China’s thinking around the energy transition shifted drastically in 2020 after president Xi Jinping pledged to reach carbon neutrality before 2060.
Despite a series of major policy developments since then, however, it is still not clear what the new energy system will look like and which pathways are the most efficient for China to reach its carbon neutrality goal.
Our latest research models three scenarios for China’s energy transition: one in which China develops a net-zero emissions energy system before 2055; one in which it achieves this around 2055; and a baseline scenario that extrapolates current development trends.
We find that a combination of energy efficiency measures, electrification of end-use consumption and a low-carbon power supply based on various renewable energy sources – such as solar and wind – can greatly help the country to achieve its decarbonisation goals by 2055.
In the most ambitious scenario, China’s power sector will be fossil fuel-free by 2055, while some industries will continue to use a small amount of coal and gas. However, this will be balanced by negative emissions from biomass power plants fitted with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
- How the dual carbon targets changed the game
- Three scenarios for China’s energy transformation
- Three phases in China’s energy transformation
- Coal power plants become flexibility providers
- Managing a grid dominated by variable wind and solar
- Visions for the future
How the dual carbon targets changed the game
When Xi began his speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2020, few had expected him to deliver such a ground-breaking announcement.
In his words: “We aim to have CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.”
This policy is now more commonly known as the “dual carbon” goals.
That one sentence changed the whole understanding of the energy transformation in China.
Until then, China’s target was to “promote a revolution in energy production and consumption, and build an energy sector that is clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient”, as Xi had said at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party in China (CPC) in October 2017.
Xi’s 2020 speech shifted China’s priorities from reaching “low-carbon” to reaching “carbon neutrality”, from an energy sector that includes at least some fossil fuel consumption, to an energy sector which leaves little room for coal, oil and gas once carbon neutrality is reached.
The difference required a genuine change of mindset throughout China’s political system and stakeholders within the energy system, such as major power producers.
China started this immediately after the announcement: the State Council, China’s top administrative body, introduced the 1+N policy strategy, which is comprised of an overarching guideline for reaching the “dual carbon” goals (the “1”) and a number of more concrete guidelines and regulations to implement the strategy (the “N”).
So far, the policies have mainly focused on reaching the carbon peak before 2030 – but the long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2060 is ever-present.
The National Energy Administration (NEA) has launched a blueprint for a new type of power system. At a broader level, several government departments have outlined efforts to transform the entire energy system, as opposed to just the power system, in the effort to reach carbon neutrality.
Hence, the foundation for China’s energy transformation is much more solid and precise today than it was before Xi’s announcement. The question now is: what will the new type of energy system look like and how will China reach it?
Three scenarios for China’s energy transformation
To answer these questions, our programme modelled three scenarios for China’s energy transformation: one in which China develops a net-zero emissions energy system before 2055; one in which it achieves this around 2055; and a baseline scenario that extrapolates current development trends.
The analysis is based on a detailed bottom-up modelling approach, while, at the same time, using visions for a “Beautiful China” – an official initiative for “the nation’s green and high-quality growth” – as guidelines for the transformation.
In our modelling, the overarching strategy for the energy transformation consists of three intertwined actions:
- Increase energy efficiency throughout the supply chain.
- Electrify the end-use sectors as much as possible.
- Transform the power sector into a “green”, fossil-free sector with solar and wind power as the backbone of the system.
(The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report showed that these are key elements of all global pathways that limit warming to 1.5C or 2C.)
A consequence of following this strategy would be that the Chinese energy system would be able to provide energy for sustainable economic growth in China with net-zero carbon emissions, improved air quality and a high level of energy security.
In the most ambitious scenario, the Chinese power system would be carbon-neutral from 2045 – and the whole energy system before 2055.
Compared to today, total primary energy consumption would be lower in 2060 despite economic growth. Moreover, coal, oil and gas would be practically phased out of the system – and dependence on imported fossil fuels would be eliminated.
The figure below shows the energy flowing through China’s economy in 2021 (upper panel) compared with the energy flow in 2060 under this most ambitious scenario (lower panel).
On the left, each panel shows sources of primary energy flowing into the economy such as coal (black), gas (pink), oil (shades of grey) and non-fossil fuels such as nuclear (brown), hydro (dark blue), wind (light blue) and solar (yellow).
The centre of each panel illustrates the transformation of primary energy into more useful forms, such as electricity or refined oil products. Much of the primary energy contained in fossil fuels is wasted at this stage (“losses”) in the form of waste heat.
On the right, the users of final energy are broken down by sector.
Most notably, fossil fuels – particularly coal – are the largest sources of energy in 2021, whereas in the ambitious 2060 scenario, below, low-carbon sources dominate.
Three phases in China’s energy transformation
Our study suggests the transformation pathway will have three main phases. The first phase is the peaking phase until 2030.
During this period, the deployment of wind and solar power would continue to increase, while electrification of the industry and transport sectors would gain momentum.
However, coal and oil would remain the dominant energy sources in terms of total primary energy consumption.
Next is the “energy revolution” phase, from 2030 to 2050. During this phase, solar and wind power would become the main energy sources for electricity supply, and the electrification of the end-use sectors would be substantial.
The shift away from fossil fuels minimises the loss of waste heat in electricity generation and refining. Meanwhile, “green hydrogen” made from renewable power would become increasingly important in the industrial sectors.
The third phase is the consolidation phase, from 2050 to 2060. Decarbonisation occurs in sub-sectors that are challenging to electrify, such as the steel and chemicals industries, the old solar and wind power plants are replaced by new solar and wind power, and remaining fossil fuels in the energy mix are nearly phased out.
Coal power plants become flexibility providers
Although the Chinese government plans to “phase down” coal from 2025, based on the current policy guidelines and market situation, we estimate that coal power capacity would not be rapidly removed in any of our three scenarios.
Instead, coal power plants would gradually become providers of energy security and capacity to meet peaks in electricity demand, and not generate large amounts of electricity.
By the time they reach the end of their expected lifetime of around 30 years, the plants would be shut down and not replaced with new coal capacity. In our most ambitious scenario, the last coal power plants are closed in 2055, as shown in the figure below.
The upper panel in the figure shows the installed capacity of coal power plants and the lower panel their electricity production from 2021 to 2060.
Meanwhile, gas does not play a significant role in the power sector in our scenarios, as solar and wind can provide cheaper electricity while existing coal power plants – together with scaled-up expansion of energy storage and demand-side response facilities – can provide sufficient flexibility and peak-load capacity.
Managing a grid dominated by variable wind and solar
An energy system that relies on solar and wind power as main suppliers of power requires special flexibility measures to match production and demand.
The figure below shows a modelled example of an hourly electricity balance in a week in the summer of 2060 under our more ambitious scenario of achieving carbon neutrality before 2055.
The top panel shows electricity production on the supply side. In the daytime solar power (yellow) dominates the production of electricity, while wind power plants (light blue) have a more stable output throughout the 24-hour period.
In the evening and at night, electricity storage is discharged (purple) and hydropower production (dark blue) is higher than in the daytime.
The lower panel shows electricity use on the demand side. Storage (purple) is charged in the daytime and electric vehicle (EV) smart charging (blue) provides flexibility throughout the week.
As a backup, vehicle-to-grid supply plays an important role – not necessarily as a significant energy provider but as a last-resort capacity that can be activated if necessary, when wind and solar output is low. This solution is a cheap and efficient way to ensure sufficient capacity in the power system.
Before 2055, coal power plants could be equally reliable and affordable providers of capacity for the power system, even though they would not generate much electricity on average, as mentioned earlier.
This way of creating flexibility might seem complicated to manage in terms of daily dispatch (the process of managing supply and demand). However, an efficient and well-functioning electricity market, including consumers and producers, can do the job.
Removing the barriers to electricity trading among provinces and constructing a unified national electricity market would be a key enabler of this.
Visions for the future
The scenarios from our China Energy Transformation Outlook give a range of quantified visions of the long-term future in a net-zero energy system.
Our detailed model of the power system and other energy end-use sectors make it possible to link the development of this new energy system with policy measures that could bring about this transformation.
One key insight from our work relates to the timing of the different phases of China’s energy transformation, mentioned above. Our modelling suggests that successful coordination of these phases will be crucial, in order to maintain energy security while avoiding unnecessary investments in energy infrastructure.
Other key enablers in our scenarios are the investments needed to expand the electricity grid, the development of a national electricity market and support for energy system flexibility.
Even with the best visions, and insights from pathways such as ours, there will be many challenges and barriers ahead to overcome if China is to reach its 2060 goal.
Our scenarios show, however, that there are feasible and cost-efficient pathways which can be implemented without waiting for new technological breakthroughs.
The post Guest post: How China’s energy system can reach carbon neutrality before 2055 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How China’s energy system can reach carbon neutrality before 2055
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