You are here
The 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.
World ‘will not see significant return to coal’ in 2026 – despite Iran crisis
A much-discussed “return to coal” by some countries in the wake of the Iran war is likely to be far more limited than thought, amounting to a global rise of no more than 1.8% in coal power output this year.
The new analysis by thinktank Ember, shared exclusively with Carbon Brief, is a “worst-case” scenario and the reality could be even lower.
Separate data shows that, to date, there has been no “return to coal” in 2026.
While some countries, such as Japan, Pakistan and the Philippines, have responded to disrupted gas supplies with plans to increase their coal use, the new analysis shows that these actions will likely result in a “small rise” at most.
In fact, the decline of coal power in some countries and the potential for global electricity demand growth to slow down could mean coal generation continues falling this year.
Experts tell Carbon Brief that “the big story isn’t about a coal comeback” and any increase in coal use is “merely masking a longer-term structural decline”.
Instead, they say clean-energy projects are emerging as more appealing investments during the fossil-fuel driven energy crisis.
‘Return to coal’The conflict following the US-Israeli attacks on Iran has disrupted global gas supplies, particularly after Iran blocked the strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint in the Persian Gulf.
A fifth of the world’s liquified natural gas (LNG) is normally shipped through this region, mainly supplying Asian countries. The blockage in this supply route means there is now less gas available and the remaining supplies are more expensive.
(Note that while the strait usually carries a fifth of LNG trade, this amounts to a much smaller share of global gas supplies overall, with most gas being moved via pipelines.)
With gas supplies constrained and prices remaining well above pre-conflict levels, at least eight countries in Asia and Europe have announced plans to increase their coal-fired electricity generation, or to review or delay plans to phase out coal power.
These nations include Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Germany and Italy. Many of these nations are major users of coal power.
Such announcements have triggered a wave of reporting by global media outlets and analysts about a “return to coal”. Some have lamented a trend that is “incompatible with climate imperatives”, while others have even framed this as a positive development that illustrates coal’s return “from the dead”.
This mirrors a trend seen after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which many commentators said would lead to a surge in European coal use, due to disrupted gas supplies from Russia.
In fact, despite a spike in 2022, EU coal use has returned to its “terminal decline” and reached a historic low in 2025.
Gas to coalSo far, the evidence suggests that there has been no return to coal in 2026.
Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that, in March, coal power generation remained flat globally and a fall in gas-fired generation was “offset by large increases in solar and wind power, rather than coal”.
However, as some governments only announced their coal plans towards the end of March, these figures may not capture their impact.
To get a sense of what that impact could be, Ember assessed the impact of coal policy changes and market responses across 16 countries, plus the 27 member states of the EU, which together accounted for 95% of total coal power generation in 2025.
For each country, the analysis considers a maximum “worst-case” scenario for switching from gas to coal power in the face of high gas prices.
It also considers the potential for any out-of-service coal power plants to return and for there to be delays in previously expected closures as a result of the response to the energy crisis.
Ember concludes that these factors could increase coal use by 175 terawatt hours (TWh), or 1.8%, in 2026 compared to 2025.
(This increase is measured relative to what would have happened without the energy crisis and does not account for wider trends in electricity generation from coal, which could see demand decline overall. Last year, coal power dropped by 63TWh, or 0.6%.)
Roughly three-quarters of the global effect in the Ember analysis is from potential gas-to-coal switching in China and the EU.
Other notable increases could come from switching in India and Indonesia and – to a lesser extent – from coal-policy shifts in South Korea, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
However, widely reported policy changes by Japan, Thailand and the Philippines are estimated to have very little, if any, impact on coal-power generation in 2026. The table below briefly summarises the potential for and reasoning behind the estimated increases in coal generation in each country in 2026.
window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember, stresses that the 1.8% figure is an upper estimate, telling Carbon Brief:
“This would only happen if gas prices remained very high for the rest of the year and if there were sufficient coal stocks at power plants. The real risk of higher coal burn in 2026 comes not from coal units returning…but rather from pockets of gas-to-coal switching by existing power plants, primarily in China and the EU.”
Moreover, Jones says there is a real chance that global coal power could continue falling over the course of this year, partly driven by the energy crisis. He explains:
“If the energy crisis starts to dent electricity demand growth, coal generation – as well as gas generation – might actually be lower than before the crisis.”
‘Structural decline’Energy experts tell Carbon Brief that Ember’s analysis aligns with their own assessments of the state of coal power.
Coal already had lower operation costs than gas before the energy crisis. This means that coal power plants were already being run at high levels in coal-dependent Asian economies that also use imported LNG to generate electricity. As such, they have limited potential to cut their need for LNG by further increasing coal generation.
Christine Shearer, who manages the global coal plant tracker at Global Energy Monitor, tells Carbon Brief that, in the EU, there is a shrinking pool of countries where gas-to-coal switching is possible:
“In Europe, coal fleets are smaller, older and increasingly uneconomic, while wind, solar and storage are becoming more competitive and widespread.”
In the context of the energy crisis, Italy has announced plans to delay its coal phaseout from 2025 to 2038. This plan, dismissed by the ECCO thinktank as “ineffective and costly”, would have minimal impact given coal only provides around 1% of the country’s power.
Notably, experts say that there is no evidence of the kind of structural “return to coal” that would spark concerns about countries’ climate goals. There have been no new coal plants announced in recent weeks.
Suzie Marshall, a policy advisor working on the “coal-to-clean transition” at E3G, tells Carbon Brief:
“We’re seeing possible delayed retirements and higher utilisation [of existing coal plants], as understandable emergency measures to keep the lights on, but not investment in new coal projects…Any short-term increase in coal consumption that we may see in response to this ongoing energy crisis is merely masking a longer-term structural decline.”
With cost-competitive solar, wind and batteries given a boost over fossil fuels by the energy crisis, there have been numerous announcements about new renewable energy projects since the start of war, including from India, Japan and Indonesia.
Shearer says that, rather than a “sustained coal comeback” in 2026, the Iran war “strengthens the case for renewables”. She says:
“If anything, a second gas shock in less than five years strengthens the case for renewables as the more secure long-term path.”
Jones says that Ember expects “little change in overall fossil generation, but with a small rise in coal and a fall in gas” in 2026. He adds:
“This would maximise gas-to-coal switching globally outside of the US, leaving no possibility for further switching in future years. Therefore, the big story isn’t about a coal comeback. It’s about how the relative economics of renewables, compared to fossil fuels, have been given a superboost by the crisis.”
Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels
International policy
|Iran war analysis: How 60 nations have responded to the global energy crisis
International policy
|Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative?
Oil and gas
|Q&A: What does the Iran war mean for the energy transition and climate action?
International policy
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_a6dd1abd18950d65e92cc0670b53264a .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post World ‘will not see significant return to coal’ in 2026 – despite Iran crisis appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 24 April 2026: Europe’s energy-crisis plan | Renewables overtake coal | Colombia’s fossil-fuel summit
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
ENERGY CUSHION: On Wednesday, the European Commission set out a package of measures to offset surging energy prices caused by the Iran war, reported Reuters. The draft “actions” include cutting electricity taxes and coordinating the filling of fossil-gas storage this summer, the newswire explained. It added that the package stopped short of “major market interventions”, such as capping gas prices or taxing the windfall profits of energy companies. (Carbon Brief published an interactive table of the 44 actions.)
‘BAD SCENARIO’: The newswire quoted EU energy commissioner Dan Jorgensen, who said to expect higher gas prices for a “couple of years”, adding: “We really do need to get rid of our dependency on gas as fast as possible. So, for us, this means speeding up more clean energy.” Legal proposals to change tax rules are expected in May, the article said, noting: “Tax changes require unanimous approval from EU countries, making them difficult to pass.”
FLIGHT RISK: The 16-page “AccelerateEU” document also includes plans to coordinate on jet fuel and diesel supplies “to fend off a looming shortage”, said Politico. Jorgensen told Sky News that European summer holidays were “very likely” at risk of “flight cancellations or very, very expensive tickets”. The Financial Times reported that German airline Lufthansa has already “cancelled 20,000 flights between May and October to save fuel”.
Around the world- RENEWABLES RECORD: Renewable energy overtook coal last year to become the world’s largest source of electricity, according to analysis by thinktank Ember, covered by Carbon Brief.
- ‘PRIORITISE UNITY’: France chose to omit climate change from the agenda of a G7 meeting in Paris this week in order to “avoid a row with the US”, said Agence France-Presse.
- CHINA WARNING: China has pledged to “strictly control” coal use and will grade local authorities on how well they meet the country’s climate goals, according to two new policies covered in a Q&A by Carbon Brief.
- ‘DOUBLE DOWN’: The UK government said it will “move…to break [the] link between gas and electricity prices” in response to the spike in fossil-fuel prices, reported Carbon Brief.
- EXTREME HEAT: A report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) warned that global food systems are being “pushed to the brink” by increasingly common and severe heatwaves on land and at sea, reported the Guardian.
- WHAT’S IN A NAME: In a national vote, Japan selected “kokushobi” – translated as “cruelly hot” – as the new term to describe days that hit 40C, reported BBC News.
The amount that a new electric vehicle is cheaper, on average, than a new petrol car, according to car sales website Autotrader. The Guardian described this as a “significant milestone in Britain’s transition away from fossil fuels”.
Latest climate research- Climate-driven extremes in temperature and pH put “underwater cultural heritage”, such as shipwrecks in the Taiwan strait, at greater risk of corrosion | Climate Services
- As many as 98% of environmental claims and commitments made by meat and dairy companies over 2021-24 could be categorised as “greenwashing” | PLOS Climate
- Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is “unlikely to generate negative emissions within 150 years” and is “likely to increase electricity costs by ~3.5-fold” | Nature Sustainability
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
CapturedWith a strong – or even “super” – El Niño event expected to develop later this year, Carbon Brief estimated that 2026 is on track to be the second-warmest year on record. The prediction puts global average temperature in 2026 at between 1.37C and 1.58C above pre-industrial levels, with a best estimate of 1.47C. This means that 2024 is “virtually certain” to be one of the top-four warmest years, but there is still a 19% chance that 2026 will be the warmest year on record – beating the prior record set in 2024.
Spotlight Countries mull fossil-fuel transition in ColombiaThis week, Carbon Brief reports from a first-of-its-kind summit on transitioning away from fossil fuels being held in Santa Marta, Colombia.
Around 60 countries are arriving in Santa Marta, Colombia today where – against a backdrop of white-sand beaches, rolling forested hills and stifling humidity – they will consider ways to move away from fossil fuels.
The first global summit on transitioning away from fossil fuels comes after a large group of nations campaigned for – but, ultimately, failed – to get all countries to formally agree to a “roadmap” away from coal, oil and gas at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil last November.
The nations gathering in Santa Marta for the summit, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, call themselves the “coalition of the willing”.
Together, they account for one-third of global fossil-fuel demand and one-fifth of global production, according to the Colombian government.
The group includes major oil-and-gas producers such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Norway. Some big emitters – such as the US, China and India – are not expected to attend. (There is a question mark over whether China and India were invited.)
Academics to adviseIn a departure from COP summits, the six-day event, from 24-29 April, will begin with a “science pre-conference”, where academics from across the world will present and discuss the latest scientific evidence on ways to transition away from fossil fuels.
Ahead of this, countries attending the talks have already been handed a draft scientific report with “action recommendations”, such as “halting all new fossil-fuel expansion” and “reject[ing] gas as a bridging fuel”, as revealed by Carbon Brief.
The report will be further debated and refined by scientists attending the academic segment of the Santa Marta talks, before a final version is made public towards the end of April, Carbon Brief understands.
The science pre-conference will also separately see the launch of a new advisory panel on fossil-fuel transition and a scientifically led roadmap for how Colombia can transition away from fossil fuels, sources tell Carbon Brief.
Alongside the science pre-conference, dialogues will also be held with Indigenous peoples, environmental organisations and other stakeholders.
‘High-level segment’The science pre-conference will be followed by a “high-level segment” from 28-29 April, where ministers and other policymakers will meet to consider ways to transition away from fossil fuels. (Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro Urrego is expected to speak.)
At the end of the conference, countries are due to release a report featuring a “menu of solutions” for transitioning away from fossil fuels, according to Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres.
This report is, in turn, set to inform a global “roadmap” on transitioning away from fossil fuels being developed by the Brazilian COP30 presidency, which is due to be presented at COP31 in Turkey this November.
The Brazilian COP30 presidency offered to bring forward a “voluntary” fossil-fuel transition “roadmap” outside of the official COP process, after countries failed to formally agree to one during negotiations in Belém.
Watch, read, listen‘SHADOW DOCKET’: The New York Times obtained the “secret memos” behind the US supreme court’s decision in 2016 to block the Obama administration’s clean-power plan.
EGREGIOUS ENGAGEMENT: DeSmog identified multiple social media accounts in Sri Lanka posting AI-generated “energy policy rage bait” to UK Facebook feeds (as first revealed by Carbon Brief’s Leo Hickman).
CHINA ‘DOMINANCE’: A “Bloomberg originals” video looked at the “race to challenge China’s EV lead”.
Coming up- 24-29 April: First conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels, Santa Marta, Colombia
- 28-29 April: Innovation Zero world congress, London, UK
- 29 April: Stop food waste day
- 6-7 May:GLF Africa 2026: stewarding our rangelands, Nairobi, Kenya
- Natural England, chief executive officer | Salary: circa £130,000. Location: UK
- ETH Zurich, postdoctoral position in climate science | Salary: Unknown. Location: Zurich, Switzerland
- International Energy Agency, partnership manager – clean energy ministerial | Salary: €97,180. Location: Paris, France
- Greenpeace, media diversification press officer | Salary: £48,396-£55,644. Location: London, UK (hybrid)
- Our World In Data, writer | Salary: £80,000-£120,000. Location: Oxford, UK or remote
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_2249748b62185d332963727a7cc594ce .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post DeBriefed 24 April 2026: Europe’s energy-crisis plan | Renewables overtake coal | Colombia’s fossil-fuel summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: China’s leadership calls for ‘strict control’ of fossil fuels
Chinese government leaders published a policy document on 22 April – Earth Day – calling for stricter controls on fossil-fuel consumption and greater oversight of heavy emitters.
It has been interpreted by experts as a signal of China’s ongoing commitment to climate action and a bridging policy between the 15th five-year plan, published in March, and future thematic and sectoral five-year plans expected to be published in the months and years ahead.
While the policy document – known as “guiding opinions” – is not strictly binding, it bears the stamp of the two highest bodies in China’s political system, conveying a strong sense of authority.
One expert tells Carbon Brief that this is the first high-level document to explicitly link decarbonisation efforts with energy security and industrial development.
It was also followed on 23 April by a second document, which is binding, that strengthens environmental inspections of provincial governments and creates new metrics for future evaluations, such as total emissions and coal consumption.
Below, Carbon Brief examines how the policies could impact China’s approach to peaking its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
- Why are ‘guiding opinions’ important?
- What does the new ‘opinions’ document say about fossil fuels?
- How have climate evaluation rules been strengthened?
- What does the ‘opinions’ document say about energy security?
Documents play an important role in disseminating political messages through China’s vast government bureaucracy. There is a well-defined hierarchy for different types of policies, each of which infer a different level of importance and flexibility.
“Opinions” are officially defined by the Chinese government as the “presentation of views and proposed solutions regarding important issues”.
They outline broad principles and general policy directions for lower levels of government to incorporate into more concrete policies.
Policy recommendations included in an opinion are implied to be non-binding, allowing officials more discretion in how they are implemented on the ground.
Prof Yuan Jiahai from the North China Electric Power University in Beijing previously told Carbon Brief that naming a document “guiding opinions” means it will have a “long-term, directional and systematic impact”.
An example is a set of opinions on a “green and low-carbon circular development economic system” issued in February 2021, which laid out broad policy recommendations across several economic sectors to spur “green planning, green design, green investment, green construction, green production, green circulation, green life and green consumption”.
“Following these opinions, China’s green growth accelerated significantly,” Prof Christoph Nedopil, professor at the University of Queensland, tells Carbon Brief. He adds:
“This is not to say that some of the developments would not have happened without such a guidance, but the guidance provided the clear direction and authority to various government departments and businesses to strengthen the support for the green and low-carbon transition.”
The new “opinions” document, on energy saving and carbon reduction, carries additional weight because of the bodies that issued it. Specifically, it was issued jointly by the general offices of the central committee of the Communist party of China (CCCPC), the highest party organ and headed by President Xi Jinping, and the state council, the highest government body and headed by Premier Li Qiang. This indicates that it has the approval of all of China’s most senior policymakers.
The document “signals China’s increasing confidence in its clean-energy sector”, says Yang Biqing, energy analyst for Asia at thinktank Ember.
The timing also makes the document important, says Hu Min, director and co-founder for the Beijing-based thinktank Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress.
She notes that the document, published soon after the close of the “two sessions” in March, is a “way to move things forward” in energy and climate policy. Hu adds that it sends a signal of the direction likely to be taken in upcoming thematic and sectoral five-year plans on topics such as peaking carbon emissions, renewable energy and coal.
“I’m quite excited about it,” she tells Carbon Brief.
What does the new ‘opinions’ document say about fossil fuels?The opinions document includes a plethora of recommendations across several sectors, from promoting energy-saving measures in data centres and clean heating solutions to developing “integrated steel-to-chemicals” projects and “zero-carbon transport corridors”.
But some of the most interesting language was reserved for the use of coal.
China’s carbon reduction “situation…remains relatively severe”, says a government statement summarised by carbon-market information platform Tanpaifang, with the energy system still “reliant” on coal.
The “opinions” document is, therefore, of “great significance for building broader and stronger consensus across society”, it adds.
In 2025, developers in China submitted new or reactivated proposals to build a total of 161 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants, as shown in the figure below.
Amount of new coal-power capacity being proposed in China each year, GW, 2015-2025. Source: The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and Global Energy Monitor.The new document acknowledges the need to “strictly control fossil-fuel consumption”, in language significantly stronger than the 15th five-year plan published after the two-sessions meeting in March.
The five-year plan only pledged to “promote the peaking” of coal and oil use.
The document also outlines several other measures for managing fossil-fuel CO2 emissions, including “deepening efforts to reduce coal and oil use”, “actively promoting the clean replacement” of coal-fired equipment and “advancing” the replacement of “dispersed coal” use in an “orderly” manner.
However, it stops short of a complete rejection of coal-fired power, saying, for example, that policymakers should “reasonably control the scale of coal-fired power generation capacity and output”.
Nevertheless, Hu tells Carbon Brief, the document represents efforts by China’s leaders to “articulate” what controlling fossil fuels might look like.
Yang agrees, saying that the shift in the language on coal was “encouraging”.
She notes the granularity of the recommendations around coal, such as a line urging policymakers to “determine the dispatch sequence and load regulation for coal-fired power”.
“It is very interesting that, at this high level [of government], they have so clearly outlined this obstacle in coal’s [changing] role…from baseload to flexibility,” she says.
Experts interviewed by Carbon Brief said the language on renewable energy, which signalled ongoing support for China’s clean-energy buildout, was positive but unsurprising.
The document urges officials to “vigorously develop non-fossil energy sources and new-energy storage technologies”, highlighting the need for technologies such as pumped-storage hydropower and microgrids to boost consumption.
For Hu, market conditions, investment and local policies are now more important than central government signals for China’s clean-energy buildout.
The main debate is fossil fuels, she says, and any signals that encourage limiting coal use will “make a difference”.
How have climate evaluation rules been strengthened?The guiding opinions document also dedicates significant space to outlining measures for reviewing and evaluating carbon-reduction efforts.
It states that local officials should undertake “comprehensive” evaluations of the energy consumption, coal consumption and carbon emissions of new projects, with plans to reduce or offset emissions becoming a “key component” of evaluating the project.
Similarly, the plan pledges to strengthen the review by the central government of local governments’ annual reports on energy use and carbon emissions, with warnings issued to local governments for “lagging progress” or “unreasonable increases in indicators”.
The central government will also strengthen supervision through “regular special inspections”, the “opinions” document says.
For regions that are “severely” falling behind on targets or are found to have “insufficient” ability to run their own inspections, the opinions threaten to “adjust or suspend their authority” for conducting evaluations and “delay or restrict” approvals for new projects.
The document also makes “local party committees and governments” responsible for their jurisdictions’ carbon reduction work. Party members and state-owned enterprises must “lead by example”, it adds.
The day after the opinions were released, the CCCPC and state council also issued a series of measures for “comprehensive evaluation” of local efforts to peak and reduce carbon emissions.
Unlike the guiding opinions, this document is considered binding policy – in this case overseen primarily by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s powerful economic planning agency.
Under the new rules, central government officials – led by the NDRC with significant input from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), National Energy Administration (NEA) and other departments – will grade local governments on their carbon-reduction efforts.
The measures largely align provinces’ emissions reduction evaluations with China’s existing climate pledges for 2030.
Key targets include reducing carbon intensity by more than 65% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, “reasonably” controlling coal-fired power generation, achieving a “25% share of non-fossil energy consumption by 2030” and “gradually” covering all new power demand with clean energy.
The government also sets out 14 indicators, shown in the table below. At the top of the list are five key “control indicators”: total carbon emissions; reductions in carbon intensity; total coal consumption; total oil consumption; and the share of non-fossil energy consumption.
Table listing the 14 indicators to be assessed under the new evaluation regime. The five “control” indicators are total carbon emissions; reductions in carbon intensity; total coal consumption; total oil consumption; and the share of non-fossil energy consumption. The nine “supporting” indicators are the decrease in energy consumption per unit of regional GDP; the proportion of new clean energy additions in overall annual additions of energy capacity; reductions in energy consumption and carbon emissions per unit of added value in industrial enterprises above designated size; carbon offsetting and implementation status of energy conservation and carbon reduction evaluation outcomes in “dual high” industrial programmes; the green and low-carbon transformation of urban and rural buildings; the green and low-carbon transformation of transport; reductions in the carbon intensity of public institutions; aims by sectors covered in China’s national carbon market to control carbon emissions; and increases in forest stock. Source: Xinhua.The NDRC is responsible for evaluating all five of the key indicators, with the MEE also overseeing the first three.
Provinces that fail to meet any of the control indicators will receive an “unsatisfactory” rating, leading to “corrective measures”, according to solar news outlet Zhihui Photovoltaic.
In a comment article in finance news outlet Caixin, Chen Lihao says that the two documents together “form the institutional foundation” for China’s “full-scale transition” to a dual control of carbon system.
Chen is the deputy director of the special committee on resources and environment at the Jiusan Society, the political party that environment minister Huang Runqiu belongs to.
The measures build on China’s existing inspection system to create a “much stronger accountability and compliance system”, says Qin Qi, China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
The “real step forward”, she adds, is how climate and carbon targets – including China’s international commitments – have now been explicitly placed inside a “party-backed assessment framework” that uses pass-or-fail judgements on each indicator, rather than letting weak performance disappear inside a broad score.
Li Shuo, China climate hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute echoes this, telling Carbon Brief that the new policy represents a “helpful step toward implementation, bringing greater clarity on tasks and responsibilities”.
Inspections are regarded as a powerful tool for the MEE in enforcing climate policy, allowing it to publicly identify non-compliant bodies, with state media often announcing results.
In 2021, inspection teams even publicly criticised the NEA, scolding it for “falling behind” on developing low-carbon energy in a move described at the time as “unprecedented”.
The emphasis that the opinions document places on evaluations and the stronger requirements that it represents “shows…the whole system that this is very important…it’s not just talk”, says Hu. (Hu spoke with Carbon Brief before the evaluation framework was released.)
However, both Li and Qin note that much depends on how the evaluations are enforced.
The strength of the system will “inevitably involve further political bargaining within the Chinese system”, says Li, shaped both by differences in the priorities of different ministries and geopolitical developments – particularly the outcomes of the conflict in the Middle East.
Qin highlights the greater capacity that the measures give the MEE to enforce inspections.
“The ministry has a more formal standing to push back on coal expansion and to speak on climate policy in a more direct way,” she says, but adds that the NDRC will still be the “central driver” of evaluating emissions.
She also notes that, while earlier central government inspections incorporated explicit instructions about making evaluation results public, the new measures place more emphasis on “internal” mechanisms, rather than public disclosure.
What does the ‘opinions’ document say about energy security?The opinions document also settles a debate on energy security that has been playing out in the Chinese media since the start of the conflict in the Middle East.
It opens with a statement that “energy conservation and carbon reduction are key” both for China’s “dual-carbon” goals and energy transition and for “safeguarding national energy security”.
“The first sentence connects directly decarbonisation with energy security and industrial development, which is, if I’m not mistaken, the first time…that this has been linked and recognised [in such a high-level policy],” Yang tells Carbon Brief.
Although not always explicitly referencing the conflict, several outlets have run stories highlighting the importance of various energy technologies to China’s energy security.
Some outlets, including state broadcaster CCTV and the Communist Youth League’s official newspaper, China Youth Daily, focused on the positive role low-carbon energy plays in China’s energy system. Others have underscored the importance of fossil fuels, including state news agency Xinhua, which has run a series on becoming an “energy powerhouse” interviewing representatives of the fossil fuel industry.
On 20 April, NDRC head Zheng Shanjie wrote in the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily that China should further strengthen energy security, including by increasing oil and gas reserves and production, reinforcing the role of coal-fired power as a “base-load guarantee” and expanding Sino-Russian oil and gas cooperation. He flagged “disruptions” in the Strait of Hormuz as a cause for concern.
Zheng’s article came out on the same day that Chinese premier Li Qiang held a “study session” meeting with other high-level officials discussing the need to implement a “new strategy for energy security”, deepening energy system reforms to support the country’s low-carbon transition.
The guiding opinions specifically instruct the NDRC, the country’s powerful economic planning agency, to “conscientiously fulfill its duties” in achieving China’s carbon goals, including across planning, implementation and evaluation.
It adds that “all relevant [government] departments shall perform their respective duties, cooperate closely and form a concerted effort”.
However, experts had differing opinions on whether this signalled heightened scrutiny of the NDRC, or if it emphasised its importance to emission reduction efforts.
“The mention…seems to highlight an elevated scrutiny of its work on energy transition”, says Nedopil, but “does not seem to signal an increase of its responsibilities in the energy transition, considering the mention of [the responsibilities of other departments]”.
Analysis: How Chinese media is covering the Iran energy crisis
China Policy
|Guest post: How changes to coal mining have affected China’s methane emissions
China energy
|Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change?
China energy
|Ma Jun: ‘No business interest’ in Chinese coal power due to cheaper renewables
China energy
| jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_b1aeab2b914da0020b805c3e97e30bcd .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });The post Q&A: China’s leadership calls for ‘strict control’ of fossil fuels appeared first on Carbon Brief.
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.