As much as half of the Amazon will face several “unprecedented” stressors that could push the forest towards a major tipping point by 2050, new research finds.
The largest rainforest in the world is already under pressure from climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss and extreme weather.
Researchers analysed data on five key drivers of water stress in the Amazon and looked at how these pressures could lead to “local, regional or even biome-wide forest collapse”.
The new study, published in Nature, finds that by 2050, between 10 and 47% of the Amazon forest will be exposed to “compounding disturbances” that “may trigger unexpected ecosystem transitions”. This could result in large swathes of lush rainforest shifting to dry savannah.
One author of the study tells Carbon Brief that this prospect by mid-century is “very scary”.
The study notes that the complexity of the Amazon “adds uncertainty about future dynamics” and that there are still “opportunities for action”.
The findings highlight the likelihood that “climate change will continue to affect the forest in very unpredictable ways”, a scientist not involved in the study says.
Amazon pressures
The Amazon forest stores a huge amount of carbon and houses at least 10% of the world’s biodiversity. It faces an uncertain future largely due to the effects of deforestation and climate change.
Last year, the Amazon river basin experienced an “exceptional drought” that was 30 times more likely to occur due to climate change, a rapid attribution study found.
Around 20% of the Amazon has already been deforested and a further 6% is “highly degraded”.
According to several studies, the Brazilian section of the Amazon is now an overall net “source” of carbon, rather than a “sink”, due to a number of factors including deforestation.
Scientists have long warned that climate change and human-driven deforestation could push the Amazon rainforest past a “tipping point” – a threshold that, if crossed, would see the “dieback” of large amounts of dense Amazon rainforest and a shift into permanent, dry savannah.
This would be characterised by a mixed tree and grassland system with an open canopy that allows the soil to become much hotter and drier.
Previous studies suggest that the Amazon could be pushed beyond this tipping point if forest loss exceeds 40%. Other research published last October found that recent drying over the Amazon could be the “first warning signal” that the rainforest is approaching a tipping point.
The new study examines five key drivers of water stress in the Amazon – global warming, annual rainfall, rainfall seasonality intensity, dry season length and accumulated deforestation – to estimate the critical limits of these issues for the Amazon.
The researchers use existing evidence from palaeorecords, observational data and modelling studies. For example, they find that rainfall levels below 1,000mm each year could result in “forests becom[ing] rare and unstable”.
For floodplain ecosystems, this critical threshold was estimated at 1,500mm per year. This implies that “floodplain forests may be the first to collapse in a drier future”, the study says.
Based on this analysis, the researchers estimate that these drivers could, in combination, potentially lead to a large-scale Amazon tipping point by 2050.
Dr Bernardo Flores, the lead author of the study and a researcher at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil, says the study aims to show the effects of these combined pressures. He tells Carbon Brief:
“It is surprising how the combination of stressors and disturbances are already affecting parts of the central Amazon… [which] can already transition into different ecosystems.
“Then, when you put everything together, the possibility that by 2050 we could cross this tipping point, a large-scale tipping point, is very scary and I didn’t really think it could be so soon.”
Ecosystem transitions
The findings highlight how the combination of different disturbances – such as intensified droughts and fires – could trigger “unexpected ecosystem transitions even in remote and central parts” of the Amazon.
Flores says that most of the Amazon is warming “significantly” and many areas are becoming drier than in previous years, adding:
“When you combine this with things like deforestation, fires and logging…when these disturbances act together, they can have a synergistic effect.”
These issues occurring at the same time “could cause large parts of the Amazon to transition into a different ecosystem”, Flores says. He tells Carbon Brief:
“When you lose more forest, you could cross that tipping point in forest loss and then trigger a large-scale tipping point when the whole system would start accelerating to a large-scale collapse.”
The study finds that around half (47%) of the Amazon biome has a moderate potential for these changes. Larger, remote areas covering 53% of the Amazon have a low chance of ecosystem transition – which mostly accounts for protected areas and Indigenous territories.
Within these figures, the researchers find that 10% of the Amazon has a “relatively high transition potential” – meaning that it is already seeing more than two types of disturbances.
The study then looks at the three “most plausible” trajectories for Amazon ecosystems impacted by compounding stressors. These are: degraded forest, white-sand savannah and degraded open-canopy ecosystem.
Using examples of existing “disturbed” forests across the Amazon, the researchers identify these as possible futures for different parts of the forest. The figure below shows the different disturbances and feedback loops in each of these ecosystems.
1.5C ‘safe boundary’
Prof Dominick Spracklen, a professor of biosphere-atmosphere interactions at the University of Leeds, who was not involved in the study, says the research “highlights the urgency to keep both global warming and deforestation within safe limits” to protect the Amazon.
Based on their analysis, the authors say that staying within 1.5C of global warming (the aspirational limit included under the Paris Agreement) is a “safe boundary” for the Amazon forest to avoid large-scale transformations.
(A 2020 study concluded that there is a “significant likelihood” that multiple tipping points will be crossed around the world if temperatures exceed 1.5C.)
The new study suggests that ending deforestation and forest degradation – alongside boosting restoration in degraded areas – are key factors in improving the state of the Amazon.
However, Flores notes that action to stop deforestation without also stopping greenhouse gas emissions may be “useless” to prevent the forest reaching a major tipping point.
The rate of deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon soared under former president Jair Bolsonaro, but has almost halved in 2023 since Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took over office. Meanwhile, forest loss in the Bolivian sections of the Amazon reached record-high levels in 2022.
Spracklen says this disparity “highlights the need for a pan-Amazon alliance to help collaboratively reduce deforestation”. (Last year, the leaders of the eight Amazon basin countries committed to work together to protect the rainforest – but stopped short of agreeing to end deforestation.)
Dr Patricia Pinho, the deputy science director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), who was not involved in the study, says that more research is needed to assess the “cascading” effects of tipping points for people living in forest regions. She tells Carbon Brief:
“From the point of view of some people in the Amazon…A tipping point of the forest has been reached already. People are already feeling the limits of cultivating their traditional foods or encountering the biodiversity that they use for rituals, for tradition, for foods, for medicine.”
Another study author, Dr David Lapola, a researcher at the University of Campinas in Brazil and a Carbon Brief contributing editor, says the research was “necessary to investigate other potential drivers” towards this tipping point. He adds:
“Of course, there needs to be more research because even though the article points out possibilities, there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding how the tipping point would operate and the chances of it [happening].”
Pinho adds that the “quite depressing” findings raise a lot of “red flag” issues around the Amazon, saying:
“If we don’t [take] action right now as soon as possible to avoid greenhouse emissions… climate change will continue to affect the forest in very unpredictable ways.”
She says the study is a “great contribution” to Amazon tipping point research, noting that “the bad news is that we are approaching sooner than expected those critical transitions”.
The post ‘Unprecedented’ stress in up to half of the Amazon may lead to tipping point by 2050 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
‘Unprecedented’ stress in up to half of the Amazon may lead to tipping point by 2050
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 2020 advice.
However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.
It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.
(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)
After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”
The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.
