The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a vast system of ocean currents that helps to distribute heat around the world.
By transporting warm water from the tropics northwards and cold water back southwards, the AMOC keeps Europe warm and plays a role in controlling global rainfall.
It connects into an even larger network of ocean currents that continuously moves water, nutrients and carbon around the world.
Now, the AMOC is under threat from human-caused climate change, as warming seas, melting ice and increased rainfall upset the temperature and salt balance of the North Atlantic.
Scientists have warned that the ocean currents are slowing down – and could eventually become so frail that they no longer transport heat around the globe.
A growing body of research has suggested that, with enough warming, the AMOC could reach a “tipping point” and transition to a weak state for many centuries.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected that the AMOC will decline over the course of the 21st century as the world warms.
However, whether – and when – currents might “collapse” remains a subject of debate.
The IPCC says a “collapse” before 2100 is unlikely.
However, some scientists have argued climate change could force the AMOC past a “point of no return” over the coming decades that could usher it towards a “shutdown” next century.
A major slowdown or “tipping” of the AMOC could have grave consequences for European temperatures, causing them to plunge – despite global warming.
It could also affect global food supply, sea level rise and global rainfall patterns, or even act as a catalyst that sets off a series of other catastrophic climate “tipping points”.
Below, Carbon Brief explains what the AMOC is and how it is being impacted by climate change.
The article also explores scientific debates around the future of the AMOC, including what the latest research says about the possibility and consequences of a collapse of the ocean currents.
To read the full article, click here: https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/amoc-explainer/index.html“
The post AMOC: Is global warming tipping key Atlantic ocean currents towards ‘collapse’? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/amoc-is-global-warming-tipping-key-atlantic-ocean-currents-towards-collapse/
Chinese government leaders published a policy document on 22 April – Earth Day – calling for stricter controls on fossil-fuel consumption and greater oversight of heavy emitters.
It has been interpreted by experts as a signal of China’s ongoing commitment to climate action and a bridging policy between the 15th five-year plan, published in March, and future thematic and sectoral five-year plans expected to be published in the months and years ahead.
While the policy document – known as “guiding opinions” – is not strictly binding, it bears the stamp of the two highest bodies in China’s political system, conveying a strong sense of authority.
One expert tells Carbon Brief that this is the first high-level document to explicitly link decarbonisation efforts with energy security and industrial development.
It was also followed on 23 April by a second document, which is binding, that strengthens environmental inspections of provincial governments and creates new metrics for future evaluations, such as total emissions and coal consumption.
Below, Carbon Brief examines how the policies could impact China’s approach to peaking its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
- Why are ‘guiding opinions’ important?
- What does the new ‘opinions’ document say about fossil fuels?
- How have climate evaluation rules been strengthened?
- What does the ‘opinions’ document say about energy security?
Why are ‘guiding opinions’ important?
Documents play an important role in disseminating political messages through China’s vast government bureaucracy. There is a well-defined hierarchy for different types of policies, each of which infer a different level of importance and flexibility.
“Opinions” are officially defined by the Chinese government as the “presentation of views and proposed solutions regarding important issues”.
They outline broad principles and general policy directions for lower levels of government to incorporate into more concrete policies.
Policy recommendations included in an opinion are implied to be non-binding, allowing officials more discretion in how they are implemented on the ground.
Prof Yuan Jiahai from the North China Electric Power University in Beijing previously told Carbon Brief that naming a document “guiding opinions” means it will have a “long-term, directional and systematic impact”.
An example is a set of opinions on a “green and low-carbon circular development economic system” issued in February 2021, which laid out broad policy recommendations across several economic sectors to spur “green planning, green design, green investment, green construction, green production, green circulation, green life and green consumption”.
“Following these opinions, China’s green growth accelerated significantly,” Prof Christoph Nedopil, professor at the University of Queensland, tells Carbon Brief. He adds:
“This is not to say that some of the developments would not have happened without such a guidance, but the guidance provided the clear direction and authority to various government departments and businesses to strengthen the support for the green and low-carbon transition.”
The new “opinions” document, on energy saving and carbon reduction, carries additional weight because of the bodies that issued it. Specifically, it was issued jointly by the general offices of the central committee of the Communist party of China (CCCPC), the highest party organ and headed by President Xi Jinping, and the state council, the highest government body and headed by Premier Li Qiang. This indicates that it has the approval of all of China’s most senior policymakers.
The document “signals China’s increasing confidence in its clean-energy sector”, says Yang Biqing, energy analyst for Asia at thinktank Ember.
The timing also makes the document important, says Hu Min, director and co-founder for the Beijing-based thinktank Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress.
She notes that the document, published soon after the close of the “two sessions” in March, is a “way to move things forward” in energy and climate policy. Hu adds that it sends a signal of the direction likely to be taken in upcoming thematic and sectoral five-year plans on topics such as peaking carbon emissions, renewable energy and coal.
“I’m quite excited about it,” she tells Carbon Brief.
What does the new ‘opinions’ document say about fossil fuels?
The opinions document includes a plethora of recommendations across several sectors, from promoting energy-saving measures in data centres and clean heating solutions to developing “integrated steel-to-chemicals” projects and “zero-carbon transport corridors”.
But some of the most interesting language was reserved for the use of coal.
China’s carbon reduction “situation…remains relatively severe”, says a government statement summarised by carbon-market information platform Tanpaifang, with the energy system still “reliant” on coal.
The “opinions” document is, therefore, of “great significance for building broader and stronger consensus across society”, it adds.
In 2025, developers in China submitted new or reactivated proposals to build a total of 161 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants, as shown in the figure below.
The new document acknowledges the need to “strictly control fossil-fuel consumption”, in language significantly stronger than the 15th five-year plan published after the two-sessions meeting in March.
The five-year plan only pledged to “promote the peaking” of coal and oil use.
The document also outlines several other measures for managing fossil-fuel CO2 emissions, including “deepening efforts to reduce coal and oil use”, “actively promoting the clean replacement” of coal-fired equipment and “advancing” the replacement of “dispersed coal” use in an “orderly” manner.
However, it stops short of a complete rejection of coal-fired power, saying, for example, that policymakers should “reasonably control the scale of coal-fired power generation capacity and output”.
Nevertheless, Hu tells Carbon Brief, the document represents efforts by China’s leaders to “articulate” what controlling fossil fuels might look like.
Yang agrees, saying that the shift in the language on coal was “encouraging”.
She notes the granularity of the recommendations around coal, such as a line urging policymakers to “determine the dispatch sequence and load regulation for coal-fired power”.
“It is very interesting that, at this high level [of government], they have so clearly outlined this obstacle in coal’s [changing] role…from baseload to flexibility,” she says.
Experts interviewed by Carbon Brief said the language on renewable energy, which signalled ongoing support for China’s clean-energy buildout, was positive but unsurprising.
The document urges officials to “vigorously develop non-fossil energy sources and new-energy storage technologies”, highlighting the need for technologies such as pumped-storage hydropower and microgrids to boost consumption.
For Hu, market conditions, investment and local policies are now more important than central government signals for China’s clean-energy buildout.
The main debate is fossil fuels, she says, and any signals that encourage limiting coal use will “make a difference”.
How have climate evaluation rules been strengthened?
The guiding opinions document also dedicates significant space to outlining measures for reviewing and evaluating carbon-reduction efforts.
It states that local officials should undertake “comprehensive” evaluations of the energy consumption, coal consumption and carbon emissions of new projects, with plans to reduce or offset emissions becoming a “key component” of evaluating the project.
Similarly, the plan pledges to strengthen the review by the central government of local governments’ annual reports on energy use and carbon emissions, with warnings issued to local governments for “lagging progress” or “unreasonable increases in indicators”.
The central government will also strengthen supervision through “regular special inspections”, the “opinions” document says.
For regions that are “severely” falling behind on targets or are found to have “insufficient” ability to run their own inspections, the opinions threaten to “adjust or suspend their authority” for conducting evaluations and “delay or restrict” approvals for new projects.
The document also makes “local party committees and governments” responsible for their jurisdictions’ carbon reduction work. Party members and state-owned enterprises must “lead by example”, it adds.
The day after the opinions were released, the CCCPC and state council also issued a series of measures for “comprehensive evaluation” of local efforts to peak and reduce carbon emissions.
Unlike the guiding opinions, this document is considered binding policy – in this case overseen primarily by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s powerful economic planning agency.
Under the new rules, central government officials – led by the NDRC with significant input from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), National Energy Administration (NEA) and other departments – will grade local governments on their carbon-reduction efforts.
The measures largely align provinces’ emissions reduction evaluations with China’s existing climate pledges for 2030.
Key targets include reducing carbon intensity by more than 65% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, “reasonably” controlling coal-fired power generation, achieving a “25% share of non-fossil energy consumption by 2030” and “gradually” covering all new power demand with clean energy.
The government also sets out 14 indicators, shown in the table below. At the top of the list are five key “control indicators”: total carbon emissions; reductions in carbon intensity; total coal consumption; total oil consumption; and the share of non-fossil energy consumption.
The NDRC is responsible for evaluating all five of the key indicators, with the MEE also overseeing the first three.
Provinces that fail to meet any of the control indicators will receive an “unsatisfactory” rating, leading to “corrective measures”, according to solar news outlet Zhihui Photovoltaic.
In a comment article in finance news outlet Caixin, Chen Lihao says that the two documents together “form the institutional foundation” for China’s “full-scale transition” to a dual control of carbon system.
Chen is the deputy director of the special committee on resources and environment at the Jiusan Society, the political party that environment minister Huang Runqiu belongs to.
The measures build on China’s existing inspection system to create a “much stronger accountability and compliance system”, says Qin Qi, China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
The “real step forward”, she adds, is how climate and carbon targets – including China’s international commitments – have now been explicitly placed inside a “party-backed assessment framework” that uses pass-or-fail judgements on each indicator, rather than letting weak performance disappear inside a broad score.
Li Shuo, China climate hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute echoes this, telling Carbon Brief that the new policy represents a “helpful step toward implementation, bringing greater clarity on tasks and responsibilities”.
Inspections are regarded as a powerful tool for the MEE in enforcing climate policy, allowing it to publicly identify non-compliant bodies, with state media often announcing results.
In 2021, inspection teams even publicly criticised the NEA, scolding it for “falling behind” on developing low-carbon energy in a move described at the time as “unprecedented”.
The emphasis that the opinions document places on evaluations and the stronger requirements that it represents “shows…the whole system that this is very important…it’s not just talk”, says Hu. (Hu spoke with Carbon Brief before the evaluation framework was released.)
However, both Li and Qin note that much depends on how the evaluations are enforced.
The strength of the system will “inevitably involve further political bargaining within the Chinese system”, says Li, shaped both by differences in the priorities of different ministries and geopolitical developments – particularly the outcomes of the conflict in the Middle East.
Qin highlights the greater capacity that the measures give the MEE to enforce inspections.
“The ministry has a more formal standing to push back on coal expansion and to speak on climate policy in a more direct way,” she says, but adds that the NDRC will still be the “central driver” of evaluating emissions.
She also notes that, while earlier central government inspections incorporated explicit instructions about making evaluation results public, the new measures place more emphasis on “internal” mechanisms, rather than public disclosure.
What does the ‘opinions’ document say about energy security?
The opinions document also settles a debate on energy security that has been playing out in the Chinese media since the start of the conflict in the Middle East.
It opens with a statement that “energy conservation and carbon reduction are key” both for China’s “dual-carbon” goals and energy transition and for “safeguarding national energy security”.
“The first sentence connects directly decarbonisation with energy security and industrial development, which is, if I’m not mistaken, the first time…that this has been linked and recognised [in such a high-level policy],” Yang tells Carbon Brief.
Although not always explicitly referencing the conflict, several outlets have run stories highlighting the importance of various energy technologies to China’s energy security.
Some outlets, including state broadcaster CCTV and the Communist Youth League’s official newspaper, China Youth Daily, focused on the positive role low-carbon energy plays in China’s energy system. Others have underscored the importance of fossil fuels, including state news agency Xinhua, which has run a series on becoming an “energy powerhouse” interviewing representatives of the fossil fuel industry.
On 20 April, NDRC head Zheng Shanjie wrote in the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily that China should further strengthen energy security, including by increasing oil and gas reserves and production, reinforcing the role of coal-fired power as a “base-load guarantee” and expanding Sino-Russian oil and gas cooperation. He flagged “disruptions” in the Strait of Hormuz as a cause for concern.
Zheng’s article came out on the same day that Chinese premier Li Qiang held a “study session” meeting with other high-level officials discussing the need to implement a “new strategy for energy security”, deepening energy system reforms to support the country’s low-carbon transition.
The guiding opinions specifically instruct the NDRC, the country’s powerful economic planning agency, to “conscientiously fulfill its duties” in achieving China’s carbon goals, including across planning, implementation and evaluation.
It adds that “all relevant [government] departments shall perform their respective duties, cooperate closely and form a concerted effort”.
However, experts had differing opinions on whether this signalled heightened scrutiny of the NDRC, or if it emphasised its importance to emission reduction efforts.
“The mention…seems to highlight an elevated scrutiny of its work on energy transition”, says Nedopil, but “does not seem to signal an increase of its responsibilities in the energy transition, considering the mention of [the responsibilities of other departments]”.
The post Q&A: China’s leadership calls for ‘strict control’ of fossil fuels appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: China’s leadership calls for ‘strict control’ of fossil fuels
The European Commission has launched a strategy to protect people in the EU from “fossil-fuel price shocks” and accelerate the expansion of “homegrown clean energy”.
The strategy notes that the latest fossil-fuel crisis, triggered by the Iran war, has already cost the EU an additional €24bn for imports of oil and gas.
Carbon Brief has identified 44 specific actions in the AccelerateEU package, ranging from an “ambitious” new electrification target through to filling up the bloc’s depleted gas storage. (See the internative table below.)
The proposals are meant to ensure the EU has enough fuel in the short term, to protect consumers from price rises and – in the longer term – to curb reliance on oil and gas.
Many EU nations are already spending billions to provide immediate relief to their citizens amid the energy crisis, which was sparked by the US-Israeli attack on Iran in February.
With its new 16-page plan, the commission has set out an initial blueprint to shift the bloc towards a more resilient future, including a proposal for tax changes that favour electricity over gas as part of a drive to incentivise clean technologies.
However, much of the plan relies on European governments taking up the proposals and changes to EU-wide taxation will depend on the full support of all member states.
Why has the commission launched AccelerateEU?
On 28 February, the US and Israel launched an attack on Iran, triggering a war and sparking an energy crisis.
Iran is a major oil producer and much of the world’s liquid natural gas (LNG) exports transit through the region.
Shipping through the critical strait of Hormuz has been paralysed and direct attacks by both sides on fossil-fuel infrastructure, including some of the world’s biggest oil and gas facilities, have paused production.
This pushed oil prices over $100 a barrel for much of March. Whilst they have now dipped below that benchmark following a ceasefire agreement, they remain elevated and uncertain – for example, a report of an attack on a ship in the strait earlier this week led them to briefly spike over $100 again.
Moreover, there is a widespread fear that markets are not accurately pricing the level of risk posed by an extended conflict. A 21 April article in the Economist was titled: “Global energy markets are on the verge of a disaster.”
To manage the impact of the surge in prices seen so far, countries around the world have announced a range of measures to protect consumers.
Carbon Brief tracked more than 200 policies from 60 nations over the first month of the war, including cutting fuel taxes, implementing driving bans and fuel rationing, and boosting domestic renewable-energy construction.
Earlier this week, the UK government announced a series of measures to “double down on clean power” in response to the unfolding energy crisis.
AccelerateEU is the European Commission’s proposal to provide “immediate relief to European households and industries, especially the most vulnerable ones, while putting Europe on a steady pathway to energy independence”.
It is a response to a request by EU heads of government at the 19 March European Council meeting to present “targeted temporary measures to address the recent spikes in the prices of imported fossil fuels arising from the crisis in the Middle East”.
The proposal includes both short-term and structural measures with longer-term effects to “further reduce dependency on volatile fossil-fuel markets”.
It highlights that “coordination is key” and proposes a range of “timely, targeted and temporary measures”. AccelerateEU prioritises the shift to homegrown clean energy, “stepping up” the electricity grid and boosting investment.
The strategy stresses that this is the second time in less than five years that such a crisis has hit Europe, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the subsequent ongoing war.
While Europe is less directly exposed to the conflict in Iran than the Ukraine war, its heavy reliance on oil and gas imports still leaves it vulnerable to surging prices.
For example, the commission notes that since the escalation of the conflict in February, the EU has spent an additional €24bn on energy imports due to higher prices.
The European Commission states that this is “a strong reminder of the need to accelerate electrification” as “the current crisis is also a call… to end exposure to fossil-fuel price shocks and import dependencies”.
In a statement, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said:
“The choices we make today will shape our ability to face the challenges of today and the crises of tomorrow. Our AccelerateEU strategy will bring both immediate and more structural relief measures to European citizens and businesses.
“We must accelerate the shift to homegrown, clean energies. This will give us energy independence and security, and mean we are better able to weather geopolitical storms.”
What actions have been proposed?
Carbon Brief has identified 44 distinct actions in the commission’s plan, ranging from affirmations of existing policies to entirely new initiatives. The commission has divided its proposed measures into five key “areas of action”, which are:
- Improving EU-wide coordination;
- Protecting consumers and industry;
- Accelerating the shift to homegrown clean energy and electrification;
- “Stepping up our energy system” through measures such as grid improvements;
- Boosting investment for the energy transition.
Some of the measures, particularly those involving coordination between member states, focus on fossil fuels. Examples include working together to fill gas storage facilities and ensuring the full use of domestic oil refineries.
However, roughly half of the actions set out by the commission focus specifically on scaling up clean energy or boosting electrification across the EU.
The table below includes all of the actions laid out in the AccelerateEU plan, including target dates and descriptions by the commission of what each one would entail.
By summer, the commission says it will set out an electrification action plan, including an “ambitious” electrification target and various measures to “remove barriers to the electrification of the industrial, transport and building sectors”.
Central to the commission’s strategy is a proposal to overhaul the EU’s taxation system so that it favours electricity over gas. It plans to introduce a legal proposal for this change in May, but passing this would require unanimous approval from all member states.
Media coverage of the commission’s proposals noted that it has “stopped short” of introducing a windfall tax on oil and gas company profits, of the kind used during the 2022 energy crisis. However, the commission says it will “assist and provide best practices” for any member states that choose to implement such taxes domestically.
Some of the AccelerateEU measures – such as updating the EU emissions trading system (EUETS) – were already underway prior to the energy crisis, but could contribute to its goal of curbing reliance on fossil fuels.
Some proposals focus on securing aviation fuel, amid warnings that Europe will soon be running low. The commission will map out existing fuel supplies and provide guidance to the aviation industry on how to deal with shortages.
Many of the proposals set out in AccelerateEU involve the commission playing a supportive role, but leaving decisions up to member states.
The commission says it will relax state-aid rules to allow member states to “implement targeted, temporary emergency measures” for sectors that are hit hardest by the energy crisis.
Countries across Europe have already taken domestic actions to protect consumers and industry from energy price rises and an annex document contains various proposals for ideas to provide “immediate relief”.
This includes targeted relief on energy bills for vulnerable households, reducing the costs of public transport and delaying the retirement of nuclear power plants. It will be up to member states which of these policy options they choose to implement.
What happens next?
The majority of the measures outlined by the European Commission are set to come into force in April or May 2026. (See the table above for dates).
On 23-24 April, the measures will be discussed by EU leaders at the informal European Council meeting in Cyprus.
Subsequently, EU energy ministers will receive a catalogue of energy-saving and efficiency measures at a meeting on 13 May. This will be based on an assessment of the most efficient measures taken since the 2022 energy crisis triggered by the Ukraine war. It will set out ways nations can rapidly reduce oil and gas consumption in the short term.
AccelerateEU also includes reference to various pieces of work already being undertaken by the commission to support decarbonisation, for example, updates to the EUETS.
The commission will consult with member states on this update “soon”, before adopting a legislative proposal by 31 July. This will build on changes that have already been proposed to the market stability reserve.
The commission notes that AccelerateEU “is one part of the commission’s dynamic response” and “will evolve as the situation develops”.
Beyond what is already outlined in the proposals, the EU is looking at ways to mitigate the impact of the Iran war on agriculture, aviation and other sectors.
The European Commission will present a fertiliser action plan on 19 May, according to Reuters, to “accelerate decarbonisation and address affordability issues made more urgent by the knock-on effects of the Iran war on an already tight market”.
It is reportedly “mulling jet fuel imports from the US and new minimum reserve quotas as it eyes options amid a supply crunch due to the Iran conflict”, according to Al Jazeera.
Euractiv says the European Commission “is rejecting demands to clamp down on air travel” in response to the crisis.
The post Iran war: EU strategy sets out 44 actions to limit ‘fossil-fuel price shocks’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Iran war: EU strategy sets out 44 actions to limit ‘fossil-fuel price shocks’
Climate Change
Ohio Is Where Wind and Solar Projects Go to Die, and Other Findings From New Research on State Permitting
State governments have approved 90 percent of the renewable energy projects to come before them, and make decisions in about a year. Ohio leads in permit rejections and withdrawals.
Ohio resembles a torture chamber for renewable energy developers, according to new research that examines how regulators in 19 states handle wind and solar project applications.
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits