根据全球能源监测组织（GEM）的最新年度报告，2023年中国煤电建设活动占全球新建煤电活动的95%。
GEM的全球煤电行业年度报告称，中国有70吉瓦（GW）的煤电装机容量破土动工，相较2019年增长了四倍。
相比之下，世界其他地区新开工煤电装机容量不足4吉瓦，是2014年以来的最低水平。
除中国外，只有32个国家有处于拟建阶段的新建煤电项目，只有七个国家有在建电厂。
虽然2023年全球煤电装机容量（包括总装机容量和中国以外地区的装机容量）有所增长，但GEM表示，这很可能只是“昙花一现”，随着未来几年美国和欧洲加速煤炭退役，这一增长将会被抵消。
该报告的其他主要发现包括：全球燃煤电厂——中国以外地区——建设连续第二年下降。然而，全球煤电厂的退役率也处于2011年以来的最低水平。
中国的“关键时刻”
GEM表示，2023年中国有47.4吉瓦的煤电装机容量投产。这一增量占全球在运煤电装机容量增长的三分之二，全球装机容量整体增长了2%，达到2130吉瓦。
2023年，中国有70.2吉瓦的新建项目开工，是世界其他国家，合计3.7吉瓦，的19倍。如下图所示，中国的发展轨迹（红线）与世界其他地区（橙色线）存在显著差异。
中国的新开工装机容量几乎是2019年的四倍，彼时中国的新建燃煤电厂开工量创下了九年来的新低。
这是中国每年开工建设的新燃煤电厂装机容量连续第四年增长。GEM指出，这与中国在2021年提出的“严控”新增煤电产能的承诺不符。
2022年初，中国国家能源局的《“十四五”现代能源体系规划》指出，到2025年将淘汰30吉瓦的煤电产能。
然而，GEM指出，如果算上发电装机容量至少达到30兆瓦（megawatts）的大型煤电机组，过去三年中关停的电厂不到9吉瓦，而且几乎没有其他电厂有退役计划。
GEM补充说，如果中国要实现30吉瓦的退役目标，“就必须立即采取行动”。
能源与清洁空气研究中心（CREA）中国分析师秦琦在一份声明中说：“最近中国煤电开发的激增与全球趋势形成了鲜明对比，使中国2025年的气候目标面临风险。在此关键时刻，中国必须对煤电项目实施更严格的控制，并加快向可再生能源转型，以重新履行其气候承诺。”
根据GEM的报告，中国、印度、孟加拉国、津巴布韦、印度尼西亚、哈萨克斯坦、老挝、土耳其、俄罗斯、巴基斯坦和越南共占全球拟建容量的95%。
该组织发现，剩下的5%分布在21个国家。报告补充称，其中11个国家仅有一个拟建项目，有望实现“无新煤电”这一退煤里程碑。
GEM追踪器显示，2023年，位于中国之外、全新规划的煤电项目装机容量达到20.9吉瓦。其中，印度新规划煤电装机容量达到11.4吉瓦，超过了2016年以来的任何一年。GEM解释说，这在一定程度上是由于该国几个停滞项目的重新启用。
哈萨克斯坦也有4.6吉瓦的新规划项目，印度尼西亚则有2.5吉瓦。另外还有4.1吉瓦之前被暂停或取消、但在去年被重新“规划”的项目。
另有几个国家——俄罗斯、菲律宾、博茨瓦纳和尼日利亚——也在2023年有项目重新规划和开工。
退役速度缓慢
GEM发现，2023年全球共有69.5吉瓦的煤电投产，同时有21.1吉瓦的煤电退役。这使得全球煤电在运装机容量的净增长达到自2016年以来的最高水平，猛增了48.4吉瓦。
此外，印度尼西亚（5.9吉瓦）、印度（5.5吉瓦）、越南（2.6吉瓦）、日本（2.5吉瓦）、孟加拉国（1.9吉瓦）、巴基斯坦（1.7吉瓦）、韩国（1吉瓦）、希腊（0.7吉瓦）和津巴布韦（0.3吉瓦）也有新增装机容量投产。
该组织发现，在2023年间，中国境外总共有22.1吉瓦装机容量投产，17.4吉瓦退役。这使得在中国以外运营的全球煤电机组净增加了4.7吉瓦。2023年，全球煤电装机容量达到2130吉瓦，比上年增长2%。
GEM表示，美国贡献了近一半的退役煤电机组装机容量，2023年有9.7吉瓦被关闭。不过，与2022年的14.7吉瓦和2015年的21.7吉瓦的峰值相比，退役量有所下降。
在其他地区，欧盟和英国的煤电机组退役量接近四分之一，其中英国有3.1吉瓦退役，意大利有0.6吉瓦退役，波兰有0.5吉瓦退役。目前，英国只有一家燃煤电厂在运营，这个位于索尔河畔拉特克利夫（Ratcliffe-on-Soar）的电厂计划于2024年9月关闭。
总体而言，全球退役的煤电装机容量处于2011年以来的最低水平，如下图所示。
GEM指出，中国以外地区新开工建设的煤电项目规模连续第二年下降，创下（该机构）自2015年收集数据以来的最低水平。
2023年，中国以外地区新开工建设的项目不到4吉瓦，远低于2015年至2022年16吉瓦的平均水平。仅有七个国家有新项目破土动工，其中印度、老挝、尼日利亚、巴基斯坦和俄罗斯各有一座电厂，印度尼西亚有三座电厂。
GEM表示，自2016年以来，拉丁美洲没有任何燃煤电厂开工建设，经济合作与发展组织（OECD）、欧洲或中东国家自2019年以来也没有任何燃煤电厂破土动工。
报告称，尼日利亚乌格博巴（Ugboba）发电站是自2019年以来非洲已知的首个煤电建设项目，该发电站位于三角洲州阿尼奥查北地区的伊多乌法洛拉煤矿（Idowu Falola Coal Mines）矿口。
七国集团（G7）目前占全球在运煤电装机容量的15%（310吉瓦），低于2015年的32%（443吉瓦）。该集团成员国已没有任何在建煤电项目。不过，日本和美国仍分别有一个和两个新煤电项目提案。
美国的两个新煤电项目提案，即宾夕法尼亚州0.4吉瓦的CONSOL项目和阿拉斯加州新宣布的0.4吉瓦的苏西特纳（Susitna）电站，预计都将采用碳捕集与封存技术（CCS）。
GEM表示，这些技术“具有很强的不确定性。相比退煤的迫切需求，它们是一个昂贵的转移注意力的方式”。
二十国集团（G20）拥有全球92%的在运煤电装机容量（1968吉瓦），其拟建的煤电装机容量总和占全球总量的88%（336吉瓦）。
现任G20轮值主席国巴西的拟建装机容量在2023年下降，但仍有两个正在推进的项目，它们也是拉丁美洲最后的拟建煤电项目。
“无新煤电”国家
GEM追踪器显示，总体而言，2023年的全球煤电装机容量达到了历史新高。
如下图所示，由于2023年退役的煤电装机容量为十多年来最低，中国以外的在运煤电装机容量自2019年以来首次出现增长。
自2015年以来，全球在运的煤电装机容量增长了11%。当年，《巴黎协定》使各国政府同意将全球平均温度保持在工业化前水平以上低于2℃之内，并将气温上升限制在工业化前水平以上1.5°C以内。
中国以外，正在建设的煤电装机总量达到113吉瓦。GEM表示，尽管这一数字仅比上一年的110吉瓦略有上升，但仍凸显出煤炭行业不符合国际能源署（IEA）对如何把气候控制在1.5°C以内情景的预测。
在IEA做出的所有符合国际气候目标的情景中，全球炭排放量都应在迅速下降。
GEM报告称，2023年全球拟建装机容量增长了6%，“这明确了呼吁停止规划和开工建设煤电厂的重要性”。
报告还补充称，目前在运的煤电装机容量中，只有15%（317吉瓦）承诺将按照《巴黎协定》的目标退役。
GEM指出，根据国际能源署提出的1.5°C路径，如果要在2040年前淘汰未减排的燃煤发电量，就需要在未来17年内平均每年淘汰126吉瓦的煤电装机容量。这相当于每周淘汰两座煤电厂。
GEM表示，如果把拟建和在建的578吉瓦项目计算在内，则需要更大幅度的削减。
有12个新国家加入了“助力淘汰煤炭联盟”（Powering Past coal Alliance），承诺在2023年不再开发新的煤电项目。GEM指出，总共有101个国家或已正式作出了“无新煤电”的承诺，或已在过去十年里放弃了任何新煤电建造。
GEM发现，自2015年以来，全球拟建装机容量减少了68%。目前，除中国外，新开工项目处于该数据开始收集以来的最低水平。
GEM的报告认为，新煤电建设提议的“最后阵地”是利用碳捕集与封存技术、以及将煤电用于工业活动。（碳捕集与封存技术，CCS，可减少燃煤产生的温室气体进入大气）
例如，津巴布韦在2023年规划了1.9吉瓦的新建煤电装机容量，其包括两个项目“声望”（Prestige）发电站和格韦鲁（Gweru）发电站，旨在为铬冶炼厂提供电力。
除中国和印度外，津巴布韦是去年新增总规划装机容量的六个国家之一，其他国家包括哈萨克斯坦、吉尔吉斯斯坦、俄罗斯、美国和菲律宾。
在COP28气候峰会上，130国签署了《全球可再生能源和能源效率承诺》，表示有意在2030年前逐步淘汰未减排的煤电，并停止投资未减排的新建燃煤电厂。
此外，COP28的最终“全球盘点”（Global Stocktake）协议重申了COP26大会关于逐步减少未减排的煤电的承诺，但仍未定义“未减排”（Unabated）的含义。此外，早期草案中关于停止核准新煤电项目的措辞在最终文本中被省略。
GEM报告指出：“煤电正处于悬崖边缘，面临着政治和民间的反对，经济上也越来越缺乏竞争力。”
GEM煤炭项目主任弗洛拉·尚普努瓦（Flora Champenois）在一份声明中说：“今年煤炭的变化趋势反常，因为所有迹象都表明，煤炭将从加速扩张的趋势中逆转。但是，那些要淘汰燃煤电厂的国家需要加快步伐，而那些计划新建燃煤电厂的国家必须确保这些电厂永远不会建成。否则，我们就别想实现《巴黎协定》的目标，也别想享有迅速过渡到清洁能源所带来的好处。”
The post 报告： 2023年中国新建煤电项目占全球的95% appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
In response to the federal government announcing its once-in-a-decade review of Australia’s Marine Parks Network, the following lines can be attributed to Elle Lawless, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific welcomes today’s announcement that the Albanese Government will review Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network. This is a rare, once-in-a-decade opportunity to strengthen our marine parks and ban industrial fishing in Australia’s marine protected areas.
“Australians would be appalled to know that more than half of Australia’s Marine Parks Network currently allows for extractive industries, like longlining, bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. These so-called ‘protected’ areas were designed to safeguard our beloved ocean wildlife and underwater ecosystems – that is what Australians expect. Damaging industrial industries should not be given a free pass to trawl, fish, drill or extract from our marine parks.”
“With the first Ocean COP just around the corner, and off the back of Australia’s move to ratify the Global Ocean Treaty earlier this year, the Australian government has a unique opportunity to ride the wave of this momentum and solidify itself as a true global ocean leader.
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling for industrial activities to be banned from our protected waters and for at least 30% of Australia’s ocean to be protected as ocean sanctuaries. This review presents a rare opportunity to create more ocean sanctuaries, true blue havens where ocean life can recover, thrive and repopulate the surrounding waters.”
—ENDS—
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
In recent days, prominent climate sceptics and rightwing commentators have shared charts on social media incorrectly implying that Europe is having its “quietest” year for wildfires in 2026.
These include Dr Matthew Wielicki, a former University of Alabama geochemist and self-described “professor in exile”, who was recently appointed by the Trump administration to lead the US Global Change Research Program.
However, these charts paint a misleading picture as they are skewed by encompassing the entirety of Russia in the data – including the vast plains of Siberia.
These charts also use data that include fires that are deliberately lit to manage cropland, which is a declining practice across much of Europe.
In this factcheck, Carbon Brief shows that the area burned by wildfires across the European Union in 2026 is second only to 2022 for this time of year.
The latest data from the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) also shows that France has set a new modern record for area burned and Spain’s wildfire season is among the worst on record.
The fires have displaced more than a third of a million people across south-western Europe, while an impending heatwave has also raised fears of the fires worsening in the coming days.
‘Quietest year’
On 27 July, as wildfires raged across multiple European countries, former Conservative peer and climate-sceptic commentator Matt Ridley posted on Twitter that “2026 is the quietest year for wildfires in Europe by some distance”.
Ridley, who sits on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK-based climate-sceptic lobby group that refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, was responding to an article by Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley.
Stanley’s column, headlined: “Climate change is real – and the right needs to get serious about it”, warned:
“This is no longer a matter of speculation: the wildfires of Europe, pitiless and persistent, are the way we live now.”
Ridley included a chart from Our World In Data, showing the cumulative area burned by wildfires by week for Europe. The chart puts 2026 as having the smallest area for this time of year in a dataset going back to 2012.
Ridley’s post was widely shared by prominent rightwing figures – including Richard Tice, deputy leader of the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform UK party, former Conservative cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg and multiple commentators.
Separately, Wielicki also shared a chart on Twitter to imply that wildfires in Europe are declining. Wielicki has previously claimed that the “science is not settled on climate change”.
The charts posted by Ridley and Wielicki both use data from the Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS). The GWIS category for “Europe” encompasses all the countries on the continent and includes the whole of Russia.
As a result, Russia accounts for about 74% of the area included in the GWIS definition of “Europe”.
Wildfires in Russia typically account for 80-90% of the burned area in the GWIS Europe dataset. In 2026, fires in Russia are substantially below average. Therefore, including Russia in this comparison creates the false impression that wildfire activity across Europe is unusually low.
Dr Calum Cunningham, a research fellow at the University of Tasmania’s Fire Centre, says that such claims are “highly misleading”, noting that “they rely on aggregating fire activity across an enormous and climatically diverse region”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“A relatively quiet season in Russia can easily mask an exceptionally active season in France or Spain. If the analysis is focused on the regions actually experiencing the current fires, the picture is very different.
“The reality is that western Europe has experienced an extraordinary sequence of climate conditions this year.”
In contrast, the EFFIS provides a subset of wildfire data specifically for the area covered by the 27 nations of the EU, which, therefore, excludes Russia.
Another difference between the two datasets is that GWIS monitors all fires – including those on agricultural land that are intentionally set alight. The burned area as measured by GWIS contains significant cropland area.
By contrast, EFFIS uses land-cover data and other information to filter specifically for forest fires.
Looking at the EU-only data from EFFIS reveals that Europe is far from having its “quietest” year. The bloc’s burned area, as of 29 July, is almost 435,000 hectares (ha) – second only to 2022 for this time of year.
Notably, Wielicki has actually continued to post charts based on GWIS data, even after acknowledging that “includ[ing] all of Russia, including vast areas of Siberia…isn’t a good proxy for Europe”.
French fires
Even looking at EU-wide data misses the scale of this year’s wildfires for some individual countries.
The chart below shows the surge in burned area in France since mid-July.
For much of the first half of the year, the country was having a wildfire season that was only slightly above average in terms of total burned area. However, a notable uptick began in the first week of July.
The third week of the month saw France break its previous cumulative annual record by more than 19,000ha. That gap has widened as the fires continue to burn; as of 29 July, the cumulative burned area in France during 2026 was nearly 24,700ha above the previous record.
The fires in France follow a record-breaking June heatwave that “dried out vegetation across the region, allowing fires to spread quickly”, wrote the New York Times.
On 27 July, French president Emmanuel Macron called a “crisis cabinet meeting” in order to address the fires “ravaging several areas of south-west France”, said France 24.
More than 220,000 people have been evacuated due to the Gironde fire, west of Bordeaux, in “what may be France’s largest peacetime evacuation”, reported the Associated Press.
In the Conversation, Cunningham and two other University of Tasmania researchers write that evacuation orders “protec[t] human lives, but makes it more likely houses and other structures will burn if there’s no one to defend them”. They add:
“There is little doubt climate change has made France and Spain’s wildfires worse. They represent yet another reason to redouble our efforts to tackle climate change and stabilise our climate.”
Central Spain scorched
While Spain’s fire season has not broken records in the same way that France’s has, it is on track to be among the worst since EFFIS began reporting data in 2006.
The chart below shows the rapid increase in burned area in Spain since 8 July. The latest data from EFFIS reveal that, as of 29 July, Spain has almost matched its previous record at this point in the year. It is also nearly five times the average area burned for this time of year.
In Spain, the wildfires have been concentrated in the central part of the country, near Madrid.
BBC News reported that the fires outside the capital have burned “an area more than twice as large as the city itself”.
Nearly 90,000 people were forced from their homes in central Spain by the fires, said the Associated Press.
Pedro Sánchez, Spain’s prime minister, called the fires a “painful expression” of climate change.
Meanwhile, the UK, French and Spanish governments have issued joint statements this week in response to the fires. The UK/Spain statement begins:
“This summer’s wildfires demonstrated that climate change was now a national security emergency facing Europe and threatening our way of life.”
Related
The post Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires
The general public often underestimate support for climate action, while overestimating the real-world actions taken by other people to address the problem, according to new research.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, explores the differences between people’s support for climate change, their behaviour and their assumptions about other people’s behaviour.
It is based on multiple surveys of more than 5,000 people across Germany and the US.
The study expands on previous research on how the general public systematically underestimate the climate commitment of their peers.
The difference between actual and perceived support for climate action among the public is sometimes known as a “perception gap”.
The surveys tested how people’s perceptions of climate attitudes and behaviours relate to their own willingness to contribute and undertake “climate-friendly” actions.
One of the authors tells Carbon Brief that this perception gap is not due to “ignorance or bias”, but because “people are just not good at making good estimations”.
The research also reveals that people’s opinions and behaviours are more “nuanced than previously assumed” and suggests that simply “correcting misperceptions” does not automatically lead to greater climate action.
Measuring climate actions
The study notes that correcting the perception gap is often seen as a “cost-effective” way to promote public engagement and drive action to reduce the intensification and impacts of climate change.
Most studies that explore the perception gap have primarily focused on surveys that have asked people to report their willingness to support climate change.
In other words, researchers have relied upon people saying they would support efforts to tackle climate change, rather than measuring people’s real-world actions, such as financial donations, attending protests or changing their behaviour.
To fill this gap, the researchers behind the new study surveyed a total of more than 5,000 people in Germany and the US over 2024-25. Surveys were split across five different experiments, each focused on public perceptions of climate attitudes and how they relate to individuals’ actual behaviour:
| Experiment | What they did |
| Survey one | Participants were asked if they were willing to donate 1% of their household income to WWF – and then were given the chance to do so. Follow-up questions asked participants to predict how many of their peers said “yes” and how many actually donated to the charity. |
| Survey two | Participants read a constitutional complaint against the German government, led by Greenpeace, which demands for stricter climate policies. They were asked if they were willing to participate as a claimant and/or donate to the cause – and then were given the chance to do so. Follow-up questions asked participants to predict how many of their peers said “yes” and how many went on to support the complaint. |
| Survey three | Participants were requested to complete an online “work for environmental protection task” where the more “pages” they completed resulted in more donations to WWF. They then predicted how many pages their peers completed. Participants also rated their individual behaviours and support for eight climate policies and then estimated the same for other people. |
| Surveys four and five | Participants were split into three groups that were either informed that 4% of participants had donated 1% of their household income to WWF, that “68% were willing to contribute” or given no information. They then had to state whether they were willing to support WWF and then were given the opportunity to do so. |
The authors note that Germany and the US are two of the “top 10 CO2 emitters” and are places where climate action is “especially necessary”. However, they add that the two countries are not reflective of “diverse cultural contexts” and further research is needed across the world.
The perception gap
The researchers find that most of their participants supported climate action, but much fewer actually performed verifiable behaviours.
For example, survey one finds that 37% of participants said they were willing to donate to WWF, yet just 4% did when given the opportunity.
Participants generally overestimated the climate actions of their peers, predicting that 23% of other people donated. Willingness, on the other hand, was slightly underestimated with respondents averaging around 34%.
The results from survey three suggest that this perception gap is likely due to general cognitive processes within the human brain that make accurate estimations about large groups difficult, say the authors.
The chart below shows the actual percentage of people who supported different environmental policies and performed climate-friendly behaviours (blue dots) compared to average predictions from the surveys (red dots).
They reveal a “consistent pattern” where “small proportions were overestimated and large ones were underestimated”, the authors say, driving predictions towards the middle. This phenomenon is known as “regression to the mean”.
In other words, where public support for a policy was high, participants in the survey estimated it was lower than it was. When the support was lower, estimates would be higher.
The study finds that individual and environmental factors played a role in shaping people’s perceptions of their peers’ climate actions, which were distinct from general misestimations.
For example, people who were already involved in climate action, had more frequent climate discussions and consumed more climate-focused news and media predicted a higher proportion of climate support “across the board”.
The results from the fourth and fifth surveys show that knowing the context of other people’s beliefs and behaviour in surveys can impact the attitudes of participants.
Participants that were told that 68% of people were willing to donate 1% of their household income to the WWF were more willing to donate.
In contrast, participants that were told that 4% of people actually donated did not report more willingness to “discuss climate change, sign petitions or donate” than the control group.
However, there was no obvious impact on actual donations for any of the three groups, the study notes.
Lead study author Dr Kevin Tiede, scientific managing director of the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour at the University of Erfurt, tells Carbon Brief that the findings suggest that “just telling people how many people support climate action is likely not enough to really change something”.
However, Tiede adds that “direct comparability” between people saying they would donate and actually donating is “limited” and that giving people more time to answer and autonomy over where to donate might result in more people taking action.
‘Pluralistic ignorance’
Tiede explains that the study findings demonstrate the existence of “pluralistic ignorance”, where a person believes their own views differ from the majority.
For climate change, this means that the “vast majority of people around the world support climate action, but people considerably underestimate the extent of this support”, the study says.
However, the surveys reveal that pluralistic ignorance “in the climate domain” is more nuanced than previously thought, say the authors.
Prof Madalina Vascleanu, an assistant professor at Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that encouraging climate action is complex.
It may take multiple and repeated “attempts” at effective communication, or for people to directly “experience” the “norm” that climate change is widely supported, she says, rather than simply being told.
“Observable” behaviours, such as “identity signalling” – which could involve anything from protesting to vegetarianism – might have more of an impact on encouraging climate action among peers than “private behaviours like donations”, she adds.
The study is a “great addition to the literature”, Vascleanu says, because “correcting” the perception gap did not have an effect on climate-friendly behaviour, as “scholars had previously assumed”. She adds that it has “sparked several new hypotheses” that her “lab is now working on”.
Prof Mauro Bertolotti, associate professor of social psychology at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, explains that the “attitude-behaviour gap” revealed by the research is a “rather common finding”.
However, he is “sceptical” of the “simplified and abstract” measures, warning that experiment environments often come with “assumptions and expectations” that are different from real life.
As a result, they might not “replicate” the process people go through when choosing to “make a donation to an environmental cause”, he says.
‘Targeted’ communication strategies
The researchers argue that it is more effective to focus on “targeted” communication strategies – encouraging climate-friendly behaviours that aim to reach the majority who already support climate action, rather than trying to convert climate sceptics.
They call for attention to be paid to the attitude-behaviour gap between people saying they support efforts to tackle climate change and following up with real-world climate actions.
The study suggests strategies for decision-makers to reduce the attitude-behaviour gap, such as “facilitating climate-friendly behaviour” with “convenience and subsidies”. They also recommend ensuring environmental policy prioritises fairness to gain visible and widespread public support.
They add that the public would benefit from understanding the “effectiveness and co-benefits” of climate action.
Tiede, K.E. et al. (2026) People systematically under- and overestimate public engagement in climate action, Nature Climate Change, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02668-z
Related
Scientists are ‘most trusted’ source of climate information in global-south survey
Survey: ‘Very few’ Africans place responsibility for climate action on ‘rich nations’
Guest post: How public attitudes towards ‘CO2 removal’ differ in the UK and US
Guest post: How ‘discourses of delay’ are used to slow climate action
The post Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires
Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测