中国清洁能源创纪录的增长使该国二氧化碳（CO2）排放量在2024年的后10个月里保持在低于上年同期的水平。
然而，Carbon Brief 基于官方和商业数据进行的新分析显示，2024年1月和2月，中国正处于疫情解封经济反弹的尾声阶段，加之能源需求异常高的增长，2024年全年CO2排放量未能下降。
尽管中国2024年的CO2排放量相比2023年增长了0.8%，但与截至2024年2月前的12个月期间相比，排放量有所减少。
该分析的其他主要调研结果包括：
- 2024年第四季度，中国的CO2排放量同比增长0.6%，原因外界对经济刺激措施的预期推动了工业用煤使用量和石油需求的上升。
- 此外，2024年最后一个季度风能和太阳能发电量低于预期水平，煤电则同比持平，这可能是因为煤电项目获得优先并网。
- 随着大型风能、太阳能和核电项目竞相试图在“十四五”规划期结束前完工，2025年清洁能源发电装机将加速增长。
- 2024年夏季以来，工业用电需求增长放缓，全年第四季度的能源总需求增速也有所下降。
- 这些因素预计将在2025年推动中国的燃煤发电量下降，这将对全球能源市场和排放产生重要影响。
- 然而，如果政府通过刺激政策推动工业需求增长，尤其是房地产市场复苏，可能会改变这一趋势。
最新分析表明，与以往类似，2025年的政策决策将对中国未来几年的排放轨迹产生重大影响，尤其是中国将在2025年同时制定《巴黎协定》下新的国家自主贡献承诺，以及该国的下一个五年规划。
2024年2月以来排放量趋稳
中国在2023年3月正式结束疫情“清零”政策，导致能源需求从3月到2024年2月同比快速增长。
这使得中国在2024年第一季度的CO2排放量增长了3.8%。
2024年3月至12月，排放量趋于稳定。这是由于清洁电力供应的增长满足了全部电力需求增长，与此同时，水泥和钢铁生产的排放量由于建筑材料需求的萎缩而下降。如下图所示。
2024年2月后，石油消费增长也趋于稳定。化工行业的煤炭使用量以及其他工业部门的煤炭和天然气使用量继续增长，抵消了建筑材料行业排放量的下降。
下图显示了2024年后10个月排放平稳期的各影响因素，在有数据情况下按燃料和行业分列。
非化石能源发电量增长在2023年首次创纪录后再创新高，较2023年增加了逾500TWh（太瓦时）。
这一增量超过了德国2023年全年的总发电量。其中，太阳能发电占清洁电力供应增长的一半。
第四季度排放量小幅上升
在第四季度，尽管电力行业的排放量保持稳定，但电力以外的工业排放量出现增长。由于电力行业排放量的减少未能抵消这部分增长，因此总体排放量估计同比增加0.6%。
中国的CO2排放量在2024年第一季度上升，但自3月起开始下降。在第二季度下降了1%，第三季度趋于稳定。
这其中的主要因素是电力行业以外的石油和天然气需求反弹。下图中“所有行业”和“其他行业”下的长条显示了这一点。
国家统计局初步数据显示，2024年第四季度，天然气和石油需求分别同比增长10%和3%。
同时，成品油供应下降1.5%，因此石油需求的增长显然完全来自化工行业的原油消费。
此外，受2024年9月底出台的刺激政策影响，钢铁产量有所回升。在2024年1月至9月累计下降了4%后，10月至11月增长2%，12月增长12%。
然而，12月的增长主要是因为2023年12月钢铁产量曾骤降15%，这是为了遵守政府设定的当年钢铁产量上限而采取的紧急措施。因此，2024年12月的钢铁产量同比大幅增加，但仍低于2022年水平。
天然气消费量正在从2022年的消费量下降（因当年天然气价格飙升所致）中恢复，但今年的需求增长预计将放缓。
水泥产量在2024年最后一个季度同比下降6%，延续了自2020年开始的下降趋势。由于建筑活动减少，中国的水泥产量已从峰值下降近四分之一。
煤电与清洁能源的冲突
如上图所示，2024年第四季度电力行业的排放量保持平稳，煤炭排放量略有下降，天然气排放量略有上升。然而，鉴于电力需求增速放缓至3.5%，排放量本应下降。
尽管10月至11月电力需求增长放缓，化石燃料发电量却继续增长。通过万德（Wind）金融终端获得的中国电力企业联合会的数据显示，这是由于风能和太阳能发电利用率都急剧下降。
利用率在不同月份有所波动是正常现象，尤其是风电利用率会因风力条件而变化，但这一时期太阳能发电利用率的降幅创下有记录以来的最大值。而无论是太阳能还是风能，此次利用率下降都无法用天气条件充分解释。
如果利用率下降不是由天气原因造成的，那么另一个可能的原因是可再生能源弃电量的增加，即不能被完全并入电网的太阳能和风能电力增加。
然而，官方报告的弃电率仅小幅上升。
11月未报告的风能和太阳能弃电量明显增加，显示出中国电力市场可能会出现的问题，尤其是当对煤电的需求开始下降时。
政府一直在推动电力买家与煤电公司签订保证煤电销量的长期合同。这已经成为一种支撑盈利能力和新煤电产能投资的方式。
然而，这一政策似乎正与清洁能源增长以及减少排放的努力发生冲突。
当清洁能源发电量增长超出预期，或电力总需求增长低于预期时，签订了长期合同的电力买家可能会面临违约处罚，除非他们拒绝清洁能源电力供应，转而购买煤电。
当大量新增煤电装机容量进入市场时，这种冲突会更加突出。这些新机组往往设有内部生产目标，并且至少在某些情况下已提前签订购电协议，因此即使电网没有足够空间，它们也不愿减少出力。
值得注意的是，在2015年前后可再生能源弃电首次成为中国的主要问题，当时煤电需求正在下降。
统计分析还显示，当煤电产能利用率下降时，风能和太阳能利用率往往也会下降——这与预期情况相反。在一个运行良好的市场中，当清洁能源供应增加时，煤电的利用率应当下降。
有统计模型利用每日气象数据预测各省太阳能和风能利用率，但该模型未能预测到2024年10月和11月的利用率下降，这表明天气状况并非主因。
如果2025年电力需求增长放缓，且新增清洁能源装机容量如预期般创下新高（见下），煤电与清洁能源之间的矛盾可能会加剧。煤电需求可能会下降，即使煤炭行业预计仍会快速扩张。
解决这一冲突的唯一可能方式是放宽政府的长期购电合同目标，并接受煤电产能利用率下降。
2024年排放量是否达峰？
我们在一年前的分析中曾预测，中国的碳排放量将在2024年3月由增转降，并持续减少，最终在2024年全年减少2%。
这一预测基于以下三个假设：
- 清洁能源新增装机持续增长；
- 水力发电量恢复至历史平均水平；
- 在2020年至2023年疫情及后疫情时期能源消费异常快增长后，能源消费增速将放缓。
从实际情况来看，清洁能源装机不仅保持增长，而且进一步加速，2024年新增风能和太阳能装机容量有望创下新纪录。水电发电量也有所恢复，但尚未完全恢复到历史平均水平。
下图显示，新增清洁能源装机规模（柱图）足以覆盖新冠疫情前的历史能源需求增长水平（灰色曲线）。
事实上，2024年清洁能源供应的增长远超2015年至2020年间任何一年的能源需求增长。然而，由于高度依赖高耗能产业拉动经济增长，2023年至2024年的能源需求增长高于历史水平，其增速明显快于疫情前的年份，即使在GDP增速放缓的情况依然如此。
具体而言，2024年中国的电力需求增长率为6.8%，而GDP增长率为5%。相比之下，去年的分析假设，在疫情结束及其直接影响消退后，电力需求增长率和GDP增长率将趋同。
这一差异足以推翻对2024年的排放量预测。由于能源需求增长远超预期，即使2024年清洁能源新增装机容量巨大，也只能使排放量保持稳定，而不能使其下降。
这意味着，尽管中国的CO2排放量自3月以来一直平稳，但全年仍可能略有增长，预计增幅约为0.8%，这主要由于1月至2月受疫情后经济反弹影响，排放量快速上升。
因此，根据当前估算，2023年并未成为中国碳达峰之年，因为排放量仍在上升。
从某种角度来看，尽管能源需求增长迅猛，排放量仍能保持稳定已是一项重大成就。但从另一个角度看，若要使全球气候目标仍然有可能实现，中国的排放量必须开始在绝对值上下降。
2025年清洁能源新增装机或将更大
在2023年中国清洁能源装机容量（尤其是太阳能）大幅增长后，即使最乐观的预测也未能预料到2024年会进一步增长。
然而，2024年中国新增太阳能和风能发电装机容量分别同比增长28%和5%，分别有277GW（吉瓦）的太阳能和79GW的风能发电并网。
2025年清洁能源可能再创纪录，因为“十四五”规划（2021-2025年）即将收官，大型太阳能、风能和核电项目将加速完工。国企、地方政府和其他相关主体都在为实现各自设定的目标而努力。
根据TrendForce新能源研究中心的预测，2025年新增太阳能发电装机容量预计将与2024年相当，新增并网容量约265GW。
根据中金公司的预测，2025年新增风电装机将达110至120GW，或刷新纪录，其中海上风电预计将达到14至17GW，较2024年的7GW大幅增长。
在经过两年的低增长期后，中国的核电装机预计将显著增加，从目前的61GW增加到2025年底的65GW。
2024年底，中国新增了约3GW核电装机，其将从2025年开始为非化石能源供应做出贡献。此外，由于2023年和2024年获核准的核电项目数量创历史新高，目前中国共有55GW核电机组已获批或在建，意味着未来五年平均每年将有超过10GW的核电机组投产。
此外，根据全球能源监测（Global Energy Monitor）提供的2024年4月在建水电容量数据，减去去年已投产的容量，截至2024年底，中国仍有至少14GW的常规水电项目在建。
总体来看，2025年可能并入中国电网的新增太阳能、风电、水电和核电装机预计每年可提供超过600TWh的电力，高于2024年新增的500TWh清洁能源发电量。
然而，如上所述，如果新增清洁能源装机能顺利并网且不会出现大规模弃电问题，新增部分才能降低燃煤发电量和CO2排放量。
为了避免该情况发生，中国国家发改委于2025年1月初发布了一项新的电力系统行动计划，目标是在2025至2027年每年新增200GW以上的风能和太阳能消纳利用。
虽然这一目标低于近年来创纪录的新增清洁能源装机容量，但仍表明中央政府支持未来几年有类似的快速增长。
2024年12月，中国最高经济决策者呼吁在中国西部加快建设超大规模的清洁能源“基地”，并提出了创建“零碳工业园区”的新政策。由于工业园区排放的CO2占中国总排放量的30%，这一政策也将推动对清洁能源的进一步投资。
能源需求展望
在未来，中国的排放量是保持稳定，还是达峰后开始下降，仍然取决于新增清洁能源装机与能源需求增长之间的竞赛。
关键问题在于，近期能源需求增长异常迅猛的趋势是否会持续下去，还是会放缓，从而进入一个能源需求增速低于GDP增速的时期。
此前，即2004年和2010年前后，都曾出现类似的能源需求快速增长期，但随后都经历了需求增长放缓的阶段。特别是在2015年前后，能源需求增长明显放缓，中国的排放量也在数年内趋于平稳。
从中国近期的能源需求数据来看，有迹象表明这一模式正在重演。
具体而言，电力需求在2023年和2024年工业大幅上升，但在2024年下半年明显放缓，如下图左上角所示。
服务业和居民用电量的反弹掩盖了这一现象。居民电力需求只是回归至疫情前的趋势线，而服务业电力需求仍低于该趋势线，这反映了疫情对经济结构的长期影响。
近期的能源需求激增，背后是侧重高耗能制造业的经济战略在推动。
由于中国的制造业扩张导致了供应过剩、工业产品价格下跌和利润下降，这一做法可能已达到其极限。
现在，中国政府的目标是通过刺激家庭消费（与制造业相比，家庭消费耗能更低）和“止跌企稳”房地产行业来加快经济增长。
然而，达成这一目标并非易事。2022年的经济工作会议也曾表示，疫情后的经济复苏应由消费主导，但这一愿景并未实现。
2024年的会议减少了对“高质量发展”的着墨，这一概念不鼓励由“低质量”的建设项目所驱动的增长。当局表示要“统筹好提升质量和做大总量的关系”，而2023年当局称“高质量发展”是“硬道理”。
中国能源和排放未来会怎样？
在2024年创纪录的基础上，今年清洁能源的增加将进一步加快。与此同时，工业电力需求的增长自夏季以来已明显放缓。
这两种趋势表明，今年电力行业的排放量可能会下降。然而，政府的刺激措施可能会导致重工业再次出现快速增长，尤其是在建筑业反弹的情况下，这可能会抵消CO2排放量的下降。
如果建筑活动强劲复苏，可能会进一步推动排放增长。煤炭行业看涨，中国煤炭运销协会预计2025年煤炭消费将增长1%。
中国煤炭工业协会预计燃煤和燃气发电量将增长4.5%。该协会认为，扩大投资和稳定房地产市场的刺激政策将导致钢铁、水泥和其他主要耗煤行业的产量增加。
然而，即使政策制定者真的实施了建筑业刺激政策，一个关键问题是其效果有多大、速度有多快。
无论行业协会抱有怎样的希望，迄今为止政府的刺激措施尚未改变市场对钢铁需求下降的预期。
预计实施经济刺激政策的地方政府可能难以大幅增加支出，而且与以往的经济刺激周期相比，对新基础设施的需求要少得多。
如果政府能成功地将低耗能的家庭消费重振为增长来源，那么能源需求的增长就会恢复正常，清洁能源就可以轻松满足所有的增长需求。如果是这样，排放量将开始持续下降。
2025年之后，中国的能源和排放趋势将更加难以确定。例如，尽管最近出现了积极的信号，但今年之后新增清洁能源装机的速度更加不确定。
中国在《巴黎协定》下新的自主贡献承诺预计将在今年发布，其中包含2030年和2035年的目标。此外，涵盖2026至2030年的“十五五规划”将在今年编制，并在2026年初发布。因此，2025年做出的政策决定不仅会在今年，而且会在未来多年对中国的排放轨迹产生重大影响。
The post 分析：2024年中国清洁能源创纪录增长遏制CO2上升 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The European Commission has rejected requests by green groups to review the status of 16 controversial projects it has designated as “strategic” to shore up the bloc’s supply of critical minerals needed for the energy transition, despite environmental concerns.
Campaigners accused the European Union’s executive arm of being more interested in labelling projects as “strategic” to accelerate their development than ensuring they meet its environmental standards.
Legal experts told Climate Home News that despite the EU’s rhetoric on developing sustainable mining standards, it will be very difficult for local communities and NGOs to use the judicial system to enforce compliance with environmental safeguards.
Earlier this year, the European Commission labelled 47 mineral extraction, processing and recycling projects within EU member states as “strategic“, granting them preferential treatment for gaining permits and easier access to EU funding.
-
Europe’s lithium rush leaves mineral-rich communities in the dark
Local residents are seeking more information and want stronger guarantees that mining won’t harm the nature on which their incomes depend -
South Africa’s platinum mine dumps get a second look as clean energy lifts demand
Mining firms say extracting minerals from tailings is a sustainable way to boost global supplies, but local communities want to see benefits this time around -
COP30 draft text includes energy transition minerals in UN climate first
A draft negotiating text on defining principles for a just transition to clean energy systems recognises the social and environmental risks associated with mining critical minerals
Spanning from the north of Sweden to Portugal and southern Spain, these projects are due to help the EU reach targets for sourcing more of the minerals it needs for clean energy and digital technologies within its own borders in an environmentally friendly way, while reducing its dependence on imports from China.
However, NGOs and local communities have accused the European Commission of a lack of transparency and of failing to engage civil society over the selection of these projects, most of which are in the early stages of development and are yet to obtain the necessary permits or conduct detailed environmental impact assessments.
Civil society groups challenged the decision to include around a third of projects on the strategic list, arguing that the commission had not properly assessed their sustainability. They also cited risks of social and environmental harm and human rights violations.
EU: Environmental compliance lies with member states
In total, 11 requests for review covering 16 of the projects planned within the EU were filed under the Aarhus Regulation, which gives NGOs the right to ask the European Commission to review administrative decisions if they are considered to violate the bloc’s environmental law.
In a single response shared with green groups this week, and seen by Climate Home News, the commission found that the requests to review the projects’ status were “unfounded”.
“A thorough assessment confirmed that all points raised by the NGOs had already been properly addressed during the selection process. All the projects concerned therefore retain their status as strategic projects,” a European Commission spokesperson told Climate Home News. They did not respond to detailed questions about their assessment.
Under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act, which was adopted last year, the commission can designate mineral projects as strategic if they meet a shortlist of criteria, including that the project “would be implemented sustainably” and monitor, prevent and minimise environmental and adverse social impacts.
The strategic status can be revoked if projects no longer meet the criteria.
However, the commission said it was not its job to carry out a full and detailed assessment of whether the projects fully comply with EU environmental laws, adding that it is only required to make an “overall assessment”.
Rather, it argued, member states have the responsibility to ensure the projects fully comply with EU environmental standards including impacts on biodiversity and ground water as well as waste management.
The commission also refused to examine the social impacts of the projects on community livelihoods, health and human rights – which could arise from environmental degradation – arguing that this was outside the scope of the review mechanism under the Aarhus Regulation.
Campaigners have strongly criticised the response.
“Cosmetic”sustainability criteria
Ilze Tralmaka, a lawyer at Client Earth, told Climate Home News the commission’s decision showed that the designation of mineral projects as “strategic” doesn’t make them safe or sustainable, despite creating a legal presumption that they serve the public interest and protect public health and safety.
“While on paper, there is mention of sustainability, in practice, it’s almost cosmetic,” she said. “It seems the environmental standards are just briefly looked at and that the policy of declaring these projects as strategic is more important than real engagement with the sustainability criteria.”
Client Earth argues that while securing supplies of minerals for the energy transition is a legitimate goal, the status of strategic project is being “misused” to fast-track questionable mining projects.
Tralmaka said the European Commission should engage where there are “unanswered questions, or if there is credible information about these projects being potentially unsafe”.
Client Earth was part of a group of NGOs that challenged the decision to designate the Barroso lithium project in Portugal as a strategic project.
“Textbook example of how not to do a green transition”
London-listed Savannah Resources is planning to dig four open pit mines in the northern Barroso region to extract lithium from Europe’s largest known deposit. The company says it will extract enough lithium every year to produce around half a million batteries for electric vehicles.
However, local groups have staunchly opposed the mining project, citing concerns over waste management and water use as well as the impact of the mine on traditional agriculture in the area.
Earlier this year, a UN committee found that Portugal had failed to respect citizens’ rights to information and public participation in the case of the Barroso project. Portuguese authorities denied the breach.
Efforts to green lithium extraction face scrutiny over water use
The commission said it was satisfied with the project’s overall sustainability credentials and that campaign groups should take a case to their national court if they are concerned about the legality of any project.
“This decision shows that the EU is willing to trade rural lives and irreplaceable landscapes for a political headline,” said Nik Völker of MiningWatch Portugal. “The truth is, the Mina do Barroso mine offers minimal benefits and enormous risks: a textbook example of how not to do a green transition.”
Savannah Resources did not respond to a request for comment.
“Murky” standards make legal challenge hard
Simon Simanovski, a business and human rights attorney with German law firm Günther Rechtsanwälte, has advised dozens of communities affected by projects designated as “strategic” under the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act over the past year.
For him, the commission’s response creates a disconnect between its role as a decision-making body and the responsibility for enforcing the bloc’s environmental laws, by pushing it to member states. That, he said, creates “murky standards”.
This, he added, will make it “really difficult” to challenge inadequate environmental safeguards through the courts. “It means that there is no effective judicial protection… and that the projects will happen,” he told Climate Home News.
However, Simanovski still expects some campaign groups to try filing a case before the general court of the European Court of Justice to challenge the European Commission’s response and ask it to review its assessment of the projects.
Simanovski represents communities in Serbia that are also challenging the “strategic” designation of the Jadar lithium mine – one of an additional 13 “strategic projects” located outside EU countries – which has seen massive local opposition.
The commission is expected to respond to requests to review those external strategic projects in January.
The post EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition
Climate Change
DeBriefed 28 November 2025: COP30’s ‘frustrating’ end; Asia floods; UK ‘emergency’ climate event
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
‘Lukewarm’ end to COP30
BYE BELÉM: The COP30 climate talks in Belém ended last weekend with countries agreeing on a goal to “triple” adaptation finance by 2035 and efforts to “strengthen” climate plans, Climate Home News reported. The final deal “fell short on the global transition away from oil, gas and coal”, the outlet said, as Brazil announced that it would bring forward voluntary roadmaps to phase out fossil fuels and deforestation, before the next COP. It was a “frustrating end” for more than 80 countries who wanted a roadmap away from fossil fuels to be part of the formal COP agreement, BBC News said.
WHAT HAPPENED?: Carbon Brief published its in-depth analysis of all the key outcomes from COP30, spanning everything from negotiations on adaptation, just transition, gender and “Article 6” carbon trading through to a round-up of pledges on various issues. Another Carbon Brief article summed up outcomes around food, forests, land and nature. Also, Carbon Brief journalists discussed the COP in a webinar held earlier this week.
ART OF THE DEAL: The “compromise” COP30 deal – known as the “global mutirão” – “exposed deep rifts over how future climate action should be pursued”, Reuters noted. The “last-ditch” agreement was reached after fossil-fuel wording negotiations between the EU and Saudi Arabia, according to the Guardian. Meanwhile, Carbon Brief revealed the “informal” list of 84 countries said to have “opposed” the inclusion of a fossil-fuel roadmap in the mutirão decision, but analysis of the list exposed contradictions and likely errors.
UNITY, SCIENCE, SENSE: The final agreement received “lukewarm praise”, said the Associated Press. Palau ambassador Ilana Seid, who chaired the coalition of small-island nations, told the newswire: “Given the circumstances of geopolitics today, we’re actually quite pleased…The alternative is that we don’t get a decision and that would have been [worse].” UN climate chief Simon Stiell said that amid “denial, division and geopolitics”, countries “chose unity, science and economic common sense”, reported the Press Trust of India.
Around the world
- Floods and landslides killed more than 200 people in Thailand and Indonesia this week, reported Bloomberg. At least 90 people also died in recent floods in Vietnam, said Al Jazeera.
- New measures to cut energy bills and a “pay-per-mile” electric-vehicle levy were among the announcements in the UK’s budget, said Carbon Brief.
- The Group of 20 (G20) leaders signed off on a declaration “addressing the climate crisis” and other issues, reported Reuters, which had no input from the US who boycotted last week’s G20 summit in South Africa.
- Canadian prime minister Mark Carney signed a deal with the province of Alberta “centred on plans for a new heavy oil pipeline”, said the Guardian, adding that Canadian culture minister and former environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, resigned from cabinet over the deal.
- Greenpeace analysis, covered by Reuters, found that permits for new coal plants in China are “on track to fall to a four-year low” in 2025.
27
The number of hours that COP30 talks went over schedule before ending in Belém last Saturday, making it the 11th-longest UN climate summit on record, according to analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- The risk of night-time deaths during heatwaves increased “significantly” over 2005-15 in sub-Saharan Africa | Science Advances
- Almost half of climate journalists surveyed showed “moderate to severe” symptoms of anxiety | Traumatology
- Lakes experienced “more severe” heatwaves than those in the atmosphere over the past two decades | Communications Earth & Environment
(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 key COP30 agreement – termed the “global mutirão” – contained 69 inactive verbs, which require no action from countries, compared to 32 active ones. “Recognises”, “recalls” and “acknowledges” were used far more often than more active verbs, such as “decides”, “calls” and “requests”, showed Carbon Brief analysis.
Spotlight
Nine warnings from a UK climate and nature ‘emergency’ briefing
This week, Carbon Brief’s Orla Dwyer reports from an event where experts and campaigners sounded the alarm bell on climate change and nature loss.
Naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham urged attendees at a climate and nature “emergency briefing” in London yesterday to “listen to the science” on climate change amid a “dangerous wave of misinformation and lies”.
The “first-of-its-kind” event heard from nine experts on the links between climate change, nature loss, health, food production, economics and national security.
Event host, Prof Mike Berners-Lee from Lancaster University, called for a “World War II level of leadership” to tackle the interconnected crises.
Hundreds of people showed up, including Green Party, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, leader of the Greens Zack Polanski, musician Brian Eno and actress Olivia Williams.
Here is a snapshot of what the nine speakers said in their short, but stark, presentations.
Prof Kevin Anderson, professor of energy at University of Manchester
Anderson focused on the risks of a warmer world and the sliver of emissions left in the global carbon budget, noting:
“We have to eliminate fossil fuels or temperatures will just keep going up.”
He urged a “Marshall-style” plan – referencing the 1948 post-war US plan to rebuild Europe – to ramp up actions on retrofitting, public transport and electrification.
Prof Nathalie Seddon, professor of biodiversity at University of Oxford
Nature is not a “nice to have”, but rather “critical national infrastructure”, Seddon told attendees. She called for the “need to create an economy that values nature”.
Prof Paul Behrens, British Academy global professor at University of Oxford
Behrens discussed the food security risks from climate change. Impacts such as poor harvests and food price inflation are “barely acknowledge[d]” in agricultural policy, he said.
He also emphasised the “unsustainable” land use of animal agriculture, which “occupies around 85% of total agricultural land” in the UK.
Prof Tim Lenton, chair in climate change and Earth system science at Exeter University
Lenton outlined the “plenty” of evidence that parts of the Earth system are hurtling towards climate tipping points that could push them irreversibly into a new state.
He discussed the possibility of the shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which he said could cause -20C winters in London. He also noted positive tipping points, such as momentum that led the UK to stop burning coal for electricity last year.
Prof Hayley Fowler, professor of climate change impacts at Newcastle University
One in four properties in England could be at risk of flooding by 2050, Fowler said, and winters are getting wetter.
She discussed extreme weather risks and listed the impacts of floods in recent years in Germany, Spain and Libya, adding:
“These events are not warnings of what might happen in the future. They’re actually examples of what is happening right now.”
Angela Francis, director of policy solutions at WWF-UK
Francis factchecked several claims made against climate action, such as the high cost of achieving net-zero.
She noted that the estimated cost for the UK to achieve net-zero is about £4bn per year, which is less than 0.2% of GDP.
Lieutenant general Richard Nugee, climate and security advisor
Discussing the risks climate change poses to national security, Nugee said:
“Climate change can be thought of as a threat multiplier, making existing threats worse or more frequent and introducing new threats. Climate shocks fuel global instability.”
Tessa Khan, environmental lawyer and executive director of Uplift
Khan said the rising cost of energy in the UK is “turning into a significant political risk for the energy transition”.
She discussed the cost of fossil-fuel dependency and the fact that these fuels cost money to burn, but renewable “input[s], sun or wind [are] free forever”.
Prof Hugh Montgomery, professor of intensive care medicine at University College London
Montgomery discussed the health and economic benefits of climate actions, such as eating less meat and using more public transport, noting:
“The climate emergency is a health emergency – and it’s about time we started treating it as one.”
Watch, read, listen
WATER WORRIES: ABC News spoke to three Iranian women about the impacts of Tehran’s water crisis amid the “worst drought in 60 years”.
CLIMATE EFFORT: The BBC’s Climate Question podcast looked at the main outcomes from COP30 and discussed the “future of climate action” with a team of panelists.
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR:New Scientist interviewed criminal psychologist Julia Shaw about the psychology behind environmental crimes.
Coming up
- 24 November-5 December: COP20 on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, Samarkand, Uzbekistan
- 29-30 November: First part of global youth environment assembly, Nairobi, Kenya
- 3-4 December: Second round of Egyptian parliamentary elections
- 5 December: World soil day, global
Pick of the jobs
- Aldersgate Group, head of policy | Salary: £56,650-£66,950 per year. Location: London
- Ofgem, climate resilience expert | Salary: £61,446-£86,547. Location: Cardiff, Glasgow or London
- Green Climate Fund, integrity risk management lead | Salary: $171,200. Location: Incheon, South Korea
- Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust, project manager – seabird recovery | Salary: Up to £45,000 per year. Location: Isles of Scilly, UK
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 28 November 2025: COP30’s ‘frustrating’ end; Asia floods; UK ‘emergency’ climate event appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 28 November 2025: COP30’s ‘frustrating’ end; Asia floods; UK ‘emergency’ climate event
Climate Change
Revealed: Leak casts doubt on COP30’s ‘informal list’ of fossil-fuel roadmap opponents
A confused – and, at times, contradictory – story has emerged about precisely which countries and negotiating blocs were opposed to a much-discussed “roadmap” deal at COP30 on “transitioning away from fossil fuels”.
Carbon Brief has obtained a leaked copy of the 84-strong “informal list” of countries that, as a group, were characterised across multiple media reports as “blocking” the roadmap’s inclusion in the final “mutirão” deal across the second week of negotiations at the UN climate summit in Belém.
During the fraught closing hours of the summit, Carbon Brief understands that the Brazilian presidency told negotiators in a closed meeting that there was no prospect of reaching consensus on the roadmap’s inclusion, because there were “80 for and 80 against”.
However, Carbon Brief’s analysis of the list – which was drawn up informally by the presidency – shows that it contains a variety of contradictions and likely errors.
Among the issues identified by Carbon Brief is the fact that 14 countries are listed as both supporting and opposing the idea of including a fossil-fuel roadmap in the COP30 outcome.
In addition, the list of those said to have opposed a roadmap includes all 42 of the members of a negotiating group present in Belém – the least-developed countries (LDCs) – that has explicitly told Carbon Brief it did not oppose the idea.
Moreover, one particularly notable entry on the list, Turkey – which is co-president of COP31 – tells Carbon Brief that its inclusion is “wrong”.
Negotiating blocs
COP28, held in Dubai in 2023, had finalised the first “global stocktake”, which called on all countries to contribute to global efforts, including a “transition away from fossil fuels”.
Since then, negotiations on how to take this forward have faltered, including at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, where countries were unable to agree to include this fossil-fuel transition as part of existing or new processes under the UN climate regime.
Ahead of the start of COP30, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made a surprise call for “roadmaps” on fossil-fuel transition and deforestation.
While this idea was not on the official agenda for COP30, it had been under development for months ahead of the summit – and it became a key point of discussion in Belém.
Ultimately, however, it did not become part of the formal COP30 outcome, with the Brazilian presidency instead launching a process to draw up roadmaps under its own initiative.
This is because the COP makes decisions by consensus. The COP30 presidency insisted that there was no prospect of consensus being reached on a fossil-fuel roadmap, telling closed-door negotiations that there were “80 for and 80 against”.
The list of countries supporting a roadmap as part of the COP30 outcome was obtained by Carbon Brief during the talks. Until now, however, the list of those opposed to the idea had not been revealed.
Carbon Brief understands that this second list was drawn up informally by the Brazilian presidency after a meeting attended by representatives of around 50 nations. It was then filled out to the final total of 84 countries, based on membership of negotiating alliances.
The bulk of the list of countries opposing a roadmap – some 39 nations – is made up of two negotiating blocs that opposed the proposal for divergent reasons (see below). Some countries within these blocs also held different positions on why – or even whether – they opposed the roadmap being included in the COP30 deal.
These blocs are the 22-strong Arab group – chaired in Belém by Saudi Arabia – and the 25 members of the “like-minded developing countries” (LMDCs), chaired by India.
For decades within the UN climate negotiations, countries have sat within at least one negotiating bloc rather than act in isolation. At COP30, the UN says there were 16 “active groups”. (Since its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has not sat within any group.)
The inclusion on the “informal list” (shown in full below) of both the LMDCs and Arab group is accurate, as confirmed by the reporting of the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), which is the only organisation authorised to summarise what has happened in UN negotiations that are otherwise closed to the media.
Throughout the fortnight of the talks, both the LMDCs and Arab group were consistent – at times together – in their resistance to proscriptive wording and commitments within any part of the COP30 deal around transitioning away from fossil fuels.
But the reasons provided were nuanced and varied and cannot be characterised as meaning both blocs simply did not wish to undertake the transition – in fact, all countries under the Paris Agreement had already agreed to this in Dubai two years ago at COP28.
However, further analysis by Carbon Brief of the list shows that it also – mistakenly – includes all of the members of the LDCs, bar Afghanistan and Myanmar, which were not present at the talks. In total, the LDCs represented 42 nations in Belém, ranging from Bangladesh and Benin through to Tuvalu and Tanzania.
Some of the LDC nations had publicly backed a fossil-fuel roadmap.
‘Not correct’
Manjeet Dhakal, lead adviser to the LDC chair, tells Carbon Brief that it is “not correct” that the LDCs, as a bloc, opposed a fossil-fuel roadmap during the COP30 negotiations.
He says that the group’s expectations, made public before COP, clearly identified transitioning away from fossil fuels as an “urgent action” to keep the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C goal “within reach”. He adds:
“The LDC group has never blocked a fossil-fuel roadmap. [In fact], a few LDCs, including Nepal, have supported the idea.”
Dhakal’s statement highlights a further confusing feature of the informal list – 14 countries appear on both of the lists of supporters and opposers. This is possible because many countries sit within two or more negotiating blocs at UN climate talks.
For example, Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu are members of both the “alliance of small island states” (AOSIS) and the LDCs.
As is the case with the “informal list” of opposers, the list of supporters (which was obtained by Carbon Brief during the talks) is primarily made up of negotiating alliances.
Specifically, it includes AOSIS, the “environmental integrity group” (EIG), the “independent association of Latin America and the Caribbean” (AILAC) and the European Union (EU).
In alphabetical order, the 14 countries on both lists are: Bahrain; Bulgaria; Comoros; Cuba; Czech Republic; Guinea-Bissau; Haiti; Hungary; Kiribati; Nepal; Sierra Leone; Solomon Islands; Timor-Leste; and Tuvalu.
This obvious anomaly acts to highlight the mistaken inclusion of the LDCs on the informal list of opposers.
The list includes 37 of the 54 nations within the Africa group, which was chaired by Tanzania in Belém.
But this also appears to be a function of the mistaken inclusion of the LDCs in the list, many of which sit within both blocs.
Confusion
An overview of the talks published by the Guardian this week reported:
“Though [Brazil’s COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago] told the Guardian [on 19 November] that the divide over the [roadmap] issue could be bridged, [he] kept insisting 80 countries were against the plan, though these figures were never substantiated. One negotiator told the Guardian: ‘We don’t understand where that number comes from.’
“A clue came when Richard Muyungi, the Tanzanian climate envoy who chairs the African group, told a closed meeting that all its 54 members aligned with the 22-member Arab Group on the issue. But several African countries told the Guardian this was not true and that they supported the phaseout – and Tanzania has a deal with Saudi Arabia to exploit its gas reserves.”
Adding to the confusion, the Guardian also said two of the most powerful members of the LMDCs were not opposed to a roadmap, reporting: “China, having demurred on the issue, indicated it would not stand in the way [of a roadmap]; India also did not object.”
Writing for Climate Home News, ActionAid USA’s Brandon Wu said:
“Between rich country intransigence and undemocratic processes, it’s understandable – and justifiable – that many developing countries, including most of the Africa group, are uncomfortable with the fossil-fuel roadmap being pushed for at COP30. It doesn’t mean they are all ‘blockers’ or want the world to burn, and characterising them as such is irresponsible.
“The core package of just transition, public finance – including for adaptation and loss and damage – and phasing out fossil fuels and deforestation is exactly that: a package. The latter simply will not happen, politically or practically, without the former.”
Carbon Brief understands that Nigeria was a vocal opponent of the roadmap’s inclusion in the mutirão deal during the final hours of the closed-door negotiations, but that does not equate to it opposing a transition away from fossil fuels. This is substantiated by the ENB summary:
“During the…closing plenary…Nigeria stressed that the transition away from fossil fuels should be conducted in a nationally determined way, respecting [common, but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities].”
The “informal list” of opposers also includes three EU members – Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The EU – led politically at the talks by climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, but formally chaired by Denmark – was reportedly at the heart of efforts to land a deal that explicitly included a “roadmap” for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Carbon Brief understands that, as part of the “informal intelligence gathering” used to compile the list, pre-existing positions on climate actions by nations were factored in rather than only counting positions expressed at Belém. For example, Hungary and the Czech Republic were reported to have been among those resisting the last-minute “hard-fought deal” by the EU on its 2040 climate target and latest Paris Agreement climate pledge.
(Note that EU members Poland and Italy did not join the list of countries supporting a fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30.)
The remaining individual nations on the informal list either have economies that are heavily dependent on fossil-fuel production (for example, Russia and Brunei Darussalam), or are, like the US, currently led by right-leaning governments resistant to climate action (for example, Argentina).
Turkey is a notable inclusion on the list because it was agreed in Belém that it will host next year’s COP31 in Antalya, but with Australia leading the negotiation process. In contrast, Australia is on the 85-strong list of roadmap supporters.
However, a spokesperson for Turkey’s delegation in Belem has told Carbon Brief that it did not oppose the roadmap at COP30 and its inclusion on the list is “wrong”.
Media characterisations
Some media reporting of the roadmap “blockers” sought to identify the key proponents.
For example, the Sunday Times said “the ‘axis of obstruction’ – Saudi Arabia, Russia and China – blocked the Belém roadmap”.
Agence France-Presse highlighted the views of a French minister who said: “Who are the biggest blockers? We all know them. They are the oil-producing countries, of course. Russia, India, Saudi Arabia. But they are joined by many emerging countries.”
Reuters quoted Vanuatu’s climate minister alleging that “Saudi Arabia was one of those opposed”.
The Financial Times said “a final agreement [was] blocked again and again by countries led by Saudi Arabia and Russia”.
Bloomberg said the roadmap faced “stiff opposition from Arab states and Russia”.
Media coverage in India and China has pushed back at the widespread portrayals of what many other outlets had described as the “blockers” of a fossil-fuel roadmap.
The Indian Express reported:
“India said it was not opposed to the mention of a fossil-fuel phaseout plan in the package, but it must be ensured that countries are not called to adhere to a uniform pathway for it.”
Separately, speaking on behalf of the LMDCs during the closing plenary at COP30, India had said: “Adaptation is a priority. Our regime is not mitigation centric.”
China Daily, a state-run newspaper that often reflects the government’s official policy positions, published a comment article this week stating:
“Over 80 countries insisted that the final deal must include a concrete plan to act on the previous commitment to move beyond coal, oil, and natural gas adopted at COP28…But many delegates from the global south disagreed, citing concerns about likely sudden economic contraction and heightened social instability. The summit thus ended without any agreement on this roadmap.
“Now that the conference is over, and emotions are no longer running high, all parties should look objectively at the potential solution proposed by China, which some international media outlets wrongly painted as an opponent to the roadmap.
“Addressing an event on the sidelines of the summit, Xia Yingxian, deputy head of China’s delegation to COP30, said the narrative on transitioning away from fossil fuels would find greater acceptance if it were framed differently, focusing more on the adoption of renewable energy sources.”
Speaking to Carbon Brief at COP30, Dr Osama Faqeeha, Saudi Arabia’s deputy environment minister, refused to be drawn on whether a fossil-fuel roadmap was a red line for his nation, but said:
“I think the issue is the emissions, it’s not the fuel. And our position is that we have to cut emissions regardless.”
Neither the Arab group nor the LMDCs responded to Carbon Brief’s invitation to comment on their inclusion on the list.
The Brazilian COP30 presidency did not respond at the time of publication.
While the fossil-fuel roadmap was not part of the formal COP30 outcome, the Brazilian presidency announced in the closing plenary that it would take the idea forward under its own initiative, drawing on an international conference hosted in Colombia next year.
Corrêa do Lago told the closing plenary:
“We know some of you had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand…As president Lula said at the opening of this COP, we need roadmaps so that humanity, in a just and planned manner, can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation and mobilise resources for these purposes.
“I, as president of COP30, will therefore create two roadmaps, one on halting and reverting deforestation, another to transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner. They will be led by science and they will be inclusive with the spirit of the mutirão.
“We will convene high level dialogues, gathering key international organisations, governments from both producing and consuming countries, industry workers, scholars, civil society and will report back to the COP. We will also benefit from the first international conference for the phase-out of fossil fuels, scheduled to take place in April in Colombia.”
Fossil-fuel roadmap
‘Supporters’
Both ‘supporter’ and ‘opposer’
‘Opposers’
Additional reporting by Daisy Dunne.
The post Revealed: Leak casts doubt on COP30’s ‘informal list’ of fossil-fuel roadmap opponents appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: Leak casts doubt on COP30’s ‘informal list’ of fossil-fuel roadmap opponents
Walmart (WMT) Expands EV Charging and Boosts Renewable Energy in Its Net-Zero Playbook
Before Trump, “Contempt of Court” Used to Be a Big Deal
EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases4 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
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”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale