Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
This week
Carbon Brief investigates offsets
SPECIAL WEEK: After months of interviews, research and data-crunching, Carbon Brief this week published a special series of content on the topic of carbon offsets. On the first day, Carbon Brief launched an in-depth explainer on whether carbon offsets can help to tackle climate change, a glossary laying out more than 60 of the key terms and phrases, an infographic illustrating the typical journey of a carbon offset and a timeline detailing the 60-year story of how offsets went from an idea to make polluters think about their damage to a major feature of country and business climate targets.
MAPS AND DATA: Later on in the week, Carbon Brief published an interactive map detailing the impacts of individual carbon-offset projects around the world. We also released a series of in-depth Sankey diagrams illustrating how offsets flow from the world’s most polluting companies to projects in the developing world. Separately, we published an explainer into how “biodiversity offsets” are rising in popularity, posing comparable moral questions to carbon offsets.
WEBINAR: Carbon Brief finished its special week by holding a webinar on whether carbon offsets can be reformed. It featured Dr Barbara Haya, director of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project at the University of California, Berkeley; Kaya Axelsson, net-zero policy engagement fellow at the University of Oxford; Laura George, governance and rights coordinator of the Amerindian Peoples Association in Guyana; and Pedro Barata, associate vice president of carbon markets at the Environmental Defence Fund and co-chair of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s expert panel. The webinar is now available to watch online.
UK ushers in more oil and gas
ROSEBANK APPROVED: In the latest twist in a remarkable month for UK climate policy, regulators this week granted final approval to the Rosebank oil-and-gas field, one of the largest new fossil-fuel projects in the North Sea in decades. The project has the potential to produce 300m barrels of oil and gas. When burned, this would produce the equivalent to the annual emissions of around 90 of the countries with the lowest emissions, according to analysis by Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans.
TORY TURMOIL: The decision sparked more strife within the country’s ruling Conservative party. According to the Independent, Conservative peer and former minister Zac Goldsmith told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme: “It just trashes the UK’s reputation as a reliable, grown-up member of the global community, it’s done us immeasurable harm…The party that loses sight of the overall goal [of climate action and environmental protection] is not one that deserves to be given the privilege of power.” It comes after a frontpage story in the i newspaper on Monday reported that 100 of the country’s economists had written a letter arguing that prime minister Rishi Sunak’s wider climate rollbacks could “raise the cost of living and cost Britain jobs”.
Around the world
- ‘EXCEPTIONAL’: Antarctica’s sea ice maximum – reached at the height of winter – was the lowest in the 45-year satellite record by “a wide margin”, Carbon Brief reported. One expert said Antarctic conditions had been “truly exceptional”.
- SPRING SCORCHER: Large swathes of South America have faced an intense spring heatwave, with temperatures reaching 43C in Brazil, Grist reported.
- SOUTH AFRICA FLOODS: At least 11 people have died after heavy rain and winds struck South Africa’s Western Cape province, BBC News reported. South African newspaper Daily Maverick spoke to scientists about the links to climate change.
- SHELL-SHOCKED: A leaked open letter posted to Shell’s internal web revealed that some employees have said they are “deeply concerned” about the company’s shift away from investing more in renewable energy, Reuters reported.
- YOUTH CLIMATE CASE: Six young people from Portugal on Wednesday began legal proceedings against 32 European countries in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for failing to protect them against climate change in an unprecedented case, Euronews reported.
- NZ FARMER PROTEST: Reuters explored how “rural anger” over New Zealand’s climate policies, including tree-planting on grazing land, could usher in a return of far-right parties in an October election.
10%
The proportion by which the overall volume of Switzerland’s glaciers shrunk in the past two years, according to analysis covered by the Times.
Latest climate research
- The densely populated, low-lying delta river basins of the Ganges and Mekong in Asia will likely see fewer tropical storms in a warming world, but they will be more intense, according to new research in Geophysical Research Letters.
- Some 17% and 18% of new wind power projects faced local opposition in the US and Canada, respectively, from 2000-2016, found a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
- A new Nature study challenged the idea that climate change is behind the rapid demise of insects globally by identifying the role of complex weather patterns.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Global surface temperatures set a new record this week for the highest daily temperature anomalies (departure from the norm) ever observed. They were recorded by a Japanese climate database called the JRA-55 reanalysis product. These were approximately 1C warmer than the 1991-2020 baseline period used by the dataset and around 1.9C warmer than the pre-industrial (1850-1900) temperatures. “El Niño won’t peak until later this year and there is plenty more heat waiting in the wings,” Dr Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the Washington Post, warning that we can “expect more records to be set in the coming months.”
Spotlight
IEA’s path to 1.5C unpacked
A 2023 update to the landmark 2021 Net Zero Roadmap from the International Energy Agency explores how recent developments have impacted the path to limit warming to 1.5C by the end of the century. Here, Carbon Brief summarises three key takeaways from the report.
Extraordinary growth in clean energy technology over the past two years, but more work remains
The IEA’s 2023 report finds that record growth in solar power capacity, battery production and electric car sales since 2021 are in line with their required growth in a world that reaches net-zero emissions by mid-century. Industry plans to expand manufacturing capacity are also in line with what will be required to achieve necessary growth. These two technologies alone are expected to deliver approximately a third of emissions reductions between today and 2030 in the IEA’s net-zero pathway.
The IEA finds that the world is set to invest a massive $1.8tn in clean energy in 2023. But much more work remains: investments in clean energy need to climb to $4.5tn a year by the early 2030s, while global renewable capacity needs to triple by 2030. This requires stronger policies and international support, particularly in emerging markets and developing economies. The IEA also highlights the need to speed up permitting and modernising of electricity grids to better integrate variable renewable generation.
Most of the technologies needed to limit warming to 1.5C are available today
The IEA’s statement in 2021 that technologies not yet available on the market would deliver half of future emissions reductions resulted in a lot of coverage and debate. In its new report, the IEA finds that technological development and commercialisation over the past two years mean that novel technologies are only required for 35% of future emissions reductions. This reflects significant technological development in a number of sectors, including batteries and electrolysers.
However, the IEA emphasises that more progress is needed for a number of technologies. It notes that small, modular clean technologies, such as solar and batteries, are not sufficient to deliver net-zero emissions alone. Also, new infrastructure networks, low-emissions fuels, CO2 capture technology, nuclear power and large land areas for the deployment of renewables will all be necessary.
No room for new unabated coal plants or new ‘long-lead time’ oil and gas projects
The IEA report argues that an immediate end to new approvals of unabated coal plants is required to achieve its net-zero emissions scenario – and that there is no need for new long-lead time oil and gas projects. The rapid reduction in fossil fuel demand (down 25% by 2030 and 80% by 2050) means that current oil and gas projects are sufficient to supply all expected future demand.
However, the IEA does note that some continued investment in existing oil and gas fields is not inconsistent with a net-zero emissions scenario. It argues that it will be important to properly sequence increased investments in clean energy with decreased investments in fossil-fuel supply over time to avoid potentially damaging price spikes or demand gluts.
Watch, read, listen
IDA AFTERMATH: The 19th examined how, two years after Hurricane Ida, residents are still reeling – with women of colour disproportionately affected.
CLIMATE REFUGEES: In African Arguments, South African legal scholar Dr Cristiano d’Orsi argued that laws must be reformed to allow people fleeing from climate change to claim refugee status.
NATURE’S SECRETS: BBC Radio Four’s the Life Scientific podcast spoke to the director of London’s Kew Gardens about how lessons from nature can help the world to address climate change.
Coming up
- 30 September: Maldives presidential election (second round)
- 30 September: Slovakia parliamentary elections
- 3-6 October: UNEP Fifth forum of ministers and environment authorities of Asia Pacific, Colombo, Sri Lanka
- 4-5 October: FAO Rome water dialogues
Pick of the jobs
- Climate Outreach, communications lead (maternity cover) | Salary: £38,000-41,000. Location: Oxford, UK
- US Climate Alliance, senior climate analyst | Salary: $74,000-84,000. Location: District of Columbia, US
- World Resources Institute (WRI), climate change director | Salary: Unknown. Location: São Paulo, Brazil
DeBriefed is written in rotation by Carbon Brief’s team and edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org
The post DeBriefed 29 September 2023: Focus on carbon offsets; UK expands oil and gas; IEA’s path to 1.5C unpacked appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.
In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.
The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:
“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”
In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
Spreadsheet error
The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.
The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.
These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.
Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.
In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.
This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.
At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.
In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.
Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.
Paper trail
The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.
The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.
A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s