继中国的二氧化碳（CO2）排放量在2024年第二季度出现下降后，第三季度碳排放量与去年同期持平或略低。
Carbon Brief基于官方和商业数据进行的最新分析显示，三季度的数字意味着今年中国全年碳排放量仍有可能下降。
然而，最近创纪录的高温导致九月份的排放量上升，加之新的经济刺激措施出台，使得中国的排放轨迹现在面临更大的不确定性。
在今年八月和九月的大部分时间里，肆虐的热浪导致空调用电需求大幅上升，再加上水电出力不足，导致第三季度燃煤发电量增长2%，燃气发电量增长13%，尽管风电和太阳能发电量的增长继续打破纪录。
电力部门的排放量增加被钢铁、水泥和石油使用产生的排放量减少、以及电力部门以外的天然气需求停滞所抵消。因此，中国第三季度的碳排放量较去年同期基本持平或略有下降。
该分析的其他关键调研结果包括：
- 第三季度太阳能发电量同比增长44%，风电增长24%，两者的新增装机容量继续创纪录。
- 与去年受干旱影响的数据相比，水力发电量增长了11%，但仍未达到预期水平。核电增长了4%。
- 由于建筑活动减少、电动汽车和天然气卡车的增加以及消费疲软，石油需求下降了约2%。
- 第三季度，钢铁和水泥行业的排放量分别下降了3%和12%，这两个行业都继续受到建筑活动下降的影响。
- 煤化工行业获得了新的政策支持，导致该行业的煤炭消费量年初至今增长近五分之一。
若要使中国2024年总排放量低于2023年水平，第四季度三个月的碳排放量需至少下降2%。工业用电需求增长放缓以及空调季的结束将助力实现这一目标。
然而，北京在九月底宣布的新经济刺激计划并未明显强调碳排放问题，这给排放量下降的前景增加了不确定性。
无论如何，中国仍将偏离其2025年“碳强度”目标，该目标要求该国在2020至2023年碳排放快速增长之后，在2024年和2025年排放量都需减少至少2%。
就未来而言，决策者最近透露了中国在碳达峰和减排方面的新计划，表明该国将采取渐进而谨慎的方式，这与实现《巴黎协定》目标所需要的水平有差距。
但是，如果中国清洁能源的快速增长能够持续，它有可能更快地实现减排。
清洁能源扩张满足夏季全部电力需求增长
尽管此前有预测显示中国的电力需求增速将放缓，但2024年第三季度实际电力需求同比增长了7.2%，高于第二季度的6.9%。
然而，电力需求增长的构成有所变化，大约60%的需求增长来自住宅和服务行业，其中家庭需求猛增了15%。
工业电力需求增长继续放缓，七月至九月增长了4.6%，低于第二季度的5.9%。
与此同时，太阳能发电量同比增长44%，风电增长了24%。尽管水电利用率不足，但仍同比增长了11%。核电的增长仅为4%，主要是由于新建核电机组较少。
电力需求的迅速增长超过了低碳能源供应的增长。为填补供需之间的缺口，燃煤发电量增长了2%、燃气发电量增长了13%，如下图所示。
这导致该季度电力部门的碳排放量增加了3%。
然而，纵观整个夏季，无论是从五月到九月，还是从六月到八月，清洁能源的扩张都足以覆盖电力需求的全部增长。
今年八月和九月比去年更热，导致空调用电需求迅速增长。相比之下，去年六月和七月气温更高。
尽管住宅用电需求快速上升，但夏季燃煤和燃气发电量总体上有所减少，六月下降了7%，七月下降了5%，八月上升了4%，九月上升了9%。单月的增长率受极端高温出现时间的影响显著。
就新增发电装机容量而言，太阳能持续打破去年纪录，2024年初至九月新增装机容量达163GW，相当于德国、西班牙、意大利和法国四个拥有最多太阳能装机容量的欧盟国家的总和。第三季度中国太阳能装机同比增长22%。
根据今年前九个月的增速，仅今年中国太阳能发电量的增长就可能相当于澳大利亚或越南在2023年的总发电量。
风电装机也加速增长，截至九月新增了38GW，同比增长10%，超过英国的总风电装机容量（30GW）。
今年八月，国务院一次性核准了11台新核电机组，获批项目的总发电装机容量约13GW。继2022年和2023年各核准10台核电机组后，2024年迄今批准的11台机组标志着中国下一批核电产能正在启动，将助力清洁能源增长。
在第三季度，水电装机仅同比增长2%，意味着11%的发电量增长主要源自利用率的恢复。由于严重干旱，水电利用率在2022年跌至十年来最低，2023年仅部分恢复，今年的反弹已接近预期平均水平。
2024年上半年，中国新核准的煤电项目骤降了80%，仅批准9GW，相比去年同期的52GW大幅下降。然而，根据能源资讯提供商Polaris Network的数据，第三季度有八个大型煤电项目获批，显示核准量可能在下半年有所增加。
建筑和石油需求放缓继续拉低总排放
虽然电力行业的碳排放在2024年第三季度出现了小幅增长，但工程量的持续萎缩拉低了总排放量。
因此，第三季度中国的碳排放量保持平稳，与去年同期水平持平或略低，如下图所示。
如果剖析建筑业导致的除电力行业以外的排放下降会发现，第三季度钢铁产量下降9%，水泥产量下降12%，房地产投资萎缩10%，与上半年持平。
这导致与2023年同期相比，水泥相关碳排放量减少了11%（24MtCO2），如下图所示。
尽管钢铁产量下降了9%，但钢铁相关排放量仅下降了3%（13MtCO2），原因在于需求下降的冲击主要由电弧炉炼钢厂承担，而不是排放强度高得多的燃煤高炉炼钢厂。
中国钢铁行业缺乏优先发展电弧炉的激励机制。电弧炉使用回收废钢，排放量较低。理论上，将钢铁纳入中国的碳排放权交易市场可能会促进转型。
然而，如果对该行业采取与电力行业相同的方式，对燃煤高炉炼钢和电炉炼钢设定不同的基准，则难以激励电力转型。
为推动钢铁行业结构性变革，中国工信部颁布政策，暂停所有新增钢铁产能的核准，将年初以来的实际停止审批变成正式禁令。直至去年，该行业仍在大规模投资煤基炼钢产能。
另一个排放下降的主要领域是石油消费，第三季度石油相关碳排放下降了2%（13MtCO2），如上图所示。该数据来自国家统计局。
石油需求和相关二氧化碳排放量的减少可能更多。石油产品供应量（以炼油厂扣除进出口后的产量计算）降幅更大。该指标显示，第三季度燃烧石油产生的碳排放下降了10%（63MtCO2），表明中国的二氧化碳总排放量或下降2%。
统计局报告的降幅要温和得多，这可能反映了中国统计数据趋于平缓化的特点。另一种可能的解释是，炼油厂以前的产量超出了消费需求，现在不得不削减产量以减少库存。
无论石油消费量下降的幅度如何，其下降原因已显而易见。工程量减少是重要因素，因为很大一部分柴油用于建筑工地和运输建筑材料。
电动车份额的增加也侵蚀了汽油需求量。家庭消费支出疲软也推动了需求减少，直到十月政府刺激政策出台后才出现回升迹象。
使用液化天然气的卡车的普及也对柴油需求形成抑制。2024年初至九月，液化天然气卡车销量占卡车总销量的20%，但天然气整体需求增长缓慢，表明这一影响有限。
天然气消费量增速从今年上半年的10%放缓至第三季度的3%。增量集中在电力行业，其他行业需求停滞，可能是由于工业需求疲软。
在经历了一二月排放量上升、三月至八月下降、九月再次增加后，年末三个月排放量需要至少下降2%，方能使中国的年度总排放量低于2023年水平。
由于工业电力需求增长的持续放缓和空调季的结束，这种情况很有可能发生。但即便如此，中国仍将偏离2025年的碳强度目标。该目标要求，在2020年至2023年中国排放量快速增长之后，在2024年和2025年都需至少下降2%。
排放量没有更快下降——甚至可能在第三季度根本没有下降——的根本原因是：今年能源消费量增速继续远超历史趋势。
第三季度，能源消费总量（包括但不限于电力消费量）增长了5.0%，快于GDP增长4.6%。
在疫情前，中国的能源需求增长一直低于GDP增速，这意味着经济的能源强度在下降。
然而，疫情后以制造业为重点的经济政策似乎扭转了这一趋势。
煤化工行业获得新的政策支持
中国碳排放前景中新增的一个变数是煤化工行业。该行业将国内煤炭转化为进口石油和天然气的替代品，尽管碳足迹要高得多。
国家发改委最近出台的政策要求“加快”煤化工行业的发展，包括“加快煤制油气战略基地建设”。
政策发布后数周，山西一个大型煤制油项目和陕西一个煤化工园区已开工建设，新疆也有类似项目获得核准。
据咨询公司中信建投期货称，2024年，煤化工行业的煤炭消费量预计将占中国煤炭总消费量的7%以上。
万得金融终端（Wind Financial Terminal）的数据表明，2024年前八个月煤化工行业的煤炭消费量增长了18%，2023年增长了9%。在今年一至八月期间，煤化工行业煤炭消费量增长所带来的排放占化石燃料碳排放总量增长的三分之二（总增幅为0.9%）。
然而，该行业的煤炭消费量增速在七月至八月放缓至5%，九月化工产品产量也继续放缓。上图（“化工”）显示了这个对碳排放量增长的较小推动因素。
近期油气价格上涨、加上中国增加国内煤炭产量和压低国内煤炭价格的努力，共同提振了对油价和煤价敏感的煤化工行业。
煤化工行业体现了中国是将能源安全，还是减排置于优先事项的直接矛盾。
经济刺激计划为排放前景增添不确定性
今年夏季的经济数据显示中国经济持续放缓、GDP增长未达目标，因此市场对当局出台刺激计划的预期随之增强。
政府在九月下旬宣布了一系列刺激措施，其主要针对金融市场，但也承诺要“稳定”房地产市场。
尽管该刺激计划的规模对于中国而言并不算大，进一步的细节也让那些希望政策出现更激烈转向的人感到失望，但该方案显然是经过深思熟虑后协调进行的，让外界得以一窥中国最高决策者正计划如何应对经济下行。
近年来广受关注的直接向家庭转移政府资金的措施，如今也将开始尝试。
这些措施旨在提振家庭消费，而非此前刺激政策重点的高能耗制造业和建筑业，若得以实施将让中国在更低能耗、低碳排的方式下实现增长。
然而，与整个一揽子计划的规模相比，直接转移资金的规模较小，且大部分资金用于汽车和家电补贴。这些补贴释放了家庭现金流，但同时也引导了家庭支出向最高耗能的领域集中。
大部分刺激资金仍通过地方政府借贷和银行贷款等传统渠道进行，这些资金通常用于工业和基础设施项目。
该刺激计划并没有明确着墨于气候。尽管相当一部分资金可能会流向与清洁能源相关的领域，但这只是因为这些投资最近在中国的投资流中占据主导地位，但该计划并未有额外政策推动此类投资。
决策者不认为碳排放会“提前”达峰
尽管清洁能源的快速增长似乎表明中国可能很快实现碳达峰，但决策者仍然预期碳排放量将在2030年之前继续增长，然后趋于平稳或逐渐下降。
今年八月，国家能源局在回应记者就有分析显示中国可能已实现碳达峰的问题时，淡化了这一可能性。
国家能源局相关部门负责人在回答这一问题时强调，国家领导层已确定“2030年前”为实现碳达峰的时间点，暗示该机构并无授权改变这一目标。
中共中央也在一份《意见》中重申，该国的目标是到2035年前让碳排放进入“下降趋势”。
国务院此前的一项计划表明，中国将在碳达峰后重点控制二氧化碳排放总量，而非排放强度，并表示这不会在2026至2030年期间发生。
根据中国目前在《巴黎协定》中的承诺，其允许采取一种非常渐进的方法来实现碳达峰并在达峰后减少排放，将更大幅度的减排留到未来几十年。
然而，这种路径将消耗全球1.5°C温控目标下90%的碳预算。若要限制全球气温上升至比工业化前高1.5°C以内，中国的排放量需在2035年之前至少比2023年水平下降30%。
国际能源署（IEA）最新分析指出，到2035年，中国等新兴市场需要将排放量减少到比2022年水平低35至65%的水平，以实现在COP28气候大会上做出的全球承诺或国家净零目标。
与中国决策者所传递的谨慎态度相反，若中国能保持当前的清洁能源扩展速度并推进电气化，到2035年，化石燃料的二氧化碳排放量将在2023年的水平上减少30%。
同样，国际能源署最新发布的《世界能源展望》（World Energy Outlook）发现，根据目前的政策方案，清洁能源的增长将有助于到2035年将中国的二氧化碳排放量减少到比2023年水平低24%。国际能源署表示，如果中国实现其宣布的雄心和目标，到2035年，碳排放量的削减将增加到45%。
根据《巴黎协定》，中国将于2025年2月前向联合国提交国家自主贡献（NDC）承诺，预计其将更清楚地说明决策者正在追求的减排途径。
关于数据
分析数据汇编自中国国家统计局、国家能源局、中国电力企业联合会和中国海关的官方数据发布，以及行业数据提供商万得资讯（WIND Information）的数据。
风能和太阳能发电量，以及按燃料划分的火电发电量系通过将每月末的发电装机乘月利用率计算得出，数据来自万得金融终端提供的中电联报告数据。
火电总发电量以及水电、核电发电量来自国家统计局月度发布数据。
由于没有生物质的月利用率数据，因此采用了2023年52%的年平均值。电力部门的煤炭消费量估算基于燃煤发电量和每月燃煤电厂的平均热耗率，以避免有争议的官方煤炭消费数据对近期其他产量数据的影响。
当数据来自多个来源时，本文对不同来源的数据交叉引用，并尽可能使用官方来源，调整总消费量以匹配国家统计局报告的第一季度、上半年和前三季度的消费增长和能源结构变化。数据调整对所有能源的影响不到1%。未经调整的数据显示，第三季度的排放量减少了1%。
二氧化碳排放量的估算基于国家统计局的默认燃料热值和中国最新的2018年国家温室气体排放清单中的排放因子。水泥的二氧化碳排放因子基于截至2023年的年度估算。
对于石油消费，表观消费量是根据炼油加工量计算的，并减去石油产品的净出口量。
The post 分析：尽管煤电反弹，但中国2024年三季度碳排放未增长 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
DeBriefed 27 February 2026: Trump’s fossil-fuel talk | Modi-Lula rare-earth pact | Is there a UK ‘greenlash’?
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Absolute State of the Union
‘DRILL, BABY’: US president Donald Trump “doubled down on his ‘drill, baby, drill’ agenda” in his State of the Union (SOTU) address, said the Los Angeles Times. He “tout[ed] his support of the fossil-fuel industry and renew[ed] his focus on electricity affordability”, reported the Financial Times. Trump also attacked the “green new scam”, noted Carbon Brief’s SOTU tracker.
COAL REPRIEVE: Earlier in the week, the Trump administration had watered down limits on mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, reported the Financial Times. It remains “unclear” if this will be enough to prevent the decline of coal power, said Bloomberg, in the face of lower-cost gas and renewables. Reuters noted that US coal plants are “ageing”.
OIL STAY: The US Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments brought by the oil industry in a “major lawsuit”, reported the New York Times. The newspaper said the firms are attempting to head off dozens of other lawsuits at state level, relating to their role in global warming.
SHIP-SHILLING: The Trump administration is working to “kill” a global carbon levy on shipping “permanently”, reported Politico, after succeeding in delaying the measure late last year. The Guardian said US “bullying” could be “paying off”, after Panama signalled it was reversing its support for the levy in a proposal submitted to the UN shipping body.
Around the world
- RARE EARTHS: The governments of Brazil and India signed a deal on rare earths, said the Times of India, as well as agreeing to collaborate on renewable energy.
- HEAT ROLLBACK: German homes will be allowed to continue installing gas and oil heating, under watered-down government plans covered by Clean Energy Wire.
- BRAZIL FLOODS: At least 53 people died in floods in the state of Minas Gerais, after some areas saw 170mm of rain in a few hours, reported CNN Brasil.
- ITALY’S ATTACK: Italy is calling for the EU to “suspend” its emissions trading system (ETS) ahead of a review later this year, said Politico.
- COOKSTOVE CREDITS: The first-ever carbon credits under the Paris Agreement have been issued to a cookstove project in Myanmar, said Climate Home News.
- SAUDI SOLAR: Turkey has signed a “major” solar deal that will see Saudi firm ACWA building 2 gigawatts in the country, according to Agence France-Presse.
$467 billion
The profits made by five major oil firms since prices spiked following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine four years ago, according to a report by Global Witness covered by BusinessGreen.
Latest climate research
- Claims about the “fingerprint” of human-caused climate change, made in a recent US Department of Energy report, are “factually incorrect” | AGU Advances
- Large lakes in the Congo Basin are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from “immense ancient stores” | Nature Geoscience
- Shared Socioeconomic Pathways – scenarios used regularly in climate modelling – underrepresent “narratives explicitly centring on democratic principles such as participation, accountability and justice” | npj Climate Action
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
The constituency of Richard Tice MP, the climate-sceptic deputy leader of Reform UK, is the second-largest recipient of flood defence spending in England, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. Overall, the funding is disproportionately targeted at coastal and urban areas, many of which have Conservative or Liberal Democrat MPs.
Spotlight
Is there really a UK ‘greenlash’?
This week, after a historic Green Party byelection win, Carbon Brief looks at whether there really is a “greenlash” against climate policy in the UK.
Over the past year, the UK’s political consensus on climate change has been shattered.
Yet despite a sharp turn against climate action among right-wing politicians and right-leaning media outlets, UK public support for climate action remains strong.
Prof Federica Genovese, who studies climate politics at the University of Oxford, told Carbon Brief:
“The current ‘war’ on green policy is mostly driven by media and political elites, not by the public.”
Indeed, there is still a greater than two-to-one majority among the UK public in favour of the country’s legally binding target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as shown below.
Steve Akehurst, director of public-opinion research initiative Persuasion UK, also noted the growing divide between the public and “elites”. He told Carbon Brief:
“The biggest movement is, without doubt, in media and elite opinion. There is a bit more polarisation and opposition [to climate action] among voters, but it’s typically no more than 20-25% and mostly confined within core Reform voters.”
Conservative gear shift
For decades, the UK had enjoyed strong, cross-party political support for climate action.
Lord Deben, the Conservative peer and former chair of the Climate Change Committee, told Carbon Brief that the UK’s landmark 2008 Climate Change Act had been born of this cross-party consensus, saying “all parties supported it”.
Since their landslide loss at the 2024 election, however, the Conservatives have turned against the UK’s target of net-zero emissions by 2050, which they legislated for in 2019.
Curiously, while opposition to net-zero has surged among Conservative MPs, there is majority support for the target among those that plan to vote for the party, as shown below.
Dr Adam Corner, advisor to the Climate Barometer initiative that tracks public opinion on climate change, told Carbon Brief that those who currently plan to vote Reform are the only segment who “tend to be more opposed to net-zero goals”. He said:
“Despite the rise in hostile media coverage and the collapse of the political consensus, we find that public support for the net-zero by 2050 target is plateauing – not plummeting.”
Reform, which rejects the scientific evidence on global warming and campaigns against net-zero, has been leading the polls for a year. (However, it was comfortably beaten by the Greens in yesterday’s Gorton and Denton byelection.)
Corner acknowledged that “some of the anti-net zero noise…[is] showing up in our data”, adding:
“We see rising concerns about the near-term costs of policies and an uptick in people [falsely] attributing high energy bills to climate initiatives.”
But Akehurst said that, rather than a big fall in public support, there had been a drop in the “salience” of climate action:
“So many other issues [are] competing for their attention.”
UK newspapers published more editorials opposing climate action than supporting it for the first time on record in 2025, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Global ‘greenlash’?
All of this sits against a challenging global backdrop, in which US president Donald Trump has been repeating climate-sceptic talking points and rolling back related policy.
At the same time, prominent figures have been calling for a change in climate strategy, sold variously as a “reset”, a “pivot”, as “realism”, or as “pragmatism”.
Genovese said that “far-right leaders have succeeded in the past 10 years in capturing net-zero as a poster child of things they are ‘fighting against’”.
She added that “much of this is fodder for conservative media and this whole ecosystem is essentially driving what we call the ‘greenlash’”.
Corner said the “disconnect” between elite views and the wider public “can create problems” – for example, “MPs consistently underestimate support for renewables”. He added:
“There is clearly a risk that the public starts to disengage too, if not enough positive voices are countering the negative ones.”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP’S ‘PETROSTATE’: The US is becoming a “petrostate” that will be “sicker and poorer”, wrote Financial Times associate editor Rana Forohaar.
RHETORIC VS REALITY: Despite a “political mood [that] has darkened”, there is “more green stuff being installed than ever”, said New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells.
CHINA’S ‘REVOLUTION’: The BBC’s Climate Question podcast reported from China on the “green energy revolution” taking place in the country.
Coming up
- 2-6 March: UN Food and Agriculture Organization regional conference for Latin America and Caribbean, Brasília
- 3 March: UK spring statement
- 4-11 March: China’s “two sessions”
- 5 March: Nepal elections
Pick of the jobs
- The Guardian, senior reporter, climate justice | Salary: $123,000-$135,000. Location: New York or Washington DC
- China-Global South Project, non-resident fellow, climate change | Salary: Up to $1,000 a month. Location: Remote
- University of East Anglia, PhD in mobilising community-based climate action through co-designed sports and wellbeing interventions | Salary: Stipend (unknown amount). Location: Norwich, UK
- TABLE and the University of São Paulo, Brazil, postdoctoral researcher in food system narratives | Salary: Unknown. Location: Pirassununga, Brazil
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 27 February 2026: Trump’s fossil-fuel talk | Modi-Lula rare-earth pact | Is there a UK ‘greenlash’? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Seven Pacific island nations say they will demand heftier levies on global shipping emissions if opponents of a green deal for the industry succeed in reopening negotiations on the stalled accord.
The United States and Saudi Arabia persuaded countries not to grant final approval to the International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF) in October and they are now leading a drive for changes to the deal.
In a joint submission seen by Climate Home News, the seven climate-vulnerable Pacific countries said the framework was already a “fragile compromise”, and vowed to push for a universal levy on all ship emissions, as well as higher fees . The deal currently stipulates that fees will be charged when a vessel’s emissions exceed a certain level.
“For many countries, the NZF represents the absolute limit of what they can accept,” said the unpublished submission by Fiji, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands.
The countries said a universal levy and higher charges on shipping would raise more funds to enable a “just and equitable transition leaving no country behind”. They added, however, that “despite its many shortcomings”, the framework should be adopted later this year.
US allies want exemption for ‘transition fuels’
The previous attempt to adopt the framework failed after governments narrowly voted to postpone it by a year. Ahead of the vote, the US threatened governments and their officials with sanctions, tariffs and visa restrictions – and President Donald Trump called the framework a “Green New Scam Tax on Shipping”.
Since then, Liberia – an African nation with a major low-tax shipping registry headquartered in the US state of Virginia – has proposed a new measure under which, rather than staying fixed under the NZF, ships’ emissions intensity targets change depending on “demonstrated uptake” of both “low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels”.
The proposal places stringent conditions on what fuels are taken into consideration when setting these targets, stressing that the low- and zero-carbon fuels should be “scalable”, not cost more than 15% more than standard marine fuels and should be available at “sufficient ports worldwide”.
This proposal would not “penalise transitional fuels” like natural gas and biofuels, they said. In the last decade, the US has built a host of large liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, which the Trump administration is lobbying other countries to purchase from.
The draft motion, seen by Climate Home News, was co-sponsored by US ally Argentina and also by Panama, a shipping hub whose canal the US has threatened to annex. Both countries voted with the US to postpone the last vote on adopting the framework.
-
IMO head: Shipping decarbonisation “has started” despite green deal delay
Arsenio Dominguez said the shipping industry’s net zero emissions goal is not in dispute although countries have stalled on adopting a framework to reach it -
US-led alliance wins a year’s delay in adoption of green shipping deal
The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework will be up for approval again in October 2026, after the US and Saudi Arabia persuaded countries not to vote on it as planned
The IMO’s Panamanian head Arsenio Dominguez told reporters in January that changes to the framework were now possible.
“It is clear from what happened last year that we need to look into the concerns that have been expressed [and] … make sure that they are somehow addressed within the framework,” he said.
Patchwork of levies
While the European Union pushed firmly for the framework’s adoption, two of its shipping-reliant member states – Greece and Cyprus – abstained in October’s vote.
After a meeting between the Greek shipping minister and Saudi Arabia’s energy minister in January, Greece said a “common position” united Greece, Saudi Arabia and the US on the framework.
If the NZF or a similar instrument is not adopted, the IMO has warned that there will be a patchwork of differing regional levies on pollution – like the EU’s emissions trading system for ships visiting its ports – which will be complicated and expensive to comply with.
This would mean that only countries with their own levies and with lots of ships visiting their ports would raise funds, making it harder for other nations to fund green investments in their ports, seafarers and shipping companies. In contrast, under the NZF, revenues would be disbursed by the IMO to all nations based on set criteria.
Anais Rios, shipping policy officer from green campaign group Seas At Risk, told Climate Home News the proposal by the Pacific nations for a levy on all shipping emissions – not just those above a certain threshold – was “the most credible way to meet the IMO’s climate goals”.
“With geopolitics reframing climate policy, asking the IMO to reopen the discussion on the universal levy is the only way to decarbonise shipping whilst bringing revenue to manage impacts fairly,” Rios said.
“It is […] far stronger than the Net-Zero Framework that is currently on offer.”
The post Pacific nations want higher emissions charges if shipping talks reopen appeared first on Climate Home News.
Pacific nations want higher emissions charges if shipping talks reopen
Doubts over whether governments will maintain ambitious targets on boosting the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) are a threat to the industry’s growth and play into the hands of fossil fuel companies, investors warned this week.
Several executives from airlines and oil firms have forecast recently that SAF requirements in the European Union, United Kingdom and elsewhere will be eased or scrapped altogether, potentially upending the aviation industry’s main policy to shrink air travel’s growing carbon footprint.
Such speculation poses a “fundamental threat” to the SAF industry, which mainly produces an alternative to traditional kerosene jet fuel using organic feedstocks such as used cooking oil (UCO), Thomas Engelmann, head of energy transition at German investment manager KGAL, told the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Investor conference in London.
He said fossil fuel firms would be the only winners from questions about compulsory SAF blending requirements.
The EU and the UK introduced the world’s first SAF mandates in January 2025, requiring fuel suppliers to blend at least 2% SAF with fossil fuel kerosene. The blending requirement will gradually increase to reach 32% in the EU and 22% in the UK by 2040.
Another case of diluted green rules?
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, CEO of French oil and gas company TotalEnergies Patrick Pouyanné said he would bet “that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF regulation in Europe”.
The EU watered down green rules for car-makers in March 2025 after lobbying from car companies, Germany and Italy.
“You will see. Today all the airline companies are fighting [against the EU’s 2030 SAF target of 6%],” Pouyanne said, even though it’s “easy to reach to be honest”.
While most European airline lobbies publicly support the mandates, Ryanair Group CEO Michael O’Leary said last year that the SAF is “nonsense” and is “gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do”.
EU and UK stand by SAF targets
But the EU and the British government have disputed that. EU transport commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said in November that the EU’s targets are “stable”, warning that “investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets”.
UK aviation minister Keir Mather told this week’s investor event that meeting the country’s SAF blending requirement of 10% by 2030 was “ambitious but, with the right investment, the right innovation and the right outlook, it is absolutely within our reach”.
“We need to go further and we need to go faster,” Mather said.
SAF investors and developers said such certainty on SAF mandates from policymakers was key to drawing the necessary investment to ramp up production of the greener fuel, which needs to scale up in order to bring down high production costs. Currently, SAF is between two and seven times more expensive than traditional jet fuel.
Urbano Perez, global clean molecules lead at Spanish bank Santander, said banks will not invest if there is a perceived regulatory risk.
David Scott, chair of Australian SAF producer Jet Zero Australia, said developing SAF was already challenging due to the risks of “pretty new” technology requiring high capital expenditure.
“That’s a scary model with a volatile political environment, so mandate questioning creates this problem on steroids”, Scott said.
Others played down the risk. Glenn Morgan, partner at investment and advisory firm SkiesFifty, said “policy is always a risk”, adding that traditional oil-based jet fuel could also lose subsidies.
Asian countries join SAF mandate adopters
In Asia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Japan have recently adopted SAF mandates, and Matti Lievonen, CEO of Asia-based SAF producer EcoCeres, predicted that China, Indonesia and Hong Kong would follow suit.
David Fisken, investment director at the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, said the Australian government, which does not have a mandate, was watching to see how the EU and UK’s requirements played out.
The US does not have a SAF mandate and under President Donald Trump the government has slashed tax credits available for SAF producers from $1.75 a gallon to $1.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
SAF and energy security
SAF’s potential role in boosting energy security was a major theme of this week’s discussions as geopolitical tensions push the issue to the fore.
Marcella Franchi, chief commercial officer for SAF at France’s Haffner Energy, said the Canadian government, which has “very unsettling neighbours at the moment”, was looking to produce SAF to protect its energy security, especially as it has ample supplies of biomass to use as potential feedstock.
Similarly, German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall said last year it was working on plans that would enable European armed forces to produce their own synthetic, carbon-neutral fuel “locally and independently of global fossil fuel supply chain”.
Scott said Australia needs SAF to improve its fuel security, as it imports almost 99% of its liquid fuels.
He added that support for Australian SAF production is bipartisan, in part because it appeals to those more concerned about energy security than tackling climate change.
The post Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn appeared first on Climate Home News.
Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits