in England. In addition, the risk of subsidence in Great Britain will increase, with 11% of properties affected by the 2070s, as well as other impacts.
As such, the CCC has set out a series of recommended actions to ensure settlements, buildings and communities are fit-for-purpose and durable places to live and work:
- Building out catchment-scale flood defences, including a mix of engineering “hard” defences and natural defences;
- Expanding urban green infrastructure, for example, street trees, parks and waterways, to provide natural cooling and shade;
- Introducing more “sustainable drainage systems”, such as green roofs, permeable paving, rain gardens and others;
- Helping communities prepare for extreme-weather events;
- Build out nature-based solutions to manage changes from sea level rise and coastal erosion;
- Introducing cooling measures in buildings, including both active cooling – such as air conditioning – and passive cooling measures;
- Utilising government schemes, such as Flood Re, to help ensure all households can access insurance and that it is affordable.
The CCC highlights engagement with communities, ensuring that they are well informed about the future climate risks they face from extreme-weather events, as a key enabler of the above actions.
Holland Park, an affluent area of West London. Credit: BBA Travel / Alamy Stock PhotoIt notes that a number of policies are already in place to address flooding and overheating, as well as funding for large-scale flood-defence projects. However, it says more can be brought in to support the adaptation of the existing and planned building stock.
Public servicesThe CCC’s assessment of public services covers the facilities and operation of services outside of health and social care, such as education, justice and emergency services.
It highlights that hazards such as heatwaves and flooding can cause closure and disruption to the operation of services, as well as impact things such as children’s ability to concentrate. Even in the current climate, it says an estimated 4.3% of cumulative learning time is lost in England due to high temperatures.
Emergency workers are increasingly facing challenges created by climate change. For example, wildfires increase demand for fire and rescue, police and environmental-incident response services.
The CCC calls for the creation of new targets to help protect people from the impacts of increased temperatures and flood risk, including: internal temperatures in learning environments should be kept between 16-25C by 2050; and internal temperatures at prisons and justice facilities should be kept between 16-26C.
By 2030, all emergency services and incident responders should be equipped to meet all weather events, adds the committee.
The CCC sets out suggested actions the government could take to ensure that services operate during extreme weather at levels at least as good as today:
- Introducing outdoor shading, such as trees and canopies, at sites such as playgrounds and outside school gates;
- Rolling out passive cooling strategies;
- Introducing active cooling, such as air conditioning, where necessary to reduce indoor temperatures;
- Rolling out surface-water flood alleviation measures;
- Ensuring key assets are adapted, such as backup generators and response vehicles, so that climate change does not impact the delivery of public services;
- Rostering and timetabling should take into account climate-related travel and health issues, bolstered by flexible capacity within services and staff training;
- Introducing surveillance and early warning systems.
The CCC adds that retrofitting buildings to allow them to adapt to climate change will require both up-front funding and long-term revenue budgets, as will expansions of personnel.
It says policy should be used to ensure that building regulations and design standards for public buildings are suitable for future climate conditions. Additionally, the government should look to provide public funding, accessible and reliable climate information and help to improve joint working between different departments, delivery bodies and responders.
Cultural heritageThe CCC considers four aspects of cultural heritage in its report: cultural and archaeological sites and landscapes; buildings that are listed or otherwise significant; fixed assets, such as statues, monuments and shipwrecks; and moveable assets, such as art and historic documents.
Without adaptation, flooding, storms and coastal erosion may reduce access to these sites and assets, or even destroy them entirely. However, due to their varied nature, any adaptation plans need to be highly context-specific, it says.
Antony Gormley statue submerged in the Water of Leith at Bells Weir. Credit: Craig Brown / Alamy Stock Photo.The report notes that many of the CCC’s priority adaptation actions are broadly applicable across the four classes of cultural-heritage assets, such as:
- Increasing the frequency of inspections and repairs for built assets;
- Creating or strengthening flood barriers and coastal defences;
- Improving drainage around cultural-heritage sites;
- Adjusting opening times and access to help protect visitors and staff, such as temporary closures during extreme weather or installing raised walkways;
- Incorporating technology and digital solutions, such as early-warning systems, digitising collections and creating virtual tours;
- Managing loss, such as by relocating assets and transforming the use of historic buildings.
Adapting the UK’s cultural-heritage assets will require an unknown amount of funding, along with training to increase adaptation-planning capabilities, says the report. These plans must be developed for each context, it says, incorporating local risks, costs and the “potential acceptable future states” of these assets.
The report calls for heritage organisations to “plan for future climate conditions and share these plans for others to learn from”. It also recommends that such considerations should be required for projects receiving public funds in the future.
Water and wastewaterThe report groups together the UK’s water supply – both public and private – and wastewater infrastructure.
It notes that these systems are “not fit for the current, let alone future, climate”, with risks of both drought and floods expected to increase across the UK under future warming.
Droughts are the “most significant climate hazard” facing the water system, while heavy rainfall and flooding can damage both water and wastewater infrastructure and overwhelm the capacity of wastewater-transport systems.
The CCC proposes several priority adaptation actions for the water subsystem:
- Installing water-efficient products, such as low-flow fixtures on taps and toilets;
- Reusing non-potable water in specific instances, such as using rainwater to cool data centres;
- Encouraging behavioural changes, including through smart metering and water-efficiency labelling;
- Improving water-use efficiency in private use;
- Repairing leaks quickly – particularly the largest and most damaging ones;
- Installing protections against flooding and erosion;
- Increasing the use of reservoirs to store excess winter rainfall for summer usage;
- Improving pollution-management systems to protect existing water sources;
- Increasing water-treatment capacity and efficiency.
The committee also proposes actions to address adaptation in the wastewater subsystem:
- Separating the systems that carry rainwater from those that carry wastewater;
- Reducing the area of impermeable surfaces to decrease runoff;
- Encouraging behavioural changes to avoid blockages and flooding;
- Increasing the volume that the wastewater system can treat at a given time;
- Improving and decentralising water-treatment processes.
To adapt the water system to future climate change, the committee suggests creating minimum water-efficiency standards for appliances, as well as for new water users, such as data centres.
It also calls for increased planning and regulation between the water and wastewater sectors, as well as across other sectors that contribute heavily to water usage or wastewater generation.
Thames Water personnel fixing a burst water main near Windsor Castle. Credit: Maureen McLean / Alamy Stock Photo EnergyThe CCC warns that climate change is already impacting the energy sector. This includes electricity generation, storage and transport, as well as fuel production, storage and transport of gas, oil, bioenergy and sustainable aviation fuels.
It says that electricity networks are vulnerable to damage from flooding, high winds and increased heat, while heat and drought can reduce efficiency and capacity across the electricity grid and at power plants.
For example, the CCC says that in England, 22% of the electricity infrastructure is currently at risk of flooding, but this is expected to increase to 26% by 2040 due to climate change.
Flooding and water scarcity are the areas of most concern for the fuel-supply system.
The CCC adds that there are interdependencies between fuel and electricity systems.
The committee identifies the following adaptation actions to reduce the climate risk facing the energy system and to allow the current level of resilience to be maintained:
- Siting energy assets to reduce their exposure to climate hazards;
- Building redundancy into the energy system design to avoid single points of failure;
- Reinforcing existing energy assets and designing new ones with appropriate; protections;
- Ensuring that regular inspections of energy assets are undertaken and preventative maintenance is taken where possible;
- Managing vegetation around electricity and gas networks;
- Preparing ways to anticipate, respond to and recover from extreme events, such as early warning systems;
- Provide alternative sources of backup power.
The CCC identifies resources and funding as key enablers for undertaking these actions. It recognises the significant build-out of new equipment that is planned in the next five to 10 years in the energy sector, stating that it is “easier and more cost-effective to build resilience into infrastructure projects at the design stage rather than retrofitting later”.
Other enablers include clear plans, roles and responsibilities being set early and the use of technology and innovation.
The CCC notes that governance of the energy system is “complex”, with some elements centralised and others devolved, as well as splits across the public and private sectors. However, it says policy levers can be used to drive and monitor adaptation across segments, such as regulation, strategic planning and innovation provision.
The committee calls for continued UK government focus on timely and appropriate targets for investments, clarity on the future of the gas grid, wider mandatory adaptation reporting and other measures.
TransportThe committee’s transport-system assessment includes roads, rail and public transportation systems, as well as maritime and aviation infrastructure and operations.
The report notes that the interconnected nature of the UK’s transport system “offers some built-in redundancy”, but also increases the risk of cascading climate impacts.
The biggest climate hazard facing the UK’s transport system is flooding. However, it is also at risk from subsidence, erosion, high winds and extreme heat, according to the report.
Rail track dangling after heavy snow and floods at Stover Canal, Newton Abbot, Devon. Credit: nidpor / Alamy Stock PhotoThe CCC recommends the following measures as priorities for physically adapting the transport sector:
- Improving drainage systems across roadways, tunnels and urban rail systems;
- Installing coastal flood defences, such as seawalls and “rock armour”, near infrastructure located in floodplains;
- Reinforcing embankments, installing retaining structures and strengthening earthworks to protect against erosion;
- Using materials that are durable at higher temperatures, as well as integrating other temperature-reducing measures, such as shading and airflow;
- Reinforcing tall structures against high winds.
It also recommends several operational adaptations for the sector:
- Increasing preventative maintenance, including by clearing drains, dredging waterways, patching tarmac and painting rails;
- Using technology to optimise schedule, route and speed-limit adjustments;
- Implementing contingency plans to protect system-critical assets during severe disruptions.
To implement these adaptation measures, the CCC recommends improving the available guidance and reporting for planners and operators. It notes that planning policies and design codes should embed an “appropriate consideration of climate risk”, such as exposure to hazards.
It also calls for improved resilience standards and engagement with the public to determine the level of service expected in the future and the level of investment required to achieve that.
WasteThe waste sector is facing climate risks predominantly relating to mine tailings and historic landfill sites, with heavier rainfall increasing the risk of landslides that can threaten communities, according to the CCC.
For example, 368 out of 2,590 coal-mine tips in Wales are currently categorised as posing a potential risk to public safety. Increased rainfall and storms under a 2C of global warming in 2050 will increase the potential for landslides at these sites, as well as the number of sites that require adaptation.
The report says that government action is needed to reduce these risks. It adds that better data and monitoring should be used to prioritise the sites that pose the greatest risk.
The CCC sets out actions to ensure these waste sites are managed safely and do not harm people or the environment around them:
- Improving drainage at waste sites and stabilising their slopes stabilised;
- Installing coastal and flood defences at waste sites where needed;
- Treating waste to stabilise or remove hazardous materials;
- Permanently removing or relocating waste from vulnerable sites.
The biggest enabler for these changes will be resources and funding, according to the CCC.
Local authorities have some regulatory power to manage historic waste sites, which it says they should use to ensure adaptation actions are taken.
Digital and telecomsThe digital and telecommunications sector is made up of both public and private networks, as well as infrastructure such as data centres, wired connections and other assets.
Climate change threatens the sector directly, by damaging or otherwise challenging this telecommunications infrastructure, according to the CCC. However, says the report, the “main climate risk” facing the telecoms sector is its “fundamental dependency on the power system”.
The report notes that storms and flooding can damage infrastructure and cause power failures, while high temperatures can overwhelm cooling systems and force systems to overheat.
The CCC calls for several physical adaptation measures to protect digital and telecoms assets:
- Choosing infrastructure sites to reduce vulnerabilities to flooding and wind;
- Installing physical protection measures, such as flood defences and underground cables, for existing infrastructure;
- Completing the changeover to fibre-based digital systems, which are more water-resistant than existing networks;
- Adopting cooling systems and upgrading existing ones to withstand projected future temperatures;
- Adopting more water-efficient cooling systems to reduce vulnerability to water shortages.
Resilience can also be achieved through redundancy measures, it says:
- Installing backup generators, on-site batteries and other redundancies for the power supply;
- Providing backup batteries to consumers to ensure access to emergency services in case of power outages;
- Creating redundancy in cooling systems and network connections;
- Encouraging consumers to store key data in multiple locations to reduce the impact of data-centre outages.
Some of these actions are already underway, notes the report. For example, the changeover to fibre-based systems is expected to be completed by January 2027.
It says resilience will also require regulatory clarity, such as confirming that the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) has a mandate to cover data centres, as well as climate resilience. It notes that this oversight is “expected to be confirmed” by the pending Cyber Security and Resilience Bill.
The CCC also calls for mandatory reporting of climate risks and resilience plans for companies that provide critical telecoms services.
LandEven if adaptation measures are taken, the land sector – including not just the UK’s terrestrial ecosystems, but also land-related commercial industries, such as farming and forestry – will “not all be able to stay the same as today”, says the report.
Changing temperatures and rainfall patterns are some of the most pressing challenges facing the land sector, with the hot-and-dry summer of 2025 causing more than £800m in revenue loss for England’s farmers.
Climate change is also increasing the frequency of threats, such as wildfires, pests and pathogens, as well as the spread of invasive alien species.
Flooded fields with hay bails on farmland on the Somerset Levels. Credit: Paul Glendell / Alamy Stock PhotoThe CCC identifies several priority actions for adaptation in the land sector, with different types of terrestrial ecosystems requiring different measures:
- Increasing the diversity and connectivity of habitats for both wild lands and land-based commercial activities;
- Rewetting peatlands and allowing other ecosystems to naturally regenerate;
- Managing the spread of invasive species, pests, pathogens and diseases;
- Preparing for wildfires, as well as reducing their occurrence and spread through managing fuel loads and maintaining fire breaks;
- Encouraging the use of resilient soil- and water-management practices and improving on-farm biodiversity;
- Adjusting farm planning in response to the changing climate, such as by shifting to different crops or adjusting the timing of planting and harvesting;
- Planting shade trees near riverbanks;
- Creating new coastal habitats;
- Manually moving vulnerable species to locations where they may be able to thrive under a changed climate.
It adds that achieving resilience in the land sector can also be aided by reducing the non-climate pressures that threaten habitats, such as pollution.
The committee notes that delivering on these actions will require both the support of government agencies and private landowners. It says that doing so will require public funding for adaptation, cultural awareness and acceptance of change, as well as flexible regulation and coherent frameworks on land use.
SeaSimilar to the land sector, the CCC’s suggestions for sea-system adaptation measures cut across multiple other sectors, including human health, international trade and food security.
The UK’s seas are already both warming and acidifying in response to human-caused fossil-fuel emissions, with impacts up and down the marine food chain.
By 2050, without adaptation measures, the UK could experience seabird population declines of more than 70%, fisheries employment losses of up to 20% and a rise in disease outbreaks, says the report.
The CCC identifies the following priority adaptation actions focused on both marine habitats and on human activities related to the sea sector:
- Creating larger, better-connected marine protected areas;
- Improving international cooperation around marine protection;
- Diversifying the species targeted by fisheries – moving away from cold-water species, such as cod and haddock, towards warmer-water ones, such as tuna;
- Increasing the genetic diversity of farmed species to increase resilience to disease;
- Sustainably managing wild fish populations, even if this means reducing fishing in the short term;
- Investing in more resilient equipment to withstand stronger storms;
- Relocating aquaculture away from the migration pathways of wild species;
- Preventing the spread of invasive species, diseases, pests and pathogens.
Similar to the land system, the committee says that reducing external pressures – including pollution and harmful fishing practices – can support achieving resilience in the sea system.
The report notes several existing policies that can aid in adaptation for the sea system, including the UK Marine Strategy and the 2020 Fisheries Act. However, it notes that “many actions to adapt [the sector] sit within the industry itself”.
Specific government actions that can support adaptation include changing the licensing and quotas for the fishing industry to reduce the pressure of overfishing, it adds.
Food securityThe report considers the “food security” system to include food and agricultural inputs imported from abroad, separate from the country’s own farming and fisheries.
It notes that in 2023, 40% of the UK’s food was imported.
A number of extreme weather events pose hazards to food production and transport, potentially impacting food security both in the UK and globally. These events can also drive up food prices, while warming trends can lower average crop yields and drive changes in the suitability of growing regions.
While agricultural productivity is projected to continue to increase in the future due to improved technological efficiency, it is “unclear how these trends will interact with climate change and extreme weather shocks”, says the report.
Dry and cracked soil in a field in rural Worcestershire, during dry weather. Credit: Alan Harbottle / Alamy Stock PhotoAdapting the UK’s food-security system will require undertaking a number of priority actions, says the CCC:
- Shifting working hours for agricultural labourers, providing shading and taking other measures to protect workers from heat stress;
- Investing in capacity-building, skills and technology to improve sustainability and efficiency for local producers;
- Diversifying the supply chains of both imported foods and inputs to UK agriculture, such as fertilisers, animal feed and fuel;
- Reducing food waste (edible food that is discarded at the retail level or by consumers);
- Investing in resilient cold-chain infrastructure for transporting and storing temperature-sensitive food products;
- Stress-testing the global commodity markets and preparing for potential shocks, such as export bans;
- Considering centralised stockpiling of critical food supplies.
Many of these actions are “expected to be delivered by market forces and industry”, says the report, although doing so will require engagement with and improved information for these actors. It suggests that requiring food-related businesses to disclose their climate risks could facilitate adaptation decisions.
The report also suggests strengthening international collaboration, such as through food-trade agreements, as well as providing support to vulnerable groups to alleviate potential food-price inflation due to climate shocks.
Economy and financeThe CCC divides the economy and finance sector into three subsystems: businesses, which provide goods and services; finance, which provides banking, investment and insurance services; and the macroeconomy, which accounts for the country’s overall economic strength through GDP, employment, inflation and other indicators.
All three of these subsystems are impacted by climate change, says the report.
Climate hazards, such as heatwaves, storms and flooding, can disrupt supply chains and daily operations in the business sector.
Climate-related damages can threaten financial assets and increase insurance costs, which can “reduce capacity to recover from climate events and create risks to financial stability and economic growth”, it says.
Meanwhile, macroeconomic indicators such as GDP and inflation can be “negatively affected by all climate-related impacts across sectors”, adds the report.
For the business subsystem, the CCC recommends the following priority adaptation actions:
- Identifying and managing climate-related risks to commercial assets, such as by installing flood defences and air-conditioning systems;
- Protecting workers from climate hazards, such as by adjusting working hours or providing shade and water;
- Reducing supply-chain exposure to climate hazards by diversifying suppliers, stockpiling resources and making procurement decisions with climate risk in mind;
- Identifying opportunities for businesses to provide adaptation innovations, goods and services.
For the finance subsystem, the committee outlines the following priorities:
- Collecting company-level data on climate risks and adaptation;
- Incorporating climate risks and adaptation costs into financial decisions;
- Reducing financial risks by accounting for the climate risks posed to financial institutions’ capital assets;
- Integrating adaptation into insurance products, pooling risk and issuing climate-responsive products, such as resilience bonds, which fund adaptation projects.
The CCC also details several priority actions for the macroeconomy:
- Creating a fiscal framework for the UK government that incorporates adaptation costs and potential future climate-related spending;
- Effectively responding to climate-related inflationary pressures;
- Reducing the climate risks associated with critical supply chains, such as energy, food and pharmaceuticals.
Carrying out these actions will require resources and capacity-building for businesses and financial institutions, as well as clearly defined roles and responsibilities for all involved actors, says the report.
National security and international engagementThe final sectoral section in the CCC’s “well-adapted UK” report looks at how international climate change poses risks to national security, foreign policy and development interests.
The committee says a key message is that the UK is interconnected with the rest of the world, meaning that no matter how well-adapted the country is domestically, it will be threatened by international climate risks.
The CCC says that national security ”cannot be ensured without climate resilience”. Moreover, it says that the UK has an obligation to help other countries adapt and build resilience – and that it will benefit from such aid.
This comes just days after the UK announced its intention to cut funding to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund, which provides climate financing for developing countries.
The CCC highlights that “climate-change impacts, weak economic development and inequality exacerbate each other”, as well as noting that climate hazards are a growing driver of involuntary migration.
It recommends the following measures to help maintain UK national security and fulfil international commitments in the face of global climate risks:
- Adapting the defence sector, including training and equipping forces to operate in more extreme weather conditions;
- Embedding climate considerations within decision-making processes;
- Providing direct adaptation assistance to support other countries and territories;
- Mobilising international private adaptation finance;
- Sharing and exporting the UK’s capabilities internationally, both in climate science and financial services.
Financial resources are one of the most important enablers for these actions, alongside a clear division of roles and responsibilities and effective use of data and monitoring.
The CCC also calls for sustained diplomacy and engagement on climate adaptation.
Experts: Why migration is ‘not a failure of adaptation’ in a warming world
Risk and adaptation
|UN report: Five charts which explain the ‘gap’ in finance for climate adaptation
Risk and adaptation
|Guest post: How adaptation has cut flood deaths and losses in Europe
Attribution
|Guest post: More than 70% of adaptation plans for European cities are ‘inconsistent’
Guest posts
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_72fedb35ce89591dd50c18c976861c0a .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post CCC: Investing in ‘urgent’ UK adaptation action ‘cheaper than climate damages’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario
Among a flurry of posts on social media last weekend, US president Donald Trump declared “good riddance” to a specific emissions scenario used in global climate projections.
The “RCP8.5” scenario, which envisages a future of very high carbon emissions, was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, the president wrote in block capitals.
This was “just admitted” by the UN’s “top climate committee”, he falsely claimed, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The post was quickly picked up by right-leaning media, amplifying Trump’s misrepresentation of emissions scenarios and the role of the IPCC.
His claim follows the publication of a new set of emissions scenarios that will feed into the next IPCC reports.
While the new scenarios no longer include such high emissions as in RCP8.5, they also show it is “not possible” to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels without significant “overshoot”, one of the authors tells Carbon Brief.
Moreover, projections suggest that the world is still on course for between 2.5C and 3C of warming, another author says.
This level of warming was previously described as “catastrophic” by the UN.
In this factcheck, Carbon Brief looks at Trump’s comments, the debate around RCP8.5 and the “good” and “bad” news within the latest scenarios.
- What did Trump say?
- What is RCP8.5?
- Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?
- How has RCP8.5 been replaced?
- How is the IPCC involved?
In the late evening of Saturday 16 May, Trump posted the following message on his Truth Social social-media platform:
“Dumocrats” is a derogatory nickname for Democrat politicians, debuted by the president in a televised Fox News interview on Thursday 14 May, according to the Independent.
By “top climate committee”, the president was presumably referring to the IPCC, the UN body responsible for assessing science about human-caused climate change.
However, the IPCC does not develop, control or own climate scenarios. Moreover, it has not published anything stating that any climate scenario is “wrong”. (For more, see: How is the IPCC involved?)
Nevertheless, right-leaning media outlets have reported on Trump’s comments, in many instances repeating his false assertion that the RCP8.5 climate scenario had been developed by the IPCC.
The New York Post misleadingly claimed that the IPCC “had quietly adjusted” its framework of emission scenarios. The Daily Caller, a pro-Trump conspiratorial US outlet, adds its own falsehoods stating that “IPCC researchers revised their modelling approach last month, swapping the extreme pathway for seven alternative scenarios”. The climate-sceptic Australian claimed that scientists had “quietly scrapped the apocalyptic forecasts that have terrified policymakers and the public”.
With Fox News also covering Trump’s comments, along with an earlier article by the Times, much of the reporting around RCP8.5 in recent days has been driven by media controlled by the climate-sceptic mogul Rupert Murdoch.
It is not the first time the Trump administration has attacked RCP8.5. In an executive order issued in May 2025 – entitled, “Restoring gold-standard science” – the White House included the climate scenario in a list of examples of how the previous government had “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner”.
Federal agencies, it claimed, had been using RCP8.5 to “assess the potential effects of climate change in a higher warming scenario”, despite scientists warning that “presenting RCP8.5 as a likely outcome is misleading”.
The executive order came after Project 2025 – a policy wishlist for Trump’s second term published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, an influential rightwing, climate-sceptic thinktank in the US – criticised the climate scenario.
The manifesto said a “day-one” priority for the new government should be to “eliminate” the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “use of unauthorised regulatory inputs”, such as “unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on RCP8.5”.
What is RCP8.5?Scientists use emissions scenarios to explore potential future climates, based on how global energy and land use could change in the decades to come.
These scenarios are not predictions or forecasts of what will happen in the future. Therefore, Trump’s declaration that projections under RCP8.5 were “wrong, wrong, wrong” misrepresents the purpose of emissions scenarios.
Different modelling groups have produced thousands of different scenarios over the years. RCP8.5 was developed by scientists back in the early 2010s as one of a set of four consistent “representative concentration pathways”, or RCPs, for climate modellers to use.
As their name suggests, the RCPs were representative of the vast array of scenarios in the scientific literature.
Their corresponding numbers – 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 – do not describe temperature rise (as some mistakenly assume), but the level of “radiative forcing” that each pathway reaches by 2100. This forcing level is a measure of the change in the Earth’s “energy balance” (in watts per square metre) caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
As the highest forcing of the set, RCP8.5 was a scenario of very high emissions and extensive global warming.
When it was originally published in 2011, RCP8.5 was intended to reflect the high end – roughly the 90th percentile – of the baseline scenarios available in the scientific literature at the time.
A “baseline” scenario is one that assumes no climate mitigation, explains Dr Chris Smith, senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. He tells Carbon Brief:
“RCP8.5 was developed as a no-climate-policy scenario, often called ‘reference’ or ‘baseline’ scenarios. These are used to benchmark the actions of climate policy.”
Under RCP8.5, the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) in 2013 projected a best estimate of 4.3C of temperature rise by 2081-2100, compared to the pre-industrial period, with a “likely” range of 3.2C to 5.4C.
The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs. The SSPs included a set of five socioeconomic “narratives”, which described factors such as population change, economic growth and the rate of technological development.
The SSPs were then used in the IPCC’s sixth assessment (AR6) cycle, which ran over 2015-23. The upper end of the AR6 temperature projections was provided by the successor to RCP8.5, known as SSP5-8.5, which indicated warming of 4.4C by 2081-2100, with a “very likely” range of 3.3C to 5.7C.
Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?Prof Detlef van Vuuren from Utrecht University, a leading figure in the development of emissions scenarios for many years, tells Carbon Brief that RCP8.5 is a “low-probability, high-risk scenario and it was always meant like that”.
The scenario assumed a world without climate policy and was designed to explore the consequences of high levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. It was not, van Vueren says, a “best-guess scenario” of what the future held in store.
However, in some research papers, RCP8.5 was characterised as “business as usual”, suggesting that it was the likely outcome if society did not pursue climate action.
This was “incorrect”, says van Vuuren, noting that RCP8.5 “is not a likely outcome”. He adds: “It’s never been a likely outcome.”
Over time, RCP8.5 became hotly debated in academic circles, with some scientists arguing that such high emissions were becoming increasingly unlikely and others claiming that RCP8.5 was still consistent with historical cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Carbon Brief unpacked the arguments in this debate in a detailed explainer in 2019.
The charts below, originally included in a 2012 Nature commentary and then updated each year by the authors, shows how projected CO2 emissions under RCP8.5 (red line) compares with the other RCPs (bold coloured lines) and observations (black line).
The left-hand chart shows total CO2 emissions, including land-use change, while the right-hand chart shows CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and producing cement – the dominant drivers of 21st century emissions.
Global total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land use (left) and global fossil CO2 emissions (left) for historical observations (black lines) and the four RCP (coloured bold lines) for 1980-2050. Originally produced as part of Peters et al. (2012) and since updated by Glen Peters and Robbie Andrew.While emission trends up to the early 2010s approximately tracked RCP8.5, a flattening of emissions growth in the years since has meant they have not kept pace with the sustained rises that were assumed in the scenario.
Over the past decade, global emissions have more closely tracked RCP4.5, one of the two “medium stabilisation scenarios” of the original four RCPs.
The debate around RCP8.5 has not just focused on current emissions, but also on the scenario’s underlying assumptions for the future.
When it was published in 2011, the world had just seen unprecedented growth in global CO2 emissions, which had increased by 30% over the previous decade. Global coal use had increased by nearly 50% over the same period. Cleaner alternatives remained expensive in most countries and the idea of continued rapid growth in coal use seemed realistic.
Critics of RCP8.5 point to its assumptions for a dramatic expansion of coal use in the future, as well as high growth in global population.
For example, in a 2017 paper, two scientists argued that the “return to coal” envisaged in RCP8.5 would require an unprecedented five-fold increase in global coal use by the end of the century. Such an outcome was “exceptionally unlikely”, the authors wrote.
However, others have argued that while high-emissions scenarios are becoming increasingly unlikely, they still have an important role to play. For example, they highlight risks that only emerge under higher levels of warming.
In addition, research has shown that feedbacks in the climate system – where warming triggers the release of more CO2 and methane, which warms the planet further – could mean that human-caused emissions lead to a higher radiative forcing and have a greater climate impact than initially assumed.
In a post on the RealClimate website, Dr Gavin Schmidt – director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – unpacks why scenarios are updated and “why high-end scenarios are important”.
How has RCP8.5 been replaced?As the IPCC heads into its seventh assessment cycle (AR7), scientists have been developing the emissions scenarios and climate model projections that will – eventually – feed into its reports.
For the emissions scenarios, that process – known as ScenarioMIP – started back in 2023 at a meeting in Reading, UK. This involved scientists representing “different climate research communities”, explains van Vuuren.
This “brainstorming” session devised the outlines for the new scenarios, he says. After more meetings, these were subsequently developed into a proposal that was – after review – translated into a journal paper. After review from scientists and the public, the final paper was published in April.
The paper sets out seven all-new emissions scenarios, replacing the SSPs (and its predecessors, the RCPs). For simplicity, the new scenarios are named according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The figures below show the emissions (left) and the estimated global temperature changes (right) under the proposed scenarios, from the “low-to-negative” emissions scenario (turquoise) up to a “high-emissions” scenario (brown).
The greenhouse gas emissions for each of the CMIP7 climate scenarios (left) and the associated estimated average temperature change over 2000-2150 from a 1850-1900 baseline (right) using the FaIR emulator. Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren et al. (2026)(It should be noted that, while the ScenarioMIP paper has been published, there remains an embargo on using the scenario data produced by integrated assessment models – often referred to as IAMs – to publish academic papers, analysis or even social media posts until 1 September this year. Carbon Brief will publish a detailed explainer on the new scenarios once the embargo lifts.)
When compared to the SSPs that came before, the range in future emissions in the new scenarios “will be smaller”, the authors say in the paper:
“On the high-end of the range, the…high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends…At the low end, many…emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020-30 period.”
In other words, the combination of technological progress and action on climate change that, to date, remains insufficient, means that scenarios of very high or very low emissions are now not considered plausible.
Another way of looking at it is that the “range of potential futures has narrowed”, explains Smith, one of the authors on the paper.
If you “draw a fan or plume of potential future emissions that start in 2025”, it lies entirely within the spread of scenarios from a decade ago, he says:
“So you’ve ruled out futures at the high end. You’ve also ruled out futures at the low end – so it’s now not possible to limit warming to 1.5C, at least in the short term or the medium term.”
This is a mix of “good” and “bad” news, Smith adds.
“In the latest set of scenarios, the lowest [scenario sees] peaking at about 1.7C, so we’ve also lost that low end, but the good news is we’ve lost the high end…Back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future, because we’ve actually bent the curve [on emissions] enough to eliminate that possibility.”
The new “high” scenario projects warming in 2100 of closer to 3.3C (with a range of 2.5C to 4.4C).
To be clear, this “high” scenario would still come with catastrophic climate impacts, even if the level of warming would remain slightly below what was set out in RCP8.5.
Van Vuuren adds that the world is “now on a trajectory to 2.5-3C of warming”. As a result, “we don’t have any scenario anymore that can reach 1.5C with limited overshoot – we will have a significant overshoot”.
How is the IPCC involved?Contrary to Trump’s claims, the common set of future emissions scenarios used by climate scientists are not developed by the IPCC, the UN climate-science body that produces landmark reports about climate change.
Instead, the development process described above is driven by a group of Earth system modelling experts convened by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
CMIP – an initiative of another UN body, the World Climate Research Programme – coordinates the work of dozens of climate modelling centres around the world.
Working in six-to-eight year cycles, CMIP asks modelling centres around the world to run a common set of climate-model experiments – simulations that use the same inputs and conditions – that allows for results to be collected together and more easily compared.
For experiments that explore how the climate might change in the future, modelling centres are instructed to run simulations against a fixed set of future climate scenarios, each with different levels of concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change.
These future emissions scenarios are revisited each time CMIP embarks on a new “phase” of climate-modelling coordination, to reflect advances in scientific understanding and the pace of real-world climate action.
The group tasked with producing the design of future scenarios, as well as the “input files” for climate models, is the “scenario model intercomparison project”, or ScenarioMIP.
CMIP aligns its work with the schedule of the IPCC, coordinating a new set of model runs for each IPCC assessment cycle.
For example, the IPCC’s AR5 in 2013 featured climate models from the fifth phase of CMIP (CMIP5), whereas AR6 in 2021 used climate models from CMIP’s sixth phase (CMIP6).
AR7 will feature models from CMIP’s ongoing seventh phase (CMIP7). The first results from CMIP7 model runs are expected later this year.
The IPCC is consulted during the CMIP process, van Vuuren tells Carbon Brief, but its input is “no different from any other review comment” that the ScenarioMIP team received.
Thus, while the IPCC relies on model runs coordinated by CMIP in its landmark reports, it does not play a role in designing future emissions scenarios, nor in deciding when they should be retired.
Dr Robert Vautard, co-chair of IPCC AR7 Working Group I, tells Carbon Brief that the IPCC does not “do or coordinate research”. Its role, he says, is to “synthesise existing knowledge” and produce “regular” reviews of climate-science literature.
He adds that ScenarioMIP is just one set of scenarios the climate-science body assesses in its reports:
“IPCC assesses all scenarios, or sets of scenarios, that the scientific community produces. IPCC does not produce scenarios. CMIP7 will be [one] set of scenarios assessed by IPCC [for AR7] – but there will be many others.”
The IPCC has also released a statement in response to the recent reporting, reiterating that the paper on the new scenarios “belongs to the broader body of scientific literature produced by the international research community, under the coordination of the WCRP, not the IPCC”. It adds:
“The IPCC does not conduct its own research, run models or make measurements. It does not own the scenarios described in the mentioned paper, nor does it own any of the scenarios assessed in the sixth assessment report.”
Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets
Factchecks
|Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets
Factchecks
|Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas
Energy
|Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump
Factchecks
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_1270d8a4c2c1404fcbe3c5c8e86b17a4 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets
Many right-leaning figures have tried to push the idea that the UK is an outlier on net-zero.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has claimed that other countries are “not following us” in aiming to cut emissions to net-zero, while GB News owner Paul Marshall said in March that the UK is “pursuing a path of unilateral economic disarmament”.
Both are among those on the right of UK politics who have falsely claimed that the UK’s net-zero target is “unilateral” and that this is a reason why the goal should be abandoned.
However, these claims ignore that 140 of the world’s 198 countries (71%) have net-zero targets.
In fact, Iran and the US are the only two of the world’s top 20 carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters that lack a net-zero target, as shown in the map below.
If the UK were to scrap its net-zero target, as called for by both the opposition Conservatives and hard-right Reform UK, this is the group of major emitters it would be joining.
Countries with net-zero targets, as of May 2026. Data source: Net Zero TrackerThe latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s foremost authority on climate science, said the only way to stop global warming was to reach net-zero CO2 emissions.
The UK was the first major economy to set a net-zero target in 2019.
Since then, almost all of the world’s major emitters have followed suit, with China announcing a net-zero target in 2020 and India, Saudi Arabia and Russia launching goals in 2021.
Around 74% of global emissions are now covered by some kind of national net-zero target, according to data from the Net Zero Tracker, a consortium tracking net-zero policies.
According to the Net Zero Tracker, 34 nations – including the UK – have set a net-zero target into law, signifying the highest possible level of commitment.
In addition, 63 nations have stated their goal in a policy document, 16 nations have made a net-zero “pledge” and 23 nations have a net-zero “proposal”. (Four nations have declared that they have already reached net-zero.)
Types of net-zero targets across countries. Data source: Net Zero TrackerThe US, the world’s largest historical emitter when counting its cumulative climate impact since the start of the industrial revolution, had a net-zero target under former president Joe Biden. However, it was abandoned by the current Trump administration.
Despite this, some 18 regions and 43 cities in the US still have some form of net-zero commitment, according to the Net Zero Tracker.
John Lang, lead of the Net Zero Tracker, tells Carbon Brief:
“Ironically, of the world’s 20 largest emitters, only the US and Iran lack net-zero targets – precisely as the Iran crisis exposes the risks of dependence on fossil fuels and volatile oil markets.
“Arguing against net-zero is arguing for greater exposure to geopolitical instability and energy price shocks. The UK has already shown that cutting fossil-fuel dependence can go hand in hand with economic growth, reducing emissions by 54% since 1990 while almost doubling the size of the economy.”
Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario
Factchecks
|Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets
Factchecks
|Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas
Energy
|Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump
Factchecks
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_7ca539661f3dc59b33382489358c8e48 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 April 2026: Trump-Xi talk energy | ‘Supercharged’ El Niño | India’s first ‘heat lounges’
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
ENERGY TALKS: Trump administration officials have raised the prospect of China buying more US oil in response to the disruption caused by the Iran war, following two days of talks between the leaders of the superpowers in Beijing, said Reuters. On Thursday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC the nations had discussed China “buying more US energy”, adding that production from Alaska would be a “natural” for China. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported that Trump and Xi also agreed that the strait of Hormuz must remain open to “support the free flow of energy”.
CLIMATE ‘COOPERATION’: Ahead of the talks, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily published an article saying that addressing climate change requires “coordinated efforts and cooperation” between China and the US. State-run newspaper China Daily said that US-China cooperation on energy security and climate governance is “essential” because the two countries have “considerable influence over international institutions”. However, an article in Legal Planet said that the Trump-Xi meeting had no climate agenda, adding that the two countries are now moving in “radically different directions”.
El Niño extremes‘SUPERCHARGED’: From wildfires to heatwaves and flooding, scientists have warned that the El Niño weather pattern could “amplify climate extremes” in 2026, reported Climate Home News. There is an 82% chance of a “very strong” El Niño forming this year, according to the average of four weather forecasters cited by the Times. The Independent added that the phenomenon could be “supercharged” by another weather pattern – a positive Indian Ocean Dipole – raising the risks of fire, drought risks and other extreme weather events.
WORLD ON FIRE: Global fire outbreaks hit a “record high” in Africa, Asia and elsewhere this year, reported Reuters, with conditions expected to worsen to the “highest in recent history” if a strong El Niño “kicks in”. More than 150m hectares of land were damaged by fires from January to April – 20% more than the previous record – according to data compiled by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group cited by the newswire.
Around the world- ETHIOPIA EVS: Electric vehicles now account for 8% of Ethiopia’s car fleet as “soaring prices and fuel shortages compel” African countries to switch to “cleaner and cheaper transport”, according to the Associated Press.
- UK AID CUT: The UK has halved its most recent contribution to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) as part of a government “shift from development aid to military spending”, according to Climate Home News. The UK is no longer the top donor to the GCF following the move, said Carbon Brief.
- TORT RETORT: Reuters reported that the New Zealand government plans to amend a key climate law, to prevent courts from holding private companies liable for climate harms. This would apply to “both current and future proceedings”, the newswire said, including a current case against six major emitters.
- RENEWABLE SECURITY: Military alliance NATO is “openly backing renewables and other non-fossil fuel sources of energy as key to the alliance’s security” despite US scepticism, reported Politico. The outlet covered a NATO-backed study that highlighted how imported fuels have been used as a “bargaining chip” in conflicts.
- NO INDIAN ‘LOCKDOWN’: India’s oil-and-gas minister “dismissed concerns of any imminent lockdown-like restrictions” after prime minister Narendra Modi “urged citizens” to adopt fuel-saving measures amid a global energy crisis, reported the Economic Times.
The volume of oil the world has lost over the past two months since Iran began its blockade of the strait of Hormuz following attacks by the US and Israel, according to Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser, quoted in Reuters.
Latest climate research- Antarctic sea ice levels have plummeted to “record-low anomalies” since 2015, with researchers calling it “one of the largest present-day climatic shifts in the Earth system” | Science Advances
- Rainfall reductions in the southern Amazon will occur at progressively lower levels of deforestation as the planet warms, indicating that “climate change amplifies the sensitivity of rainfall to forest loss” | Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Economic inequality adds more than 100,000 deaths to the total toll from heat and cold in Europe | Nature Health
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
CapturedContrary to claims by the UK car industry that demand is not high enough to meet the UK government’s sales targets for “zero emissions vehicles” (ZEVs), a new Carbon Brief factcheck found it has actually “overcomplied” with its mandate. The chart above shows the required (left) and achieved (right) share of ZEVs in total UK car sales in 2024, the latest figures available. “Flexibilities” (in light blue) include the sale of lower-emission petrol cars.
Spotlight Chennai’s gig workers race against the heatThis week, Carbon Brief visits one of India’s first air-conditioned lounges designed to help gig workers deal with extreme heat.
An air-conditioned lounge for gig workers in Chennai’s T Nagar shopping district. Credit: Ishan Tankha / ScorchedOn a single day in late April, 20 of the world’s hottest cities were all in India.
Chennai was not on the list this time, but is no stranger to high temperatures. In the south-eastern coastal capital of Tamil Nadu, extreme humidity and heat are inescapable facts of life.
“The heat is by no means manageable, but we have no choice but to deal with it,” said Mohammed S, a 29-year-old grocery platform delivery worker, speaking to Carbon Brief.
Last year, Chennai became India’s first ever city to roll out air-conditioned lounges for millions of gig workers, like Mohammed, navigating India’s increasingly hotter cities.
Lounge accessIn the dense shopping district of T Nagar – recognised as an “urban heat island” – studded with silk sari and jewellery shops, an unassuming oblong container-like structure stands out.
Gig workers leave their slippers outside the lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / ScorchedThrough the building’s tinted windows, workers wearing synthetic jerseys emblazoned with food delivery app logos are stretched out on wooden benches meant to seat 25 people.
The lounge has charging points for phones, a water cooler and a unisex toilet. It might not seem like much, but workers tell Carbon Brief that it has made a “huge difference” to their lives – even on a day when the air conditioner stopped working.
“Before this, life was very difficult,” said Mohammed. He continued:
“We would park our [electric] bikes and try to find a tree to sleep under, stop for tea and tea shop owners would tell us we couldn’t sit there for more than 10 minutes, try to rest in a building’s stairwell and be chased away, then try to find shade under a flyover. Now we can sit in the AC and avoid the worst of the heat.”
Dinesh, 27, said his day starts at dawn before the sun is up, picking up packages from companies in north Chennai – another critical heat hotspot.
For the next seven hours, there is no “off point” or breaks for Dinesh as apps rush deliveries.
Some of Chennai’s gig workers told Carbon Brief they try to avoid the worst of afternoon temperatures from noon to 3pm, but for many – especially migrant workers – sitting back in the lounge is not a choice they can afford. One of them explained:
“If you don’t have cash to cover your bills or have to send money back home, you head out into the heat for a 12-hour shift and hope for the best.”
Dinesh checks his orders in the gig worker’s lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched Feeling ‘gear’In Chennai, heat might be normalised, but it has its own vocabulary. Speaking to Carbon Brief, the city’s gig workers, auto rickshaw drivers and fish sellers used an all-encompassing term – “gear” – to describe their symptoms, including dizziness, exhaustion and nausea.
Last summer, researchers offered Delhi’s gig workers a Rs 200 (roughly £2) cash transfer on the first day of a heatwave, to provide them with a means to achieve “real-time” adaptation to heat risk. Workers who received a cash transfer reported fewer heat-related symptoms, according to the study.
Asked if they would accept similar incentives to stay home on 40C days, workers in the T Nagar lounge expressed disbelief. Dinesh – who also trains technicians on how to repair air conditioners to support his income – told Carbon Brief:
“They [the apps] offer us incentives to go out in the heat when there are fewer riders.”
Barring a few, none of the dozens of outdoor workers Carbon Brief spoke to had an air conditioner at home or in their hostels, making the lounge the only place they could cool down.
Watch, read, listenTHE BIG ‘LOSER’: Writing in Foreign Affairs, Princeton University’s Prof Benjamin Bardlow argued that Beijing “may emerge from the war in Iran as its winner – and Washington its ultimate loser”.
CARBON ‘KINGPIN’: A new podcast by Drilled followed Bruce Rastetter – a corn ethanol “kingpin-turned-carbon entrepreneur” from Iowa – now promoting biofuels and carbon-capture projects in Brazil.
OPEC ‘DRAMA KINGS’: An episode of the Polycrisis podcast, titled “Gulf drama kings”, dug into the UAE’s announcement that it was quitting oil producers’ cartel OPEC, asking whether this reflected “doom” for the group, geopolitical tensions, or “different beliefs” about the future of oil.
- 17 May: Cape Verde election
- 17-22 May: 13th session of the World Urban Forum, Baku, Azerbaijan
- 20-21 May:Copenhagen climate ministerial
- Greenpeace, communications and engagement co-head (climate) | Salary: £63,756-£67,644. Location: London
- Global Witness, deputy director of campaigns (one-year contract) | Salary: £75,886. Location: London
- Karolinska Institute, research assistant in climate attribution and health | Salary: Unknown. Location: Stockholm, Sweden
- Greenpeace South Asia, climate researcher | Salary: Unknown. Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_ad45c18cfa7c478d53b16c646d187963 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post DeBriefed 15 April 2026: Trump-Xi talk energy | ‘Supercharged’ El Niño | India’s first ‘heat lounges’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut
The UK is no longer the top contributor to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), after the government announced that it only intends to honour half of its most recent pledge.
Amid wider cuts to its climate aid for developing countries, the UK informed the GCF in May that it will reduce its commitment for the 2024-27 period to £815m ($1.1bn).
In doing so, the Labour government is drastically cutting a Conservative pledge of £1.62bn ($2.16bn), hailed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government as “the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change”.
This “record” pledge also meant the UK became the top GCF funder, after the Trump administration withdrew $4bn in pledged US funds in 2025.
Now, the UK follows the US in becoming the second major donor to cancel substantial funding, leaving aid experts concerned that other developed countries will follow suit.
As the chart below shows, the UK’s total past and promised contributions to the GCF have now dropped below those of Germany, France and Japan.
GCF pledges by top 10 donors. Dark bars indicate pledges from the initial resource mobilisation in 2014 and the first replenishment round in 2019, while light blue bars indicate pledges from the second replenishment round in 2023. Source: NRDC GCF pledge tracker.The GCF is the largest dedicated UN climate fund and is seen as a vital way of raising grant-based climate finance for developing countries. It oversees more than $20bn worth of funding across 354 projects and programmes.
Developed countries, such as the UK, are obliged under the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance. One of the main ways to do this is through specialised climate funds, such as the GCF.
However, despite countries committing to increase their climate finance over time, progress in scaling up GCF contributions between funding rounds has been gradual.
With its now-revoked £1.62bn pledge in 2023, the UK was among the donors that had increased its GCF pledging compared with the previous 2019 funding round.
The latest reduction means the UK will now provide around 45% less funding than it did during the 2019 round. This is the biggest reduction between rounds by any major donor, apart from the US.
In an email to the GCF board, reported by the Financial Times, the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte said the UK’s actions were “expected to have a material impact on the delivery” of the fund’s projects.
According to the newspaper, Duarte noted that the move came as the UK cuts its overall aid budget in order to “invest more in addressing growing security threats”.
In March, the UK government announced plans to spend “around £6bn” of its aid budget on climate projects in developing countries over the next three years.
Carbon Brief analysis suggests that this spending amounts to roughly halving the UK’s annual climate finance, when accounting changes and inflation are factored in.
Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began
UK policy
|Q&A: How the UK government aims to ‘break link between gas and electricity prices’
Renewables
|Analysis: UK is ‘halving’ its climate finance for developing countries
Renewables
|Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas
Policy
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_df2bd84d6efd96a81c4e56617c4f794f .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 8 May 2026: EU eyes fossil-fuel exemptions | Wind and solar save UK ‘£1.7bn’ | Amazon ‘tipping point’
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
METHANE EXEMPTION: The European Commission is considering making changes to its flagship methane emissions regulation to give fossil-fuel companies “leeway to avoid penalties…in what would be a major win for the oil and gas sector”, reported Politico. According to new draft government guidelines seen by the outlet, “national authorities would be able to grant exemptions to companies on energy security grounds”. A separate Politico story said the move comes after the Trump administration “has intensified pressure on the regulation”.
GAS EXPANSION: The Guardian reported that the Norwegian government has been “heavily criticised for approving plans to reopen three North Sea gasfields nearly three decades after they were closed”, with the justification of helping to “fill the gap in energy supplies created by the Middle East war”. Oslo has also given its approval for oil and gas companies to explore 70 new locations in the North Sea, Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea, the newspaper added.
RENEWABLES INVESTMENT: The Financial Times reported that investors are “piling into clean-power funds at the fastest pace in five years as the Iran war accelerates a global push for energy security and alternatives to oil and gas, boosting a slew of stocks linked to the transition away from fossil fuels”. It added that more than £3bn has been invested in global funds linked to renewable energy in April, bringing their total net asset value up to $43bn.
Around the world- SHIPPING TALKS: Nations are “back on track” to adopt a framework for curbing global shipping emissions, following the latest International Maritime Organization’s meeting in London, according to a Carbon Brief Q&A.
- SUPER El NIÑO: Global sea temperatures were the second highest on record for the month of April, “stoking concerns among scientists that an El Niño warming cycle is brewing that would intensify extreme weather”, reported the Financial Times.
- ROUND-THE-CLOCK: An International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) report found that “solar and wind power paired with battery storage systems are already delivering reliable, round-the-clock electricity at a lower cost than fossil fuel-dominated energy systems in a growing number of regions”, said BusinessGreen.
- KENYA FLOODS: At least 18 people have died in floods and landslides driven by heavy rain in Kenya, reported Al Jazeera.
The average amount by which trees lower summer temperatures in cities globally, according to research in Nature Communications.
Latest climate research- Airborne microplastics and nanoplastics have the potential to contribute to warming by absorbing sunlight | Nature Climate Change
- A mega tsunami in Alaska in 2025 was “preconditioned by glacial retreat caused by climate change” | Science
- “Net-zero global power systems meeting universal electricity needs for decent living standards are technically feasible” | Nature Energy
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
CapturedThe UK has avoided the need for gas imports worth £1.7bn since the start of the Iran war, as a result of record electricity generation from wind and solar, according to Carbon Brief analysis. The chart above shows that wind and solar have generated a record 21 terawatt hours (TWh) on the island of Great Britain since the end of February 2026, when the US and Israel first attacked Iran. The record wind and solar output avoided the need to import 41TWh of gas – roughly 34 tankers of liquified natural gas (LNG). Importing those 34 tankers of LNG would have cost around £1.7bn, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Spotlight Tipping troublesNew research published this week shows how even small increases in global temperature, when combined with deforestation, could push the Amazon rainforest past a “tipping point”.
Crossing this threshold would trigger the gradual transition of vast swathes of the lush rainforest into dry savannah.
On the sidelines of the European Geosciences Uniongeneral assemblyin Vienna, Carbon Brief speaks to lead author Prof Nico Wunderlingfrom Goethe University Frankfurt and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Carbon Brief: Why does the Amazon rainforest have a tipping point?
Prof Nico Wunderling: All tipping elements have important feedback mechanisms that once a threshold – the tipping point – is crossed, kick in and a change in the system is self-amplified. For the Amazon rainforest, this important feedback mechanism is the atmospheric moisture recycling – meaning that the rainforest generates much of its own rainfall.
For eastern parts of the rainforest, moisture mostly comes from the Atlantic. The rainfall it receives then evaporates and is transported towards the west. And, just to give you a sense of how large this feedback can be, for parts of the rainforest, more than 50% of its rainfall is generated by the forest itself.
Prof Nico Wunderling. Credit: SuppliedCB: How do global warming and deforestation both play a role in a potential tipping point?
NW: Both global warming and deforestation undermine this atmospheric moisture recycling. The direct way is deforestation – we cut down the forest, we lose major parts of the evapotranspiration, so you have less rainfall for the downwind forest. Also, global warming impacts the rainforest – it increases the number and intensity of droughts, which decreases the overall available rainfall and, therefore, can decrease the stability of the rainforest, which also leads to an undermining of the atmospheric moisture recycling.
Around 17% of the Amazon rainforest has already been lost. The critical threshold in our study is in the order of 22-28% of deforestation.
CB: Would such a transition be Amazon-wide? Or would it happen in pockets or regions?
NW: That actually depends on the other pressures that we expose the rainforest to. What we found is that, under climate change only [with no deforestation], the threshold kicks in at around 3.7-4C of warming. If that is crossed, then we find that around one-third of the Amazon rainforest is at risk of transitioning to a degraded ecosystem.
Then, if deforestation is also included [at 22-28%], this threshold comes down to well within the Paris Agreement limits – 1.5-1.9C of global warming. At the same time, the area at risk of transition increases from around one-third to around two-thirds to three-quarters.
CB: In your paper, you say that crossing a tipping point is “not inevitable” – can you elaborate?
NW: In a way, for the Amazon rainforest, we’re in a better situation than with other tipping elements, because we have multiple options for improving our situation. One is we can stop global warming – we can stop emitting and curb emissions before we reach the 2C target. That’s important for the Amazon rainforest. But crucial for the Amazon rainforest is that deforestation levels are halted below 22-28%.
And, indeed, current trends across the Amazon rainforest show that efforts to decrease deforestation are in place and they seem to work. If these trends continue, then I’m mildly optimistic that we will not reach 22-28%. But, if you would have asked me the same question five years ago, I might have said that, well, by mid-century, these values could be reached.
Watch, read, listenAFRICA RENEWABLES: A CNBC Africa TV report examined the continent’s “renewables rise” and the “shift from climate policy to energy security”.
‘CLIMATE MONSTER’: New York Times writer David Wallace-Wells has a long read on the approach of “perhaps the most fearsome El Niño since before scientists even began modeling them”.
SANTA MARTA SUMMIT: For the Conversation, two political researchers lay out “four dynamics to watch” to determine whether the first conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia “becomes more than rhetoric”.
Coming up- 8-9 May: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders summit, Cebu, Philippines
- 10-14 May: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III second lead author meeting for the seventh assessment report, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- 11-12 May: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ministerial council meeting, Paris
- 11-15 May: 21st session of the UN forum on forests, New York
- 12 May: Bahamas election
- Carbon Brief, journalism internship | Salary: £14.80 per hour (London Living Wage). Location: London/hybrid
- Secure Energy Project, campaign director | Salary: $50,000. Location: Brazil (remote)
- Commonwealth Secretariat, adviser on climate change | Salary: £80,672. Location: London
- Politico, deputy editor, Congress (energy and environmental policy) | Salary: Unknown. Location: Arlington, Virginia
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_fbeab1e8ba9c1dc710e113649865318f .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post DeBriefed 8 May 2026: EU eyes fossil-fuel exemptions | Wind and solar save UK ‘£1.7bn’ | Amazon ‘tipping point’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets
For several years, the UK car industry has been claiming that demand is not high enough to meet the government’s targets for sales of “zero emissions vehicles” (ZEVs).
To date, however, the car industry has actually beaten the targets under the government’s “ZEV mandate”.
This pattern of claiming demand is not high enough is being repeated in a regular cycle, following the publication of monthly statistics on new UK car sales by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).
Each month, this messaging is amplified by large sections of the media, which have published dozens of articles stating – incorrectly – that car companies are missing their ZEV targets.
Meanwhile, the car industry is lobbying for an “urgent review” of the targets, on the basis that “natural demand is still well below the level demanded by the [ZEV] mandate”.
UK car market has ‘over-complied’ with its targetsIn 2021, the UK’s then Conservative government developed the idea of a “ZEV mandate” as a way to drive sales of electric vehicles (EVs).
The idea, inspired by a similar scheme in California, is to set a rising target for the share of new car and van sales that must be “zero-emissions vehicles” (ZEVs) each year.
For cars, these targets started at 22% of sales 2024, increasing gradually each year to 80% by 2030.
Towards the end of the first year of the scheme, in November 2024, the SMMT warned that the industry was “likely to fall short”, with EVs making up “just…18.7%” of sales. It said:
“The industry looks likely to fall short of the 22% EV market share demanded, potentially creating a £1.8bn bill for compliance.”
(If manufacturers fall short of their target, they can still avoid having to pay a “bill for compliance” by trading “credits” with other firms, or “borrowing” allowances from future years.)
But, contrary to the industry messaging on the headline 22% goal, the car market actually “over-complied” in 2024, according to official figures published in early 2026.
As such, all carmakers in the UK avoided fines for failing to meet their ZEV-mandate targets.
This was despite only 19.8% of new sales being EVs in 2024 – a final tally that was notably more than one percentage point higher than the industry estimate from November of that year.
The industry was able to “over-comply” with the ZEV mandate because the regime has a series of “flexibilities”, which have been created and added to after lobbying by carmakers.
These “flexibilities” allow individual firms to reduce their targets for ZEV sales by selling combustion-engine cars with lower emissions, such as hybrids or plug-in EVs.
When these “flexibilities” are considered, the car market met the equivalent of a 24.5% target, according to the government, with the surplus of 2.5% being “banked” for use in future years. This is shown in the figure below.
The required (left) and achieved (right) share of ZEVs in total UK car sales in 2024, %. “Flexibilities” include the sale of lower-emission petrol cars. Source: Department for Transport.In May 2026, the SMMT again told Carbon Brief that EV sales in 2024 had been below the headline target.
When asked by Carbon Brief to confirm that – per the official figures – the UK car market had, nevertheless, “over-complied” with the ZEV mandate in 2024, it did not respond.
Car industry continues to lobby for weaker rulesIn a January 2026 release on car sales for the previous year, the SMMT said the “gap between demand [for EVs] and ambition [in the ZEV mandate] is increasing rather than diminishing”.
At the time, Carbon Brief asked the SMMT if it recognised independent estimates from thinktanks and NGOs, showing that – on the contrary – the car industry had also met its ZEV-mandate targets for 2025.
In response, the SMMT sent Carbon Brief a quote from SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes saying that “no one will know” if the industry complied with the 2025 target until official figures come out in 2027.
While this is technically true, the official figures for 2024 showed that the thinktanks and NGOs behind the independent estimates for 2025 had been accurate with their previous forecasts of compliance.
The car industry continues to repeat similar messaging.
The SMMT stated in May 2026 that there is a “persistent gap of around six percentage points against the mandate target” of 33% in 2026 and 38% in 2027. Chief executive Mike Hawes said in the statement that “natural demand is still well below the level demanded by the mandate”.
The gap that the SMMT is referring to is between the headline ZEV targets and the expected level of EV sales, which the body says will reach 27% of all new cars this year and 33% in 2027.
The car industry continues to use these figures to call for a review of the ZEV mandate.
In its latest news release, it says the UK “needs an urgent review” and quotes Hawes saying this should be used to “align policy with market realities”.
These comments are reflected in media coverage, with the Independent, for example, running a misleading headline that says the car market is “still missing government EV targets”. The article adds:
“[T]he industry is still warning that EV demand is not growing quickly enough to meet government targets.”
What neither the SMMT press release nor much of the media coverage mentions is the existing “flexibilities” under the ZEV mandate, which were already expanded last year.
This means the headline 33% goal for 2026 can be met, even if EVs only make up around 25% of sales, according to an estimate of the “real” target published by thinktank New Automotive.
Again, the SMMT expects EVs to make up around 27% of sales this year, which would be comfortably ahead of the “real” target once flexibilities are taken into account.
The government has already pledged to review the ZEV mandate, with the results due to be published in “early 2027”.
In April, car sales platform Autotrader announced that new EVs are now cheaper to buy than petrol cars on average, “for the first time”. EVs were already significantly cheaper to own.
Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas
Factchecks
|Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump
Energy
|Factcheck: North Sea gas is not ‘four times cleaner’ than LNG imports
Factchecks
|Factcheck: 16 misleading myths about solar power
Factchecks
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_1103c80078c6d2dfcfecb575c1858ccd .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began
The UK has avoided the need for gas imports worth £1.7bn since the start of the Iran war, as a result of record electricity generation from wind and solar, reveals Carbon Brief analysis.
The surge in wind and solar output is cutting the need for gas-fired generation, which has been nearly a third lower than last year and fell to record lows in both March and April 2026.
The figure below shows that wind and solar have generated a record 21 terawatt hours (TWh) on the island of Great Britain since the end of February 2026, when the US and Israel first attacked Iran.
Monthly generation from wind and solar in terawatt hours on the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), which has a separate electricity system from the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland. Source: National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Carbon Brief analysis.Amid another fossil-fuel price crisis, the record wind and solar output since the start of the Iran war avoided the need to import 41TWh of gas – roughly 34 tankers of liquified natural gas (LNG).
Importing those 34 tankers of LNG would have cost around £1.7bn, given the high gas prices triggered by the conflict.
At the same time, record wind and solar helped to cut electricity generation from gas by around a third year-on-year to the lowest levels ever recorded for the months of March and April, as shown in the figure below.
Monthly generation from gas in terawatt hours on the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), which has a separate electricity system from the island of Ireland, includingNorthern Ireland. Source: National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Carbon Brief analysis.Together, wind and solar have generated more than twice as much electricity as fossil fuels over the period since the Iran war began. The country’s electricity mix has now flipped: a decade ago, fossil fuels were generating more than four times as much electricity as wind and solar.
Indeed, wind and solar have generated more electricity than fossil fuels for a record 15 months in a row. As shown in the figure below, this included a full winter season for the first time in 2025-26.
Monthly generation from fossil fuels (red) vs wind and solar (blue) in terawatt hours on the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), which has a separate electricity system from the island of Ireland, includingNorthern Ireland. Source: National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Carbon Brief analysis.This meant that gas was setting the price of electricity roughly 25% less often in both March 2026 and April 2026 than in the same month in 2022, when fossil-fuel prices spiked after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
April 2026 also marked a series of other records for the GB electricity system.
For half an hour between 15.30 and 16:00 on 22 April, a record 98.8% of the electricity feeding into the country’s main “transmission” grid came from zero-carbon sources, according to the National Energy System Operator (NESO).
In addition, solar generation hit a series of new record-highs, ultimately reaching 15.4 gigawatts (GW) on the afternoon of 23 April. Wind set a new record of 23.9GW on 25 March.
Q&A: How the UK government aims to ‘break link between gas and electricity prices’
Renewables
|Clean energy pushes fossil-fuel power into reverse for ‘first time ever’
Renewables
|Analysis: Record wind and solar saved UK from gas imports worth £1bn in March 2026
Renewables
|Analysis: How ‘plug-in solar’ can save UK homes £1,100 on energy bills
Renewables
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_138d1da831ec165efc1f6aea3711d732 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Cropped 6 May 2026: Forest loss falls | Deforestation regulations | Saving ‘India’s Galapagos’
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.
DRIVER DECLINE: Tropical primary forest loss fell by more than one-third from 2024-25, according to the latest edition of the Global Forest Review. (Primary forests are those that are intact or relatively undisturbed by humans.) The World Resources Institute, which co-produced the report, noted that the loss of these forests is “still 46% higher than [it was] a decade ago”. It attributed much of this year’s decline to a decrease from last year’s “record-breaking year of extreme fires”.
WIDESPREAD COLLABS: Although Brazil had the largest loss in terms of area, deforestation in the country fell by 42% compared to the previous year, reported Agência Brasil. It noted that this was made possible by a governmental task force, “with the participation of civil society, academia, local communities and the private sector”. In Indonesia, Malaysia and Colombia, progress “reflected improved governance, recognition of Indigenous land rights and corporate commitments to deforestation-free production”, said EnviroNews Nigeria.
EXCEEDING THE LIMIT: Despite the decline, the amount of deforestation “still remains ‘far above’ the level required to put the world on track to meet international targets to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030”, said BusinessGreen. It added that “fires present a growing threat that could reverse recent gains”, despite the declines from 2024. Reuters noted: “Agricultural expansion continued to be the biggest driver of forest loss around the world.”
EU deforestation law watered downUNDER PRESSURE: Following industry pressure, the European Commission decided to “exclude imports of leather from its anti-deforestation law”, according to Reuters. The newswire said: “Leather industry groups have argued that as a by-product of the meat industry, with a relatively low value, leather’s production does not incentivise the cattle farming that drives deforestation.” It added that imported beef is still covered by the law.
‘LONG-OVERDUE’: Meanwhile, a group of UK Parliament members released an open letter calling for “long-overdue regulations to end UK imports linked to illegal deforestation”. Although the forest-risk regulation was introduced in 2021 as part of the Environment Act, “lawmakers have spent the last four years delaying the implementation” of the anti-deforestation rules, according to a Mongabay report from last year.
PROVISIONAL DEAL: The EU-Mercosur deal – a trade agreement between the European bloc and four South American countries – provisionally came into force on 1 May “after 25 years of negotiations”, said Euractiv. The application of the agreement is provisional because members of the European Parliament “referred the deal to the European Court of Justice for a legal review” in January, it added.
News and views- PACKAGING PLANTATION: Asia Symbol, a China-based pulp and paper company, cleared “vast tracts of Indonesian rainforest home to endangered orangutans…for plantations supplying a maker of ‘carbon-neutral’ packaging”, according to an investigation by Agence France-Presse and the Gecko Project. The company told AFP that it is “committed to its no-deforestation policy”, while the newswire noted that the plantations supplying the paper mill have permits from the Indonesian government.
- SODA MOUNTAIN SOLAR: The California Energy Commission approved a proposed $700m solar power plant in the Mojave Desert after “nearly 20 years” of challenges, reported the San Bernardino Sun. Last month, climate journalist Sammy Roth dove into the history of – and current debate over – the Soda Mountain project on his Substack, Climate Colored Goggles.
- POSITIVE TIPPING POINTS: In a Nature Sustainability perspective piece, Prof Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter argued for the existence of “positive tipping points” – ecological, social or socio-ecological states where feedback loops that “suppor[t] self-propelling nature-positive change can help” achieve nature-recovery goals.
- ‘ACUTE HUNGER’: Nearly eight million people in South Sudan are at risk of “acute food insecurity” in coming months, “fuelled by ethnic conflict, climate change and the spillover of fighting from neighbouring Sudan”, according to Al Jazeera coverage of a new Integrated Food Security Phase Classification analysis. Meanwhile, a UN-produced global food crises report showed that “acute hunger” has doubled over the past decade, with two famines declared last year for the first time since the reports began a decade ago.
- SUMMERTIME SADNESS: Production of India’s prized Devgad Alphonso mango “has dropped by 70-90%” this summer, due to both “climate shock” and “ineffective pesticides”, reported the Print. Rich mango farmers in western India staged a “rare protest” demanding compensation for their losses, the outlet added, while a Print comment called for a “shift from compensation to climate-adaptation policies”.
- SEED SUIT: A judge at the Kenyan High Court “declared unconstitutional parts of a law that prohibited farmers from sharing and selling Indigenous seeds” – although the government has appealed the decision, reported Devex. The lawyer who represented the farmers in the suit “said that the ruling could have ripple effects worldwide”, it added.
This week, Carbon Brief follows the uproar around the Great Nicobar project, after India’s opposition leader visited the biodiversity hotspot, which is at imminent risk of deforestation.
On 30 April, Rahul Gandhi – the head of India’s opposition and grandson of former prime minister Indira Gandhi – posted an Instagram video from the evergreen rainforest on Great Nicobar island, the southernmost point of India’s territory.
The island is the site of a proposed $10bn infrastructure project called the Great Nicobar Island Project, which includes a transhipment port in Galathea Bay, an international airport, a township and a gas and solar-based power plant.
Completion of the project would require the felling of more than a million trees – nearly 130 square kilometres of forest.
Speaking to the camera and dwarfed by gigantic tree trunks, Gandhi said:
“I’m in the middle of what is easily the most beautiful forest I’ve seen in my life.”
As drone footage showed viewers the lush forest canopy, Gandhi told viewers that the primary forest here is so dense, there was simply no way through. He continued by claiming:
“Now I understand why the government did not want me to come…because this is the largest theft of Indian ecological property in history.”
(In February, India’s National Green Tribunal upheld environmental clearances for the project, stating that the government had “considered all possible damage to the ecology and had taken efforts to compensate it”, according to the Hindu. A challenge is pending in the Calcutta High Court. In March, India announced it was raising its forest carbon target in its 2035 climate pledge.)
The provocative video calling for a halt to large-scale deforestation on “India’s Galapagos” has garnered more than 1.4m views and has sparked media debate, smear campaigns and government pushback, defending its strategic importance.
Paradise almost lost?Barely hours after Gandhi’s video was posted, the Indian government published a press release detailing how environmental and tribal welfare safeguards have been met, despite more evidence to the contrary emerging this week.
Several media outlets – particularly print and independent outlets – have gone to Great Nicobar since 2024 to investigate the project’s impacts on biodiversity, assess its economic viability and corroborate the government’s claims of receiving Indigenous consent.
However, many of the project’s details have been shrouded in secrecy and restrictive conditions, including “gag orders” on scientists, rebuffed right to information requests and missing maps of tribal lands and coral colonies, media investigations have alleged.
For many mainland Indians, Gandhi’s video was a first glimpse of the Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve and its 1,800 species, many of them endemic to the islands.
Turtle walkerAmong the most charismatic and vulnerable are Great Nicobar’s sea turtles: leatherbacks, hawksbills and Olive Ridleys.
In an era before Instagram, biologist Satish Bhaskar surveyed over 4,000km of India’s coastline on foot from 1977-96 to document sea turtle nesting sites. Bhaskar laid the groundwork – and established the baseline – for Great Nicobar’s biodiversity and turtle conservation in India.
With only a transistor radio for company, Bhaskar would “maroon himself” on these islands for months at a time to measure tracks in the sand, count eggs and nests and wait for sightings of leatherback sea turtles, which can grow up to 2.7 metres long and weigh up to half a tonne.
From 1991-92, Bhaskar recorded more than 800 leatherback turtle nests on Great Nicobar Island alone. He identified Port Campbell Bay – where Gandhi met Nicobarese leaders last week – as a critical, irreplaceable turtle-nesting beach during his surveys.
“I’m glad I did what I did,” said the soft-spoken biologist in the 2025 documentary Turtle Walker, which recreates his early years on the island. Sadly, this new footage of Nicobar’s coastal reefs, mangroves and evergreen forests – is still only accessible to film festival audiences in India.
Can more visual, vocal and felt evidence shift the debate on deforestation in India? Experts told Carbon Brief that remains to be seen, but Gandhi’s video has brought “tremendous attention” back to the project, and brought in unlikely allies asking important questions.
Watch, read, listenGO FISH: BBC News explored how climate change is “threaten[ing] the economic backbone” of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati – its tuna fisheries.
LIFE AFTER COWS: The New York Times profiled Butter Ridge’s dairy farmers selling their generations-old Pennsylvania farm in the face of looming tariffs and “surging” input costs.
C FOR COMMODITY: On the Wilder podcast, Sue Pritchard – chief executive of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission – explored the “invisible forces” shaping modern food systems.
WAR FALLOUT: From oil spills to contaminated soil, Wired took a closer look at how the war on Iran is impacting the environment in “unseen ways”.
New science- Commercial bottom-trawling fishing costs Europe nearly €16bn per year, mainly due to the release of carbon from ocean sediments | Ocean & Coastal Management
- A combination of global warming of 1.5-1.9C and deforestation of 22-28% could drive the Amazon to “system-wide changes” | Nature
- By 2050, 74% of the current habitats of all land mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians could be exposed to heatwaves under a high-emissions scenario | Nature Ecology & Evolution
- 11-15 May: 21st session of the UN Forum on Forests | New York City
- 11 to 15 May: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) regional conference for Europe | Dushanbe, Tajikistan
- 13 May: Webinar on the State of Forests report from the World Resources Institute | Online
- 22 May: International day for biological diversity
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyerand Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org
Cropped 22 April 2026: Global food ‘catastrophe’ | BECCS emissions | UK solar farm controversy
Cropped
|Cropped
|Cropped
|Cropped
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_bf49f05c7377b1f99d09dee19f90fa78 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Cropped 6 May 2026: Forest loss falls | Deforestation regulations | Saving ‘India’s Galapagos’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Vacancy: Three-week summer journalism internship at Carbon Brief
Carbon Brief is offering an exciting opportunity for students, or recent graduates, to work with the team for three weeks this summer. This journalism internship will be paid the London Living Wage, with an additional travel bursary.
Job descriptionCarbon Brief’s award-winning journalism and analysis is respected by scientists, journalists, policymakers and campaigners around the world. We write articles and create data visualisations, infographics and videos to explain the latest climate science and related policy issues.
You’ll spend time shadowing members of staff and helping out with the different tasks carried out by each part of the team. This includes journalists working on topics ranging from climate science through to China’s emissions, as well as specialists working on visuals and social media.
If you’re interested in whether carbon offsets are a viable climate solution, or how climate change is driving human migration, then this is the placement for you.
.innerArt>ol { font-family: 'PT Serif'; font-size: 18px !important; } What you will do- Have the opportunity to research, write and publish an article for Carbon Brief.
- Promote your article using visuals and social media.
- Assist with the research and writing of Carbon Brief’s award-winning newsletters.
- Help decide how Carbon Brief covers the latest developments in climate change, by helping to find stories in scientific papers and policy documents.
- Create and discuss content for social media.
- Experience how a small, independent but global journalism team works in practice.
- See how Carbon Brief puts together articles step by step.
- Learn how we interrogate news, data and reports.
- Pick up skills on how to make best use of visuals in your journalism.
- Interest in climate change.
- Some experience of writing on a technical topic for a general audience, which can include self-publishing.
- Interest in journalism and a commitment to the integrity of journalism.
- Competency in word processing and spreadsheet packages, such as MS Word/Excel or Google Docs/Sheets.
- Excellent spoken and written English.
- Experience with social media, such as Twitter/X and Instagram, would be a benefit.
Location: The internship will follow a hybrid format, involving time in person at our offices near London Bridge station in central London as well as remote working.
Reporting to: Our Associate Editor Daisy Dunne.
Hours/Duration: This is a three-week-long placement which will take place in the summer months from 13-31 July. Our office hours are 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday, with an hour for lunch.
Salary: London Living Wage (£14.80/hour), plus £100 towards travel expenses.
How to applyTo apply, please send:
- Your CV.
- A short covering letter of no more than 300 words, explaining why you would be a good fit for the internship and how you would benefit from it. Please include a paragraph explaining how Carbon Brief first caught your attention and pitch one idea for a Carbon Brief article. Any letter generated using AI will invalidate the application.
- A link or attachment for an article you have published. This can either be in traditional or student media, or on a personal blog.
To: jobs@carbonbrief.org (please use “Internship application” in the email’s subject line).
Applications must be submitted by 9am UK time on 1 June. Interviews will likely be held on the week beginning 8 June.
Applicants must already have the right to work permanently in the UK and be more than 18 years of age.
Carbon Brief is committed to encouraging equality, diversity and inclusion among our workforce. Our aim is to be truly representative of all sections of society and for each employee to feel respected and able to give their best. We strongly encourage applications from those who feel underrepresented in climate journalism, including ethnic and social minorities.
The post Vacancy: Three-week summer journalism internship at Carbon Brief appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How countries got the global ‘net-zero’ shipping deal ‘back on track’
Nations are “back on track” to adopt a framework for curbing global shipping emissions, following the latest International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) meeting in London, UK.
The proposed “net-zero framework” had been expected to be approved by countries at the IMO towards the end of 2025.
Instead, the Trump administration was accused of “bully-boy” tactics as the US led a concerted effort to reject the framework, leading to its approval being delayed.
Since then, the US, other fossil-fuel producers and some industry groups have called for the framework to be stripped of its carbon-pricing mechanism, or abandoned entirely.
At the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC84) meeting in London, UK, last week, nations tried once again to reach an agreement on the framework.
Opponents said they were trying to seek consensus, but supporters, such as Brazil, the EU and Pacific islands, pointed out the framework was already a “careful balance of interests”.
Liberia and Panama – “flag states” for a third of the world’s commercial shipping – led a counter-proposal, alongside Argentina, which effectively cut carbon pricing from the framework.
Ultimately, however, the meeting ended with a reconfirmation that delegations are committed to rebuilding consensus on global shipping emissions.
The framework survived the negotiations and the committee will now try to adopt it at its December 2026 meeting.
Below, Carbon Brief explains why the framework has proved so contentious, who the major players have been and what the final outcome was at the latest IMO meeting.
- Why was the net-zero framework delayed last year?
- Why do some countries oppose the net-zero framework?
- What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?
- What do supporters of the net-zero framework want?
- What was the final outcome from the IMO meeting?
In April 2025, nations at the IMO had agreed on a “net-zero framework” at their MEPC83 meeting in London, despite the US withdrawing halfway through.
Later that year, in October 2025, they failed to formally adopt the framework after a fraught “extraordinary session” that saw US negotiators accused of “bully-boy tactics”.
(The MEPC usually meets once a year, but additional meetings or intersessionals can be added to deal with an “extraordinary event or critical maritime environmental crisis”. The October session was organised specifically to consider the adoption of the framework and other draft amendments.)
The framework was meant to be a practical set of measures to achieve the global net-zero target for shipping, agreed at the IMO in 2023. The target is significant, as international shipping is responsible for more than 2% of emissions and is not covered by the Paris Agreement.
Following a week of negotiations at the April 2025 meeting, the remaining nations had voted on approving a compromise proposal for an emissions levy – effectively a carbon tax on global shipping – and a credit-trading system.
A majority of nations had agreed to this framework that would have set a lower emissions-intensity reduction target of 4% in 2028, rising to 30% in 2035. It had also included an upper target that would have increased from 17% in 2028 to 43% in 2035.
Ships that failed to lower their emissions intensity in line with these limits would have needed to purchase “remedial units” for $380 per “tier two” unit. This would have fed into a new IMO “net-zero fund”.
Those who met the lower target, but fell short of the more difficult upper target, would have had to pay into the IMO fund, but at the lower rate of $100 per “tier one” unit.
The number of compliant ships had been expected to grow under this framework, reducing the number of vessels reliant on buying units and helping to reduce emissions intensity by over 40%, as the chart below shows.
Reduction in emissions intensity of shipping fuel compared to 2008 reference year, showing percentage made up of tier two (red), tier one (pale red) and compliant emissions (grey). Source: IMO.The purchase of units to comply with the rules had been expected to raise $10-15bn annually in the initial years of the fund, as well as help with the development of zero and near-zero (ZNZ) greenhouse gas fuels and energy sources, according to thinktank IDDRI.
In turn, the fund would have been used to support developing countries to decarbonise shipping.
A clear majority of 80% of the eligible voters – not including those who abstained or the US – approved the framework at the April 2025 meeting.
The 63 countries that voted in favour included the EU, China, India and Brazil, while those that voted against included major fossil-fuel producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Following this “landmark” agreement, countries had then been expected to formally adopt the framework at the next MEPC session in October 2025.
However, the meeting proved challenging. The US “unequivocally rejected” the proposal and lobbied extensively against adoption, including by threatening governments, individual diplomats and shipping companies with sanctions, visa restrictions, tariffs and port fees.
During the October meeting, the US and its allies pushed for a shift from a “tacit” approval system for the net-zero framework to one that would require explicit acceptance by governments. This would mean it would only come into force if, six months later, two-thirds of nations actively accepted the deal, Climate Home News explained at the time.
Negotiations continued throughout the week before Saudi Arabia called to adjourn the meeting, a move that was passed after it was backed by 57 countries.
As such, the decision on the adoption of the net-zero framework was pushed back by a year.
Among the 63 countries that supported the IMO net-zero framework at MEPC83 in April 2025, 15 supported the adjournment and 10 abstained – showing that some nations that had previously supported the framework had softened on the deal, following lobbying by the US, Saudi Arabia and their allies.
Going into the April 2026 MEPC84 meeting, it was clear that agreement on the framework would not be straightforward. A report ahead of the meeting from University College London (UCL) noted:
“The level of support is noticeably weaker than in April [2025] and likely reflects the effectiveness and efforts made by sides supporting or opposing the net-zero framework over the intervening period.”
In the week ahead of the MEPC84, US IMO delegation lead Wayne Arguin told a meeting that there was a “clear, strong and sizable bloc of countries opposed to the [net-zero framework]” and “no prospect of achieving consensus”, according to Politico.
As the meeting kicked off on 27 April 2026, IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez called on parties to engage in “engage in constructive and pragmatic exchanges”.
Why do some countries oppose the net-zero framework?A coalition of countries, including the US, Saudi Arabia and various fossil-fuel producers, strongly oppose the IMO net-zero framework that was agreed last year.
They were supported by a wider group of industry bodies and major flag states – countries where many ships are registered – which were instrumental in advancing “alternative frameworks” at the latest meeting. (See: What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?)
Documents submitted ahead of the April 2026 meeting laid out the basis for this opposition, with the US criticising the net-zero framework’s “significant shortcomings”, concluding:
“The most appropriate path forward is to end consideration of the IMO net-zero framework entirely.”
More nuance came in a statement from a group of primarily large fossil-fuel producers, including Saudi Arabia, Russia and Algeria, which was also backed by the US.
It stressed the need for “alternative” frameworks, with an emphasis on achieving consensus, as well as “practicability, equity and trust”. In practice, this meant a system without any carbon pricing, “top-down restrictions” or “international penalties”.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }Opposing countries said any outcome should be “technology-neutral”, meaning it should not disadvantage specific fuels, potentially including liquified natural gas (LNG) and other fossil fuels.
These nations also stressed what they claimed were the potential impact of additional net-zero costs on “food and energy security”.
Much of their criticism was based on supposed economic harm that the net-zero framework would cause, particularly in developing countries.
These arguments purported to be about fairness for these countries. Yet some opponents of the framework were also calling for the IMO fund to be abandoned.
If this IMO fund were lost, then developing countries could lose out on a potential source of support for their own maritime decarbonisation, as well as potentially their broader energy transitions.
As well as supporting the fossil-fuel producers’ call for “alternative frameworks”, the UAE filed its own submission questioning the legitimacy of the IMO in establishing a new fund.
The US submission to the IMO stated that the fund would provide “pennies on the dollar compared to the economic hardship” brought about by the framework overall.
US delegates distributed flyers at the IMO meeting, emphasising the financial burden they claimed the framework would place on developing countries. While low-carbon shipping will come with substantial costs, analysts said the US figures were “not credible”.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }Campaigners accused the US of “pretending to care about other countries’ economies”, pointing out that the energy crisis – triggered by the US-led war on Iran – is costing the shipping industry billions.
Moreover, they stated that the Trump administration’s new port entry fees would be a far greater financial burden for the global shipping industry than the mooted net-zero rules.
Analysis by UCL shipping researchers ahead of MEPC84 concluded that the Trump administration would potentially be less able to exert “soft power and influence” at the talks than last year. Additionally, it pointed to a Supreme Court ruling that limited the US’s capacity to impose punitive tariffs.
In practice, the US was less vocal at the talks, choosing to support alternative framework ideas proposed by other IMO members.
What ‘alternative frameworks’ were discussed?There were two main alternatives to the net-zero framework considered at MEPC84.
Japan suggested some ideas as a “possible basis for discussion”, which included removing the need for ships to pay into an IMO fund when they fail to meet emissions targets.
It also suggested simply relaxing the emissions targets, in order to make them easier for shipping companies to meet.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }The second – and more significant – counter-proposal to the net-zero framework was not submitted by the US or its fossil-fuel producer allies.
Instead, it came from Liberia, Panama and Argentina, three countries that have strong political and historical ties with the US.
This was particularly notable given Liberia and Panama’s status as the top two “flags of convenience”, as shown in the chart below. A third of the world’s commercial shipping is registered in these small states, giving them disproportionate significance within the talks.
Deadweight tonnage of the ten largest merchant fleets in 2025 by flag of registration, million tonnes. Source: UNCTAD.Their proposal, offered in the spirit of “consensus‑building”, said that only fuels already considered “commercially viable” should be included in the IMO’s carbon-intensity targets.
The Argentina-Liberia-Panama proposal was dismissed by observers as “business-as-usual”, as it removes incentives to develop clean fuels, any substantial means of enforcement and opportunities to raise funds to help developing countries.
Delaine McCullough, director of the shipping programme at the Ocean Conservancy, tells Carbon Brief:
“By removing the mandatory greenhouse gas price, you take away the ability to provide any kind of rewards or other incentives, and you also take away the regulatory incentive, so you just end up where we are today.”
This was the proposal that the net-zero framework’s most prominent opponents, including the US and the Gulf states, rallied around at MEPC84.
Among those also backing the idea during the talks were some developing countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, that also said they wanted the IMO outcome to provide them with financial support.
This came in spite of the proposal stating there should be “no establishment of an IMO fund”. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a small-island state delegate tells Carbon Brief:
“Many countries that support the Liberia-Panama-Argentina submission also seek support for transition, capacity-building and mitigation of negative impacts. This support will not be available if [that] approach is taken.”
Some delegates questioned the decision by Liberia and Panama to lead this pushback against the net-zero framework. Both nations had previously supported an emissions levy on shipping, which would have been far more ambitious than the framework they now oppose.
Observers noted ties between nations that opposed the framework and parts of the shipping sector – including US-based interests and LNG assets.
Among the industry voices arguing strongly against the net-zero framework have been the American Bureau of Shipping and a group of international shipping companies and registries – including the national registries of Liberia and Panama.
The latter group voiced “significant concerns” and called for “alternative proposals”. Rather than a domestic entity, the Liberian registry that issued this statement is a privately owned US company.
Reflecting on these issues, Prof Tristan Smith, an energy and transport expert at UCL, wrote on LinkedIn:
“Privately owned registries have leverage over their host governments because one angry shipowner’s personal wealth is more than the flag state’s GDP and governments of low-income countries can’t easily take risks with even small volume revenues.”
Major Greek shipowners, including some with US-linked LNG interests, also opposed the net-zero framework, citing the “absence of support from major and influential states representing a significant share of global tonnage”.
Greece itself had reportedly pushed back against the framework behind the scenes, despite the EU’s public, unified position of support.
What do supporters of the net-zero framework want?There were many vocal supporters of the net-zero framework at MEPC84, including a broad range of developed and developing countries.
Among them were the EU, Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, Pacific island states, Australia and the UK.
Having supported the net-zero framework last April, but voted to postpone its adoption in October, China expressed support for a carbon-pricing system and an IMO fund in a technical submission issued ahead of MEPC84.
The major shipping nation had remained quiet during the US-Saudi disruption in October last year, so its submission was viewed as a positive for backers of the framework.
Colombia, which was simultaneously hosting a global conference on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, also emerged as a supporter of the net-zero framework.
There has also been support from some sections of the shipping industry, including a large coalition of ports, logistics companies and clean-fuel providers.
Supportive nations pointed out that the net-zero framework was the result of years of talks and already represented what Pacific island states called a “fragile compromise”. They framed it as the “only politically viable option” for hitting the IMO’s net-zero goal.
Pacific islands and around 50 other nations had originally called for a universal carbon levy on shipping. Ultimately, they were forced to accept the net-zero framework as a compromise, but Pacific islands said they would revert to their call for a levy if they felt the framework was being “watered down”.
The demand for a levy was strongly opposed by numerous countries, including some of the current framework’s supporters, such as Brazil and Australia.
In a bid to revive the net-zero framework, a submission by Brazil sought to “dispel any possible potential misunderstandings”, stressing that the approach is “flexible” and “should not be mistaken for a ‘global tax’”.
For example, Brazil notes that the framework “does not exclude any fuels” and that even existing “bunker” fuels and LNG could be used, as long as carbon intensity targets are met. (Ships could, for example, use carbon capture and storage to meet the goals.)
Michael Mbaru, a low-carbon shipping expert for the Kenya climate special envoy, told a briefing ahead of the conference that the net-zero framework was in developing countries’ interests:
“If the global package unravels, pressure grows for more regional and unilateral measures instead, and this is particularly difficult for African and other developing countries, because fragmented regulation raises compliance, complexity [and] transaction costs.”
In response to the Argentina-Liberia-Panama proposal that opponents of the framework had coalesced around, the Solomon Islands pointed out that, in seeking “consensus”, this group was ignoring the numerous parties that wanted more ambition, rather than less. It stated in a submission:
“There is no reason to expect that a new proposal, that differs from the IMO net-zero framework, would find a majority, much less a consensus.”
Nevertheless, supporters of the net-zero framework also acknowledged that there were some areas where greater clarity might help countries to finalise the details.
These areas include clarifying technical considerations such as: how fuel intensity is calculated; addressing the potential impacts of net-zero rules on food security; the governance of the IMO fund; and regulation of sustainable fuel certification schemes.
Given this, there was broad support for more discussions at an extra “intersessional” meeting later this year, in order to hash out these final details before attempting to approve the net-zero framework once more.
What was the final outcome from the IMO meeting?Ultimately, the IMO’s net-zero framework remains on the table and will now be negotiated further in the autumn, ahead of the next MEPC session in December 2026.
The decision, as well as the general willingness to move forward noted by numerous observers, was broadly welcomed. IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez said:
“We are back on track, but we have to rebuild trust. I encourage you to maintain this momentum through your intersessional work and to prepare submissions that can bring the membership together.”
MO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez speaking at the Marine Environment Protection Committee on 27 April 2026 at IMO Headquarters in London. Credit: IMO / FlickrOver the week of negotiations, nearly 100 delegations took to the floor to voice their opinions on the adoption of the net-zero framework.
As well as discussion of the previously proposed net-zero framework, Argentina and Japan put forward alternative proposals, although neither gathered significant support.
The Argentinian proposal was substantially different from the net-zero framework and did not include either a greenhouse gas price or a fund. It saw support from just 24 member states and, even when combined with the Japanese proposal to form a “technical-only” compromise, it was unable to gain a majority.
According to the UCL Shipping and Oceans Research group, despite numerous efforts to put forward options that would be more acceptable to the US and Saudi positions – such as technical-only proposals – these failed to find “viable ways forward”.
This is important, as normally within the IMO, when two proposals have similar levels of support such as this, they can be merged or a compromise found.
On the final day of negotiations, countries agreed to take forward the original net-zero framework, which was agreed in principle back in April 2025.
More than half of the nations at the IMO meeting were in favour of it, including members such the EU, Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Tuvalu and others. They accepted the framework, as originally agreed, as the basis for further work.
The countries that supported it remain largely unchanged from previous meetings, but there was additional support.
Most of the supporters had opposed the adjournment at the IMO session in October, which pushed the adoption of the net-zero framework back. But five additional countries that had supported adjournment switched sides, along with 10 countries that had not taken a side, now clearly supporting the framework, according to UCL.
Others pushed back against the net-zero framework and called for reopening it for substantial changes. This included the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Liberia and others, predominantly oil and gas exporters.
According to UCL, two countries flipped from opposing adjournment to opposing the framework. UCL notes that “this indicates the fluidity of a portion of the positions and the sustained uncertainty around adoption later this year”.
The figure below shows supporters of the net-zero framework or other options at the latest meeting, colour-coded according to their position on the adjournment vote in October 2025.
Position on the next steps for the net-zero framework at the IMO’s latest meeting in April 2026. Credit: UCLThe net-zero framework was, ultimately, the only option in the final outcome text. While it has “survived”, “survival is not a victory and we cannot end up in a cycle of open-ended negotiations”, Em Fenton, senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, tells Carbon Brief. They add:
“We must now look forward to moving towards adoption of the framework later this year in a way that maintains urgency and ambition, and delivers justice and equity for countries on the frontlines of climate impacts.”
The IMO committee agreed to establish an intersessional working group to resolve a number of outstanding concerns and “drive broader convergence on a global measure” ahead of the next MEPC meeting.
Member states will be able to submit new amendments and adjustments to the draft net-zero framework, to complement those already approved.
The two intersessional meetings will take place in September and November, ahead of MEPC85 in December.
Christiaan De Beukelaer, senior lecturer in culture and climate at the University of Melbourne, tells Carbon Brief:
“The ship is mostly built, though it’s obvious that more work needs doing on its interior. Right now, some are trying to finish the build while others are trying to scuttle it.”
Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels
International policy
|Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’
International policy
|Q&A: What Magyar’s defeat of Orbán in Hungary means for climate and energy
International policy
|Iran war analysis: How 60 nations have responded to the global energy crisis
International policy
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_b8d3e756460548f84951311d79016a99 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Q&A: How countries got the global ‘net-zero’ shipping deal ‘back on track’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 1 May 2026: Countries chart path away from fossil fuels | China’s clean-tech surge | Global forest loss slows
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
SANTA MARTA SUMMIT: Countries attending a first-of-its-kind summit have walked away with plans to develop national “roadmaps” to move away from fossil fuels, along with new tools to address subsidies and carbon-intensive trade. The first conference on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, held in Santa Marta, Colombia, from 24-29 April, saw 57 countries – representing one-third of the world’s economy – debate practical ways to move away from coal, oil and gas. Carbon Brief has produced an in-depth summary of the talks.
‘REFRESHING’ APPROACH: Against the backdrop of a global oil and gas crisis, ministers and envoys from across the world sat side-by-side in small meeting rooms to have open and frank conversations about the barriers they face in transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy. This new format – devised by co-hosts Colombia and the Netherlands – was described as “refreshing” (see below).
NEW SCIENCE PANEL: The event also featured a “science pre-conference” attended by 400 academics from around the world. This saw the launch of a new science panel that will aim to provide quick analysis to nations wanting to accelerate their transition away from fossil fuels. In addition, the academics gathered gave their backing to a new scientific report – first covered by Carbon Brief – advising nations to “halt all new fossil-fuel expansion”.
Around the worldUAE QUITS OPEC: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Tuesday said it was quitting OPEC, “dealing a blow to the oil producers’ group as an unprecedented energy crisis caused by the Iran war exposes discord among Gulf nations”, said Reuters.
IMO TENSIONS: With talks still ongoing today at the International Maritime Organization in London, the Guardian reported that “pressure” on the negotiations “appears to be linked to countries that have invested heavily in gas”.
OUTPOWERING TRUMP: US clean-energy installations are on track to hit “another record” this year and account for the vast majority of new power additions, despite facing policy opposition from the Trump administration, reported Bloomberg.
FOREST LOSS SLOWS: The loss of tropical forests slowed last year, “largely due to Brazil’s efforts to curb deforestation in the Amazon”, according to World Energy Institute and University of Maryland data covered by BBC News.
1.8%The proportion, at most, that global coal-power output is expected to increase this year – tempering claims made by some that the energy crisis could cause a “return to coal”, according to new Carbon Brief analysis.
Latest climate research- Mass incarceration can be viewed as a “climate justice issue”, as “incarcerated individuals are at a heightened risk of experiencing multiple climate-related events and “carceral infrastructure and policies worsen these impacts” | Environmental Research Letters
- Climate finance can promote stability in “conflict-affected” countries, through “the alleviation of water scarcity and the reduction of fossil-fuel dependence” | Climate Policy
- Land vertebrates will be increasingly exposed to heatwaves, wildfires, drought and river floods over the coming century due to climate change | Nature Ecology and Evolution
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
CapturedChina’s exports of the “new three” clean-energy technologies surged by 70% year-on-year in March 2026, reaching $21.6bn, according to new analysis for Carbon Brief’s China Briefing newsletter. Exports of the three technologies – solar cells and panels, electric vehicles (EVs) and lithium-ion batteries – were also up 37% from February, the month before the Iran war. The conflict is one explanation for the surge, as it has caused several countries to emphasise the need to increase non-fossil energy supplies. However, a domestic policy deadline and falling silver prices were also behind solar exports almost doubling, analysts told Carbon Brief.
Spotlight The inside story of how countries came together in ColombiaThis week, Carbon Brief reports on how a new “informal” approach helped countries to make progress on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels at talks in Santa Marta, Colombia.
Over the past few days, ministers and climate envoys from 57 countries have been gathering in Santa Marta, a city along the Caribbean coast of Colombia, in a beach hotel that would not look far out of place in HBO’s White Lotus.
For the first time, only one topic was up for conversation: how to “transition away” from fossil fuels, the main driver of human-caused climate change.
The end result – new plans for national fossil-fuel “roadmaps”, new tools to address subsidies and carbon-intensive trade, and a renewed commitment for countries to keep cooperating on energy transition – has been hailed as a “historic breakthrough”.
From the outset, the summit’s co-hosts – Colombia and the Netherlands – were keen to stress that the meeting would not be a space for more negotiations, but rather a forum for countries and other stakeholders to discuss practical steps to move away from fossil fuels.
This format was widely praised by countries in attendance, who described the conversational atmosphere at the conference as “refreshing”, “highly successful” and a “safe space for discussion”.
Closed-door discussionsThe “high-level segment” of the conference was held from 28-29 April.
Following the opening plenary, ministers and climate envoys spent much of the two days in closed-door “breakout sessions”, discussing issues ranging from “planned phase down and closure of fossil-fuel extraction” to “closing gaps in financial and investment systems”.
Carbon Brief understands that each session featured 12 ministers and envoys representing different countries sitting in an inner circle, with an outer circle made up of civil society members and other stakeholders. Each session was led by a different minister, appointed by the co-hosts.
In a departure from UN climate negotiations, the conversations that took place were free-flowing, with ministers and stakeholders given equal opportunities to contribute, observers told Carbon Brief.
All of the sessions were held under the Chatham House rule, meaning discussions were not attributable to individual speakers to encourage more open debate.
Ministers and climate envoys in a closed-door “break out session” in Santa Marta. Credit: Earth Negotiations BulletinUK special representative on climate, Rachel Kyte, was among policymakers praising the informal format, telling a huddle of journalists there was “real value” in speaking freely with other country officials. She added:
“I have to say that it is really nice to sit in a small circle…In a negotiation, it’s very, very fast-moving and transactional. But now we have had two days to think about [fossil-fuel transition issues] and this only.”
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Panama’s special representative on climate change, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, said the format was “groundbreaking”, adding:
“I’m going to be honest. [At] first I was like: ‘What the f*ck am I doing here? I don’t know where this is going.’
“But then, as the workshop started, I realised there were ministers, envoys, civil society leaders and Indigenous people. They put us in a format where we could not open our computers, so we had to speak from our minds and our hearts. That completely flipped my perception. That kind of space I haven’t seen in my 10-year history with the UNFCCC.”
Road to COP31The findings of this conference are now due to be delivered to the Brazilian COP30 presidency, which is currently preparing a global fossil-fuel roadmap to present at COP31 in Turkey this November.
A large question mark remains over how the outcomes will affect proceedings at COP31, particularly among the more than 130 countries that were not in attendance in Santa Marta.
Co-hosts Colombia and the Netherlands deliberately chose not to invite some countries to Santa Marta, saying the aim of this was to try to keep conversations focused on transitioning away from fossil fuels. (This approach split opinions among country officials and observers.)
During the summit’s final plenary, Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven stated that, going forward, it was the co-chairs’ wish to create an “open coalition”, including by extending an “invitation for others to join us” in the future.
Watch, read, listenNATIONS TO WATCH: A comment piece in Climate Home News by decarbonisation analyst Christopher Wright named “six nations” present at the Santa Marta talks that could “shape fossil-fuel futures”.
REFORM’S FOSSIL LINKS: A new investigation by DeSmog detailed how more than two-thirds of the total income of the hard-right Reform UK party comes from fossil fuels.
ARCTIC REPORT: Climate journalist Alec Luhn has won a National Headliner Award for his piece on plans to “refreeze” the Arctic, during which his “right thumb got frostnip from hitting the record button”. Read Luhn’s original article in Scientific American.
Coming up- 2 May: Niue general elections
- 3-8 May: European Geosciences Union general assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria
- 4 May: International Energy Agency (IEA) global methane tracker report launch
- Lighthouse Reports, editor, climate and environment | Salary: €70,000-€80,000. Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands or remote
- Center for Strategic and International Studies, research associate or associate fellow – climate change and energy security | Salary: $63,000-$70,000. Location: Washington DC
- Quaker United Nations Office, programme assistant, human impact of climate change | Salary: CHF4,262 per month. Location: Geneva, Switzerland
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
|DeBriefed
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_6308ebf78601dcaf60d7efe3b80a80e1 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post DeBriefed 1 May 2026: Countries chart path away from fossil fuels | China’s clean-tech surge | Global forest loss slows appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels
Countries attending a first-of-its-kind summit have walked away with plans to develop national roadmaps away from fossil fuels, along with new tools to address harmful subsidies and carbon-intensive trade.
The first conference on “transitioning away” from fossil fuels held in Santa Marta, Colombia, from 24-29 April saw 57 countries – representing one-third of the world’s economy – debate practical ways to move away from coal, oil and gas.
Against a backdrop of war, a global oil crisis and worsening extreme weather events, ministers and envoys from across the world sat side-by-side in small meeting rooms to have open and frank conversations about the barriers they face in transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy.
This new format – devised by co-hosts Colombia and the Netherlands – was described as “refreshing”, “highly successful” and “groundbreaking” by countries attending the talks.
The event also featured a “science pre-conference” attended by 400 global academics, which included the launch of a new science panel that will aim to provide agile and bespoke analysis to nations wanting to accelerate their transition away from fossil fuels.
At the summit’s conclusion, Tuvalu and Ireland were announced as the co-hosts of the second transitioning away from fossil fuels summit, which will take place in the Pacific island nation in 2027.
Below, Carbon Brief outlines all of the key takeaways from the talks.
- Colombia and Netherlands leadership
- High-level segment
- Academic meeting
- Indigenous and civil society participation
The idea for a specific fossil-fuel transition conference hosted in Colombia first emerged during tense end-game negotiations at the COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil.
Amid a push by a group of around 80 nations to refer to a “roadmap” away from fossil fuels in the formal COP30 outcome text, Colombia and the Netherlands jointly announced that they would co-host a summit in Santa Marta in April.
The calls for a fossil-fuel “roadmap” to be mentioned in COP30’s outcome text ultimately failed. However, the Brazilian COP30 presidency promised to bring forward an “informal” fossil-fuel roadmap, drawing on the discussions and debates in Santa Marta.
The Santa Marta conference took place from 24-29 April. It included a “science pre-conference” from 24-25, a day for subnational governments, parliamentarians and other stakeholders and a “high-level segment” with ministers and climate envoys from 28-29.
Colombian environment minister Irene Vélez Torres – herself a former academic – was particularly keen to emphasise the importance of science to the conference, telling journalists: “We need to go back to science and base our decisions on science.” (See: Academic meeting)
From the outset, the hosts stressed that the high-level segment was not a space for negotiations, but rather a forum for countries and other stakeholders to discuss practical steps to move away from fossil fuels.
This format was widely praised by ministers and climate envoys, who described the conversational atmosphere in break-out sessions as “refreshing”, “highly successful” and “groundbreaking”. (See: Closed-door discussions.)
A total of 57 countries participated in the conference, according to the Colombian government.
These countries were: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, the EU, the Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malawi, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, México, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, New Zealand, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, the Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, the UK, Uruguay, Vanuatu, the Vatican and Vietnam.
At the summit’s opening press conference on 24 April, Vélez Torres confirmed that Colombia and the Netherlands had decided to only invite a select group of countries to the conference.
Vélez Torres told journalists that countries including China, Russia and the US were not invited. She suggested that they had not shown the necessary spirit to be part of the “coalition of the willing” and that Colombia wanted to avoid a rehashing of the lengthy debates at COP30. (Carbon Brief understands that India was also not invited.)
In a later press huddle, Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven clarified that the two co-hosts had partially based their invitation criteria on who showed support for the fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30, saying:
“It was a combination of what happened in Belém and all the existing initiatives that have been driving this agenda for a long time already.”
However, it is worth noting that some countries that had opposed a formal reference to a fossil-fuel roadmap in the COP30 outcome were invited to Santa Marta, according to Carbon Brief’s analysis of the “informal list” of those against the idea in Belém.
For example, Tanzania was invited to take part in the Santa Marta talks, despite appearing on the list of countries opposed to the roadmap in Belém.
On the other hand, neither China nor India were invited, despite having rejected media coverage portraying them as the “blockers” of the fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30.
Country officials and observers expressed a range of views on whether excluding certain countries from the conference was the right approach.
Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, Panama’s special representative on climate change, told a small group of journalists that he thought it was the “right decision”, adding:
“This first meeting had to be done with those that wanted something to be done. Otherwise, it would have been a repeat of a UNFCCC meeting.”
UK special representative for climate, Rachel Kyte, told a press huddle that China should feel “welcome to be here”, adding:
“China has to be part of this equation for multiple reasons.”
One veteran observer told Carbon Brief that their impression was that Colombia and the Netherlands had been “overly cautious” about who would have caused disruption if invited to the conference, saying:
“Yes, maybe there is an argument for not inviting countries that have a long history of blocking progress, such as the Gulf states. But, if we look at what countries are really doing on the ground – including JETP [Just Energy Transition Partnerships] initiatives – then more countries should have been here, including Indonesia, for example.”
However, they also urged caution on reading too much into which countries were and were not present, adding that this could also partially be explained by “scheduling and countries’ availability”.
During the summit’s final plenary, van Veldhoven stated that, going forward, it was the Netherlands and Colombia’s wish to create an “open coalition”, including by extending an “invitation for others to join us”.
Dr Maina Talia, the climate minister of Tuvalu, who will co-host the second transitioning away from fossil fuels summit alongside Ireland, told journalists that the island nations would “revisit” and “improve” the criteria used for inviting countries to the conference.
High-level segment[anchor]3"> National statements and pledges
The two-day high-level segment began with an opening plenary, which saw more than 20 countries put forward their views on the need to transition away from fossil fuels.
Developed and developing nations alike spoke of the need to transition away from fossil fuels not only to tackle worsening climate change, but also the high prices, insecurity and volatility associated with continued reliance on coal, oil and gas.
Opening the plenary alongside Colombia, Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven told countries:
“Price volatility and dependence on imports are structurally and unacceptably impacting our economies. We need to move away from fossil fuels not only because it is good for the climate, but because it strengthens our energy security. Investment in clean energy also lays the foundation for a more resilient and sustainable economy, capable of mitigating these shocks.”
First to speak in plenary was Nigerian minister, Abubakar Momoh, who said:
“Nigeria is actively diversifying its economy away from extracting oil, which accounts for around 80% of our exports. Nigeria strongly believes that it is not whether extraction should decline, but how to organise it so it is manageable, fair and politically viable across countries.”
Also speaking during the session, UK special representative for climate Rachel Kyte said it “would be irresponsible to ignore the second fossil-fuel crisis in five years”.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }Several nations also used their interventions to lament a lack of progress in addressing fossil-fuel use during the last 30 years of annual UN climate negotiations.
Dr Maina Talia, climate minister for Tuvalu, said that “for years, international climate negotiations have circled around fossil fuels without directly confronting the core issues”.
Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, Panama’s special representative on climate change, told countries:
“For 34 years, we have negotiated the symptoms of the climate crisis and bulletproofed its cause. Thirty-four years of pledges. And where are we now?
“Economies built on fossil fuels are unravelling in real time. Fossil fuels are not just dirty. They are unreliable, they are dangerous and they must end.”
A small number of nations from the Pacific and Africa used their interventions to show their support for the Fossil Fuel Treaty initiative, an idea to negotiate a new legally binding agreement to control fossil-fuel use, currently supported by 18 countries. (The treaty did not feature in the summit’s final outcome.)
France’s special climate envoy, Benoît Faraco, used his intervention to announce that the nation has produced a new roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Later on, on the first day, Colombian president Gustavo Petro also gave a speech at the summit, telling countries:
“What I see is resistance and inertia within the power structures and the economy of this archaic energy system. Today, fossil fuels bring death; undoubtedly, that form of capital could commit suicide, taking humanity and life itself. Humanity cannot allow that.”
Closed-door discussionsFollowing the opening plenary, ministers and climate envoys spent much of the two-day high-level segment in closed-door “breakout sessions”, discussing issues ranging from “planned phase down and closure of fossil-fuel extraction” to “closing gaps in financial and investment systems”.
Carbon Brief understands that each session featured 12 ministers and envoys representing different countries sitting in an inner circle, with an outer circle made up of civil society members and other stakeholders. Each session was led by a different minister, appointed by the co-hosts.
In a departure from UN climate negotiations, the conversations that took place were free-flowing, with ministers and stakeholders given equal opportunities to contribute, observers told Carbon Brief.
Country representatives, including Panama’s special representative on climate change, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez; the climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, Tina Stege; COP30 CEO, Ana Toni; UK special representative on climate, Rachel Kyte; and Tuvalu climate minister, Dr Maina Talia, participating in a closed-door breakout session. Credit: Earth Negotiations BulletinMany countries were highly complimentary of this informal format, describing it in the closing plenary as “refreshing”, “highly successful” and a “safe space for discussion”.
UK special representative on climate, Rachel Kyte, told a huddle of journalists that there was “real value” to having informal conversations with other country officials, saying:
“I have to say that it is really nice to sit in a small circle…In a negotiation, it’s very, very fast-moving and transactional. But now we have had two days to think about [fossil-fuel transition issues] and this only.”
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Panama’s special representative on climate change, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, said the format was “groundbreaking”, adding:
“I’m going to be honest. [At] first I was like: ‘What the f*ck am I doing here? I don’t know where this is going’.
“But then, as the workshop started, I realised there were ministers, envoys, civil society leaders and Indigenous people. They put us in a format where we could not open our computers, so we had to speak from our minds and our hearts. That completely flipped my perception. That kind of space I haven’t seen in my 10-year history with the UNFCCC.”
All of the sessions were held under the Chatham House rule, meaning discussions were not attributable to individual speakers to encourage more open debate.
Co-host nations Colombia and the Netherlands gave a broad overview of the topics and themes discussed during the sessions in a takeaways report. (See: Final outcomes.)
Final outcomesAt the conference’s final plenary session on 29 April, co-host nations Colombia and the Netherlands presented a range of “key outcomes” from the summit.
The first outcome was confirmation of the news that Tuvalu and Ireland will co-host a second transitioning away from fossil fuels conference in the Pacific island nation in 2027.
The co-hosts also announced the establishment of three “workstreams” on issues to bring forward to the second summit.
The first of these workstreams will focus on developing national and regional roadmaps away from fossil fuels.
Speaking in plenary, Vélez Torres said that the roadmaps should be “connected” to countries’ UN climate plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). She added that it would be important for the roadmaps to be “very clear and honest” about “emissions exported from producing countries”.
The development of the roadmaps will be supported by the newly established science panel for global energy transition and the NDC Partnership, a global initiative helping nations prepare their NDCs, she added.
(At the final press conference, it was clarified that countries are not obligated to produce a new fossil-fuel roadmap and that participation in all of the work streams is voluntary.)
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }The second workstream will be focused on changing the financial system to better facilitate the transition away from fossil fuels.
This will include work to identify fossil-fuel subsidies and find solutions to “debt traps”. It will be supported by the International Institute for Sustainable Development thinktank, the co-hosts said.
Separately, Dutch climate minister van Veldhoven said that all countries would be invited via “email” to begin a process for identifying and reporting their fossil-fuel subsidies. (The Netherlands is the co-chair of COFFIS, a group of 17 nations that have pledged to remove fossil-fuel subsidies.)
The final workstream will address fossil-fuel-intensive trade, with the aim of “advancing progress towards a fossil fuel-free trade system”, Vélez Torres said. This workstream will be supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) group of wealthy nations.
A document summing up the co-chair’s takeaways from the summit says that other key outcomes include the establishment of a “coordination group [to] ensure continuity towards the second and subsequent conferences”, adding:
“It will consist of countries leading different alliances and initiatives that are implementing elements of the transition away from fossil fuels, and of the co-hosts of the first and second conferences, Colombia, the Netherlands, Tuvalu and Ireland.”
The document adds that a key task will be delivering the findings of this conference to the COP30 presidency, which is currently preparing a global fossil-fuel roadmap to present at COP31 in November.
Academic meetingThe summit kicked off with a “science pre-conference” attended by around 400 academics from across the globe from 24-25 April, held at the University of Magdalena in Santa Marta.
At the behest of the Colombian government, these scientists split into 11 different “workstreams” to debate a vast array of topics related to transitioning away from fossil fuels.
These ranged from “fossil-fuel phaseout policies” and the role of methane, to “just transitions and economic diversity” and the role of multilateralism.
Speaking on the summit’s first day, Colombian environment minister Irene Vélez Torres – herself a former academic – stressed the importance of science in political decision-making. She told a press conference:
“There has been a growing gap between science and governments, and governmental decisions, and it happens because there is a lot of denialism. There is a lot of economic and political lobbying as well. That is actually deviating [from] scientific rationale.
“The true belief of the countries that are here is that we need to go back to science and base our decisions on science, and back up our decision-making, processes and pathways with science.”
Science panel for global energy transitionThe pre-conference saw the announcement of three new scientific initiatives.
The first was a new global science panel, calling itself the “science panel for global energy transition”, which was launched by Dr Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and Dr Carlos Nobre, an eminent researcher on the Amazon rainforest from the University of São Paulo in Brazil.
They announced at a public event in Santa Marta that the panel will involve “50-100 scientists” from around the world and will be based at the University of São Paulo.
The scientists on the panel will aim to provide rapid analysis on how to transition away from fossil fuels for countries and multilateral talks, including bespoke information for nations that request it, they said.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }Speaking at its launch, Rockström said the panel will be split into four working groups, focusing on “transition pathways”, “technology solutions”, “policy design and evaluation” and “finance instruments and governments”.
It will have three co-chairs: Dr Vera Songwe, an economist and climate finance expert from Cameroon; Prof Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; and Prof Gilberto M Jannuzzi, professor of energy systems at Universidade Estadual de Campinas in Brazil.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Nobre said that he and Rockström were first approached with the idea for a new panel by Ana Toni, Brazilian economist and CEO of the COP30 climate summit, while the negotiations were taking place in Belém. He said:
“Johan and myself, we’re not energy transition scientists, but we were the creators of the planetary science pavilion at COP30, that’s why Ana Toni came to us. And we have already invited three top energy transition experts to join us.”
At the launch, Rockström said the panel would be different in several ways from the world’s existing global climate science panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
He said that, in comparison to the “seven-year cycle” for IPCC reports, this panel will “be able to come up with annual updates” and “be able to scale down to the national level”.
Nobre told Carbon Brief that he was among scientists who have grown “frustrated” with some aspects of the IPCC’s process, including the line-by-line approval of summaries for policymakers by all of the world’s governments. He said:
“A long time ago, when I was working as a scientist studying the Amazon, I wanted to include some information about the risks the Amazon faces in one of the summaries. But a representative from my own country [Brazil] said no.
“This panel is totally independent. There is no way for somebody to say ‘you can’t say that’ or ‘you can’t do that’.”
Action insights reportThe second new science initiative to emerge from the academic conference was a new “synthesis report”, offering “12 action insights” for how countries can transition away from fossil fuels.
First covered by Carbon Brief, the report contains some explicit “action recommendations” for countries, such as “halt all new fossil-fuel expansion” and “prohibit fossil fuel advertising…recognising fossil fuels as health-harming products”.
The report was first put together by an “ad-hoc” group of 24 scientists at the request of the Colombian government. It was then further debated and refined by many of the 400 scientists gathered at the academic pre-conference in Santa Marta.
A preliminary version of the report was circulated to governments attending the talks.
In addition, one of the report’s coordinating authors, Prof Andrea Cardoso Diaz, from the University of Magdalena, was given a two-minute slot in the opening plenary of the “high-level segment” to highlight its findings to gathered ministers.
Colombia’s fossil-fuel roadmapThe final scientific initiative unveiled at the academic segment was a new roadmap for how Colombia can transition away from fossil fuels. This was drafted by a team led by Prof Piers Forster, head of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds.
The roadmap says that Colombia can cut its emissions from energy use to 90% below 2015 levels by 2050, through ambitious policies to move away from fossil fuels and electrify its transport sector.
.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } }This would require “considerable” upfront investment, with the roadmap estimating the cost to be an average annual investment of around $10bn above a business-as-usual scenario.
However, by the 2040s, Colombia could see net economy-wide savings from transitioning away from fossil fuels, says the analysis, which could reach $23bn annually by 2050.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Forster said his experience as interim chair of the UK’s Climate Change Committee highlighted to him the importance of presenting national roadmaps in economic terms. He said:
“The biggest issues facing countries are economic and to do with the cost of living. To convince our own government back in the UK to sign up to our recommended carbon budget, we put a lot of work into the economic aspect. So that was also the focus of this work for Colombia.”
Indigenous and civil society participationIn addition to holding a dedicated meeting for scientists, the Colombian government also organised a “People’s Assembly”. This brought together hundreds of Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendent peoples, peasant farmers, trade representatives, women and children and other civil society members.
The goal was to gather the thoughts from these groups on the summit’s main “pillars” of addressing fossil-fuel production, economic constraints and global governance and multilateralism.
According to Climate Lens News, Óscar Daza, the secretary general of the Organisation of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon, Karebaju people, told the gathering:
“The Indigenous peoples of the world have made historic demands, such as the non-extraction of natural resources from our territories, so that our resources that are there in the territory remain intact, remain still.
“As Indigenous peoples, we want those historic struggles to somehow be reflected and taken up here by the different states.”
Participants at the People’s Assembly during the first conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta. Credit: Ministerio de Ambiente de ColombiaFollowing on from the meetings, the Colombian government summarised the main talking points discussed by each of these groups in a series of “contributions” documents.
Indigenous peoples and civil society groups were also allocated opportunities to speak during the summit’s high-level segment.
In a departure from UN climate summits – where inputs from civil society are usually heard after countries have finished speaking – the Santa Marta summit invited a range of representatives to speak alongside ministers in the opening and closing plenary sessions.
This included an intervention in the opening plenary by Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, a climate leader from the Bundjalung Nations, who told countries:
“This is the last time we will be a token. You want our pictures, not our voices. You want our stories, not our struggles…True solidarity with each other is the prerequisite to a just transition.”
Indigenous peoples and civil society members were also free to speak in closed-door discussions with ministers, Carbon Brief understands.
Separately from the events organised by the Colombian government, civil society also organised its own “people’s summit”, involving 900 organisations and networks, held in the city of Santa Marta from 24-26 April.
This summit also organised sessions for representatives from different groups to offer their thoughts and insights into the transition away from fossil fuels, ending in a joint “declaration”.
In a statement, Tasneem Essop, the executive director of Climate Action International, said:
“Movements from across the globe and the region – Afro-descendants, feminists, youth, peasants and fisherfolk, social movements and Indigenous peoples converged in a three-day peoples summit in Santa Marta to build a collective consensus on our demands and solutions for the just transition away from fossil fuels.
“[We saw] the adoption of a powerful declaration that spells out our positions on ensuring that the transition has to be rights-based, funded and results in the dismantling of the systems that have caused harm and destruction driven by fossil fuel dependency.”
Q&A: How countries got the global ‘net-zero’ shipping deal ‘back on track’
International policy
|Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’
International policy
|Q&A: What Magyar’s defeat of Orbán in Hungary means for climate and energy
International policy
|Iran war analysis: How 60 nations have responded to the global energy crisis
International policy
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_581aa0a5aa8e58214d3707511eb60d41 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels appeared first on Carbon Brief.
China Briefing 30 April 2026: Fossil fuel ‘strict controls’ | El Niño approaches | Why cleantech exports have surged
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s China Briefing.
China Briefing handpicks and explains the most important climate and energy stories from China over the past fortnight. Subscribe for free here.
Key developments New documents ramp up pressure on coal‘STRICTLY CONTROL’ FOSSIL FUELS: On 22 April, China issued a set of “guiding opinions” on energy conservation and carbon reduction that urged local governments to “strictly control fossil-fuel consumption”, according to the text published by state news agency Xinhua. Hu Min, director and co-founder of the the Beijing-based Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress, said in comments to Carbon Brief that the document was a clear signal of China’s political leaders’ desire to reduce the country’s coal usage and a “way to move things forward” until more specific policies are published. Government officials noted that the opinions are of “great significance for building broader and stronger consensus across society”, reported information platform Tanpaifang.
INCREASED OVERSIGHT: The next day, the government announced new evaluation criteria for judging provinces on their efforts to meet China’s climate goals, including on raising “clean-energy consumption” and limiting “use of coal and oil”, reported Bloomberg. The 14 indicators underscore China’s “key priorities” and encourage broader carbon reduction efforts, said energy news outlet China Energy Net. They build on China’s existing inspection system to create a “much stronger accountability and compliance system”, Qin Qi, China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told Carbon Brief. For more detail see Carbon Brief’s Q&A on what the two policies mean for China’s energy transition.
‘RARE’ SIGNAL: Both documents were issued by the highest levels of the nation’s political system, which is “extremely rare” and “reflects the strategic importance” of China’s climate goals, Wu Hongjie, deputy secretary-general of the China Carbon Neutrality 50 Forum, told Jiemian News. In a comment article for finance news outlet Caixin, Chen Lihao – a member of the Jiusan Society, environment minister Huang’s political party – said the two documents “form the institutional foundation” for China’s “full-scale transition” to a “dual control of carbon” system.
Downpours in south China‘RECORD-BREAKING’ RAIN: Heavy rainfall is hitting central and southern China, with Hunan, Guizhou and Jiangxi provinces reporting record-breaking levels of precipitation last week, reported the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily. It added that the government is ramping up “flood control” measures in response. On 26-27 April, one part of Guangxi province received as much as 14cm of rain per hour, reported the state-supporting newspaper Global Times. Meanwhile, Chinese vice-premier Liu Guozhong met with the World Meteorological Organization secretary-general Celeste Saulo to discuss cooperation on global “meteorological governance”, said state news agency Xinhua, with the discussion touching on early warning systems and disaster relief.
上微信关注《碳简报》EL NIÑO RISK: Officials at China’s National Climate Center (NCC) have said that an El Niño weather pattern is “likely to set in around May” and “intensify during the summer and autumn”, said China Daily. The state-run newspaper also quoted NCC chief forecaster Chen Lijuan saying it was “premature” to conclude that the El Niño could be at its strongest in 140 years, or that it could lead to record-breaking heat, although he added that the risks of such weather are “clearly increasing”. Wang Yaqi, a senior engineer at NCC, noted that the phenomenon “could hit hydropower-dependent regions hard, pushing them to burn more fossil fuels”, according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post.
Solar capacity growth slowsCLEAN CAPACITY: China’s clean-energy grid capacity now exceeds 2,400 gigawatts (GW), as of March 2026, or 60% of the total power mix, said state broadcaster CGTN in coverage of comments from energy officials at a press conference. It added that, within this, total wind and solar capacity reached 1,900GW. Energy news outlet International Energy Net cited the officials saying that China’s operational capacity for “green hydrogen” stands at 250,000 tonnes, with another 900,000 tonnes under construction.
SOLAR SLOWS: However, a data release showed that China added 41GW of new solar capacity in the first three months of 2026, reported BJX News, down from 60GW of new capacity in January-March 2025. Bloomberg noted that new solar capacity additions “slowed sharply to hit a four-year low” in March, adding that wind and thermal capacity growth also both slowed.
Subscribe: China Briefing- .listing{background: #f4f4f4} .listing ul{list-style:none; margin:0} ol {background: #F4F4F4; padding: 0px;} .listing ul {background: #F4F4F4; padding: 0px;} .listing li{font-size:0px;}
Sign up to Carbon Brief's free "China Briefing" email newsletter. All you need to know about the latest developments relating to China and climate change. Sent to your inbox every Thursday.
‘MOST AMBITIOUS GOAL’: In a separate press conference, Chinese officials confirmed to Bloomberg that a pledge in the 15th five-year plan to double “non-fossil energy” in 10 years referred to energy capacity – not generation or consumption – and would run from 2025-2035. These details were “unclear” in the five-year plan itself, the outlet added. The economic news outlet Economic Daily said that the doubling goal was “one of the most ambitious goals in China’s energy transition history”, adding that “accelerating” the energy transition would allow the country to both reduce its reliance on the international energy market and “seize the high ground in the global race” to develop low-carbon industries.
More China news- NEW BLEND: China has begun a project to blend gas supplies with 10% hydrogen in a part of Shandong province, reported the South China Morning Post, which added that the shift could cut China’s annual carbon emissions by “roughly 30m tonnes”.
- SKY-HIGH: China launched a “high-precision” satellite to monitor greenhouse gas emissions, said Xinhua.
- SUNNY SPAIN: Chinese automaker SAIC plans to build an electric vehicle (EV) factory in Spain, reported Bloomberg.
- MING YANG: Bloomberg also said that wind turbine maker Ming Yang is considering Spain after plans for a factory in the UK were blocked.
- FORMAL COMPLAINT: China has “formally submitted a complaint” to the EU about its Industrial Accelerator Act, said China Daily.
- EU TARIFFS: China’s commerce minister said he reached a “soft landing” with EU officials on EU tariffs on imports of Chinese-made EVs, according to Reuters.
China’s export of clean-energy technologies surged in March, driven by a doubling in solar shipments, according to analysis by Carbon Brief of Chinese customs data.
The spike can be explained in part by the impact of the conflict in the Middle East, but analysts argue that a newly enacted solar export policy is also behind the figures.
In this issue, Carbon Brief explores the factors behind the export spike and whether or not it will be sustained.
China’s exports of the “new three” clean-energy technology surged by 70% year-on-year in March 2026, reaching $21.6bn, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Exports of the three technologies – solar cells and panels, electric vehicles (EVs) and lithium-ion batteries – were also up 37% from February, the month before the Iran war.
The conflict in the Middle East is one explanation for the surge, as it has caused several countries to emphasise the need to increase non-fossil energy supplies.
However, there are also other important drivers, revealed by Carbon Brief analysis of customs data showing differences in exports between solar, EVs and batteries.
Solar exports were notably higher in March 2026 than in the previous two months, jumping 99.2% compared to February.
By contrast, neither batteries’ nor EVs’ March figures came close to the surge in solar cells.
China’s March exports of batteries rose 37% compared with the previous month, while month-on-month EV shipments increased just 1.4%.
(Figures from the China Passenger Car Association suggest a larger rise in percentage terms, but this is based on a narrower scope that does not capture all exports.)
This may be because both technologies saw strong export performance throughout the first quarter of 2026. According to the customs data, more than one million EVs were exported from China between January and March, up 73% compared with the same period last year.
These quarterly exports may have helped meet growing interest in EVs due to the conflict, with BloombergNEF estimating that sales of EVs rose to 1.1m – up 2% year-on-year – in March. (Bloomberg said, within this total, sales “cooled” in China and the US but “surged” in Europe and parts of Asia.)
Solar surgeThe chart below shows the export volumes of solar cells, EVs and batteries in March 2025, plus the first three months of 2026.
March’s solar exports were capable of generating 68 gigawatts (GW), equivalent to Spain’s entire installed solar capacity, according to energy thinktank Ember.
Exports of solar cells, EVs and batteries in March 2025 and January-March 2026. “Electric vehicles” includes hybrid and battery electric buses with 10 seats or more; plug-in and non-plug-in hybrid electric passenger cars; and battery electric passenger cars. Source: General Administration of Customs China.The Ember analysis showed that 50 countries set all-time records for Chinese solar imports in March, with another 60 reaching their highest levels in six months.
Exports to Asia doubled to 39GW, while shipments to Africa surged 176% to 10GW. Combined, these two regions accounted for three-quarters of the overall increase in exports.
The Middle East conflict has boosted demand, but a domestic policy deadline was a more immediate driver, analysts told Carbon Brief.
The Chinese government removed export tax rebates for solar products on 1 April, prompting manufacturers to rush out shipments before the change took effect.
Qin Qi, China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, told Carbon Brief that such policy deadlines “can create a very sharp one-month jump in shipments”.
Batteries and EVs currently continue to receive export rebates.
Falling silver prices are another potential factor, as silver paste is used to make a key component in solar panels. The reversal of a recent price rally that had raised costs helped manufacturers make more panels ahead of the export switch, Marius Mordal Bakke, head of solar research at consultancy Rystad Energy told Reuters.
Temporary spikeAnalysts predict that China’s April solar exports are unlikely to repeat March’s surge. Moreover, February exports were depressed by the Chinese New Year public holiday, making the March comparison unusually unfavourable.
“A month-on-month drop in April would not be surprising,” said Qin.
But she remains optimistic that global solar capacity additions outside China will continue to grow in 2026 due to energy supply concerns sparked by the Middle East conflict.
Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember, said the removal of the export rebate will not “dramatically change demand”, especially as the conflict continues.
He argued that the policy could be positive, telling Carbon Brief: “This is what the global market needs: a more level playing field with China.”
This spotlight is by freelance China analyst Lekai Liu for Carbon Brief.
Watch, read, listenTARGET ‘DIFFICULTIES’: Two researchers at the Energy Research Institute, a state thinktank, wrote in Economic Daily that China faces several “difficulties” in meeting its new carbon-intensity targets, including already-high renewable capacity installations and high levels of energy efficiency.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST: The US-China Podcast interviewed Prof Alex Wang on China’s approach to environmentalism and his view on the country’s energy transition.
GOVERNMENT CALLOUT: State broadcaster CCTV published a segment critiquing the massive investments and special treatment that local governments gave to their EV industries, fuelling intense competition.
‘THIN ARGUMENT’: A comment in Lawfare argued that the US should focus more on the “genuine geopolitical risks of climate change and [geoengineering] development”, rather than “thin” arguments around China weaponising weather modification technologies.
22.6%The rate of “environmental health literacy” – or “recognition of the value of the ecological environment and its impact on health” – among China’s citizens, according to a government survey covered by Xinhua.
New science- China will need to build more pipelines and push its carbon price above $100/tonne to make “green” ammonia a cost-competitive option for marine fuel | One Earth
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from China’s lakes increased from 41m tonnes to 51m tonnes of CO2 per year between 2000 and 2021, coinciding with “rapid lake expansion” across the country | Science Advances
China Briefing is written by Anika Patel, with contributions from Lekai Liu, and edited by Simon Evans. Please send tips and feedback to china@carbonbrief.org
China Briefing 16 April 2026: Billions for grid | Petrochemical plan | China’s high-seas bid
China Briefing
|China Briefing 2 April 2026: EV profits rise | Ming Yang rejected | Iran war
China Briefing
|China Briefing
|China Briefing 5 March 2026: New five-year climate goals revealed at ‘two sessions’ meeting
China Briefing
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_009633ba8c838f15ac14710910daf04b .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post China Briefing 30 April 2026: Fossil fuel ‘strict controls’ | El Niño approaches | Why cleantech exports have surged appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
Computer models that use artificial intelligence (AI) cannot forecast record-breaking weather as well as traditional climate models, according to a new study.
It is well established that AI climate models have surpassed traditional, physics-based climate models for some aspects of weather forecasting.
However, new research published in Science Advances finds that AI models still “underperform” in forecasting record-breaking extreme weather events.
The authors tested how well both AI and traditional weather models could simulate thousands of record-breaking hot, cold and windy events that were recorded in 2018 and 2020.
They find that AI models underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events.
A study author tells Carbon Brief that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI weather forecastsExtreme weather events, such as floods, heatwaves and storms, drive hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year through the destruction of cropland, impacts on infrastructure and the loss of human life.
Many governments have developed early warning systems to prepare the general public and mobilise disaster response teams for imminent extreme weather events. These systems have been shown to minimise damages and save lives.
For decades, scientists have used numerical weather prediction models to simulate the weather days, or weeks, in advance.
These models rely on a series of complex equations that reproduce processes in the atmosphere and ocean. The equations are rooted in fundamental laws of physics, based on decades of research by climate scientists. As a result, these models are referred to as “physics-based” models.
However, AI-based climate models are gaining popularity as an alternative for weather forecasting.
Instead of using physics, these models use a statistical approach. Scientists present AI models with a large batch of historical weather data, known as training data, which teaches the model to recognise patterns and make predictions.
To produce a new forecast, the AI model draws on this bank of knowledge and follows the patterns that it knows.
There are many advantages to AI weather forecasts. For example, they use less computing power than physics-based models, because they do not have to run thousands of mathematical equations.
Furthermore, many AI models have been found to perform better than traditional physics-based models at weather forecasts.
However, these models also have drawbacks.
Study author Prof Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the research institute for statistics and information science at the University of Geneva, tells Carbon Brief that AI models “depend strongly on the training data” and are “relatively constrained to the range of this dataset”.
In other words, AI models struggle to simulate brand new weather patterns, instead tending forecast events of a similar strength to those seen before. As a result, it is unclear whether AI models can simulate unprecedented, record-breaking extreme events that, by definition, have never been seen before.
Record-breaking extremesExtreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as the climate warms. Record-shattering extremes – those that break existing records by large margins – are also becoming more regular.
For example, during a 2021 heatwave in north-western US and Canada, local temperature records were broken by up to 5C. According to one study, the heatwave would have been “impossible” without human-caused climate change.
The new study explores how accurately AI and physics-based models can forecast such record-breaking extremes.
First, the authors identified every heat, cold and wind event in 2018 and 2020 that broke a record previously set between 1979 and 2017. (They chose these years due to data availability.) The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to identify these records.
This produced a large sample size of record-breaking events. For the year 2020, the authors identified around 160,000 heat, 33,000 cold and 53,000 wind records, spread across different seasons and world regions.
For their traditional, physics-based model, the authors selected the High RESolution forecast model from the Integrated Forecasting System of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. This is “widely considered as the leading physics-based numerical weather prediction model”, according to the paper.
They also selected three “leading” AI weather models – the GraphCast model from Google Deepmind, Pangu-Weather developed by Huawei Cloud and the Fuxi model, developed by a team from Shanghai.
The authors then assessed how accurately each model could forecast the extremes observed in the year 2020.
Dr Zhongwei Zhang is the lead author on the study and a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He tells Carbon Brief that many AI weather forecast models were built for “general weather conditions”, as they use all historical weather data to train the models. Meanwhile, forecasting extremes is considered a “secondary task” by the models.
The authors explored a range of different “lead times” – in other words, how far into the future the model is forecasting. For example, a lead time of two days could mean the model uses the weather conditions at midnight on 1 January to simulate weather conditions at midnight on 3 January.
The plot below shows how accurately the models forecasted all extreme events (left) and heat extremes (right) under different lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy.
The chart on the left shows how two of the AI models (blue and green) performed better than the physics-based model (black) when forecasting all weather across the year 2020.
However, the chart on the right illustrates how the physics-based model (black) performed better than all three AI models (blue, red and green) when it came to forecasting heat extremes.
Accuracy of the AI models (blue, red and green) and the physics-based model (black) at forecasting all weather over 2020 (left) and heat extremes (right) over a range of lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” (RMSE) – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy. Source: Zhang et al (2026).The authors note that the performance gap between AI and physics-based models is widest for lower lead times, indicating that AI models have greater difficulty making predictions in the near future.
They find similar results for cold and wind records.
In addition, the authors find that AI models generally “underpredict” temperature during heat records and “overpredict” during cold records.
The study finds that the larger the margin that the record is broken by, the less well the AI model predicts the intensity of the event.
‘Warning shot’Study author Prof Erich Fischer is a climate scientist at ETH Zurich and a Carbon Brief contributing editor. He tells Carbon Brief that the result is “not unexpected”.
He adds that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI models are likely to continue to improve, but scientists should “not yet” fully replace traditional forecasting models with AI ones, according to Fischer.
He explains that accurate forecasts are “most needed” in the runup to potential record-breaking extremes, because they are the trigger for early warning systems that help minimise damages caused by extreme weather.
Leonardo Olivetti is a PhD student at Uppsala University, who has published work on AI weather forecasting and was not involved in the study.
He tells Carbon Brief that “many other studies” have identified issues with using AI models for “extremes”, but this paper is novel for its specific focus on extremes.
Olivetti notes that AI models are already used alongside physics-based models at “some of the major weather forecasting centres around the world”. However, the study results suggest “caution against relying too heavily on these [AI] models”, he says.
Prof Martin Schultz, a professor in computational earth system science at the University of Cologne who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the results of the analysis are “very interesting, but not too surprising”.
He adds that the study “justifies the continued use of classical numerical weather models in operational forecasts, in spite of their tremendous computational costs”.
Advances in forecastingThe field of AI weather forecasting is evolving rapidly.
Olivetti notes that the three AI models tested in the study are an “older generation” of AI models. In the last two years, newer “probabilistic” forecast models have emerged that “claim to better capture extremes”, he explains.
The three AI models used in the analysis are “deterministic”, meaning that they only simulate one possible future outcome.
In contrast, study author Engelke tells Carbon Brief that probabilistic models “create several possible future states of the weather” and are therefore more likely to capture record-breaking extremes.
Engelke says it is “important” to evaluate the newer generation of models for their ability to forecast weather extremes.
He adds that this paper has set out a “protocol” for testing the ability of AI models to predict unprecedented extreme events, which he hopes other researchers will go on to use.
The study says that another “promising direction” for future research is to develop models that combine aspects of traditional, physics-based weather forecasts with AI models.
Engelke says this approach would be “best of both worlds”, as it would combine the ability of physics-based models to simulate record-breaking weather with the computational efficiency of AI models.
Dr Kyle Hilburn, a research scientist at Colorado State University, notes that the study does not address extreme rainfall, which he says “presents challenges for both modelling and observing”. This, he says, is an “important” area for future research.
Limiting global warming to 2C would not ‘rule out’ extreme impacts
Climate modelling
|Guest post: Investigating how volcanic eruptions can affect climate projections
Climate modelling
|Meeting 1.5C warming limit hinges on governments more than technology, study says
1.5C
|‘Striking’ new NASA videos show CO2 emissions rapidly building up in atmosphere
Climate modelling
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_0e2fac0e80a354f94fe3c106441dde57 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.