China’s exports of clean-energy technologies such as solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles are increasingly helping to cut emissions in other countries.
Such exports in 2024 alone are already shaving 1% off global emissions outside of China and, in total, will avoid some 4bn tonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) over the lifetimes of the products.
Moreover, the global CO2 savings from using these products for just one year acts to more than outweigh the emissions from manufacturing them.
This new analysis for Carbon Brief is based on a detailed assessment of clean-technology export flows, the carbon footprint of manufacturing these products and the “carbon intensity” of electricity generation in destination countries.
Other key findings from the analysis include:
- The solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles (EVs) and wind turbines exported from China in 2024 are set to cut annual CO2 emissions in the rest of the world by 1%, some 220m tonnes (MtCO2).
- Manufacturing these products resulted in an estimated 110MtCO2 within China in 2024, implying that the upfront CO2 emissions are offset in much less than a year of operation.
- Over the expected lifetime of these products, their manufacturing emissions will be offset almost 40-fold, with cumulative CO2 savings reaching 4.0GtCO2.
- When factoring in China’s plans to build overseas manufacturing plants for clean-energy products, as well as to construct overseas clean-power projects, the avoided CO2 increases to 350MtCO2 per year. This is 1.5% of global emissions outside China and almost equal to the annual emissions of Australia.
- The largest emission reductions are associated with direct clean-technology equipment exports – particularly solar panels – followed by manufacturing at Chinese factories overseas, with overseas projects financed by Chinese investors a distant third.
- China’s clean-energy footprint almost spans the entire world, with exports to 191 of the 192 other UN member states, as well as manufacturing and project finance investments in dozens of countries.
- Clean-energy exports from China in 2024 alone, along with its overseas investments from 2023 and 2024, are set to cut emissions in sub-Saharan Africa by around 3% per year once completed and in the Middle East and north Africa (MENA) region by 4.5%.
China’s rapid expansion in clean-energy manufacturing and exports is already reshaping emissions trajectories in several key regions.
While China dominates the supply of equipment, however, most of the financing for clean-energy development outside of China is provided by others, with around three-fourths of the value from clean-energy projects and products being captured in other countries.
Nevertheless, Chinese industries stand to benefit from increased exports as global demand for clean-energy technologies grows – and there are signs that this is already starting to shift China’s political and diplomatic stance on climate action.
Clean-energy’s cumulative climate impacts
China’s booming output of clean-energy technologies is enabling rapid deployment both domestically and around the world, but their production is energy- and carbon-intensive.
The new analysis shows Chinese clean-tech exports are nevertheless having immediate global climate benefits. This contradicts many commentators who have linked China’s clean-tech boom to the rapid recent rise in its emissions.
Specifically, the analysis shows that manufacturing clean-energy equipment for export resulted in an estimated 110MtCO2 of emissions in 2024, or just 1.1% of China’s CO2 from fossil fuels.
Yet the solar panels, batteries, EVs and wind turbines exported in 2024 will avoid an estimated 220MtCO2 annually when put into operation overseas.
Moreover, these products will continue to generate emissions savings for as long as they continue operating. The clean-energy products exported in 2024 alone will avoid a cumulative total of 4.0GtCO2 across their lifetimes, as shown in the figure below.
Emissions associated with the production of China’s clean-technology exports in 2024 and the annual emissions avoided during their use (columns), as well as the cumulative impact on global emissions over the lifetime of these products, MtCO2. Source: Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta for Carbon Brief.
The CO2-saving impact of these exports – from just one year – will compound together with emissions savings from China’s past and future shipments of clean-energy equipment.
For example, its EV exports increased by 33% in the first five months of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024, showing the potential for further growth.
Solar panel exports held steady – despite a massive spike in domestic demand – and are likely to grow in the coming years given projected growth in global capacity installations.
Looking beyond direct equipment exports, overseas clean-energy investments announced by Chinese companies in 2023-24 – building solar panel manufacturing plants, for example – will generate another 90MtCO2 of avoided emissions per year, once the projects have been built.
In addition, overseas clean-power generation projects announced by Chinese investors in 2023-24 would save another 40MtCO2 per year.
In terms of technologies, the largest avoided emissions result from solar, at 280MtCO2, followed by batteries and EVs at 50MtCO2, as shown in the figure below. Wind turbine exports are relatively small, avoiding another 20MtCO2.
CO2 emissions avoided overseas as a result of China’s clean-technology exports in 2024 and investments in 2023-24, MtCO2, broken down by technology and type of activity. Source: Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta for Carbon Brief.
China’s overseas clean-energy footprint
Both economically and in terms of emissions reductions, exports of clean-energy equipment dominate China’s overseas footprint.
Equipment exports in 2024 were worth a total of $177bn, whereas across 2023 and 2024, Chinese firms announced overseas clean-energy manufacturing projects worth $58bn, as well as overseas power generation and storage deals worth $24bn.
(Note that these figures do not include Chinese-backed overseas fossil-fuel developments, including coal-fired power plants, which China has pledged to stop supporting.)
Once in operation, the Chinese owned or funded overseas clean-energy developments will help avoid 130MtCO2 of emissions, with 80Mt from solar, 35MtCO2 from EVs and batteries, as well as 13MtCO2 from wind and 6MtCO2 from hydropower.
Looking at this total another way, the avoided CO2 emissions from clean-energy equipment produced in Chinese factories overseas will amount to 90MtCO2, while its financing of clean-power generation will avoid an estimated 40MtCO2.
In contrast, avoided emissions from clean-energy equipment exported from China in 2024 will amount to an estimated 220MtCO2 per year.
China’s clean-energy footprint spans essentially the entire world, with exports to 191 of the 192 UN member states, excluding China, manufacturing plans in 25 countries in 12 of the 17 UN regions and clean-energy project financing in 27 countries in 11 regions.
Some countries and regions do stand out, however, as shown in the map below.
Avoided CO2 emissions from China’s clean-tech activity in 2024, MtCO2 by country. Source: Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta for Carbon Brief.
In terms of resulting emission reductions, the largest destinations for China’s overseas clean-energy activity are south Asia and the Middle East and north Africa (MENA) region.
This reflects both the large volumes of Chinese clean-technology activity reaching these countries and their highly carbon-intensive power grids, which means that installing new solar panels offsets high-emissions generation, for example.
(By the same logic, driving a Chinese EV in these countries would have smaller climate benefits than with lower-carbon electricity. See: How avoided emissions are calculated.)
Solar exports to South Asia have boomed, with Pakistan the single largest market. Pakistan’s electricity shortages and increasing affordability of solar have prompted consumers to install.
The same dynamic has played out in South Africa, which also features in the top 10 countries where China’s exports are resulting in avoided emissions (left panel in the figure below).
Top 10 countries for avoided CO2 emissions from China’s overseas engagements, by type of activity and technology, MtCO2. Source: Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta for Carbon Brief.
Assuming that all the overseas financing deals announced in 2023–24 are realised, the MENA region will see the largest avoided emissions due to China’s overseas clean-energy activity, resulting from a combination of solar panel exports, manufacturing and financing deals.
This includes eight solar and two wind power generation projects with a total capacity of 10 gigawatts (GW), in Egypt, Algeria, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Tunisia.
On the manufacturing side, Saudi Arabia is the main destination, with a major EV production facility, two solar factories and one for wind turbines. There are also a total of five battery manufacturing projects in Morocco and Oman.
OECD Europe is the largest destination for China’s exports and overseas manufacturing investments by value. However, relative to the volume of exports, the resulting CO2 savings are smaller than in other major destinations, due to lower carbon intensity of power generation.
The countries in the European region with the largest resulting emissions reductions are the Netherlands, Turkey, Spain, the UK, Poland and Germany.
Imports of solar power equipment are the largest category. Germany is an exception, where imports of EVs and batteries are even more significant, as is the UK, where a major battery manufacturing project could deliver larger emission reductions.
Turkey and Spain also have clean-energy manufacturing projects with Chinese involvement, while both Turkey and Germany imported wind power equipment from China in 2024.
In south-east Asia, China’s clean-energy footprint is the largest in Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. Solar manufacturing plans play the largest role in Malaysia, while imports of solar power equipment are the largest category in the other countries.
Chinese financing for solar and wind power generation projects, with a total capacity of 3.7GW, plays a significant role in the Philippines and Laos, as does financing for a hydropower project in Indonesia. Vietnam imported batteries and wind turbines in addition to solar power equipment in 2024. Chinese companies also have plans for EV and battery manufacturing in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam.
Regional emissions set to be cut by up to 4.5% a year
Another way to look at the impact of China’s clean-energy exports and investments is to consider the avoided CO2 relative to the total emissions in each region. This highlights where China’s overseas clean-energy footprint is having the biggest impact, in relative terms.
The figure below illustrates the distinction. For each region, longer bars indicate larger avoided emissions in absolute terms, whereas the furthest dots point to the biggest relative impacts.
On a relative basis, sub-Saharan Africa stands out, in addition to MENA. Specifically, China’s clean-energy exports in 2024 alone, with investments from 2023 and 2024, are set to cut annual emissions in sub-Saharan Africa by around 3% per year – and by around 4.5% in MENA.
Left: Avoided CO2 emissions from China’s overseas engagements, MtCO2 per year. Right: Avoided emissions per year relative to regional totals, %. Source: Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta for Carbon Brief.
For sub-Saharan Africa, this relative measure of impact indicates that the solar power uptake in the region is rapid, in relation to the size of the region’s electricity systems.
The largest markets for China’s overseas clean-energy activity in the region are South Africa, Tanzania, Nigeria and Senegal.
China’s footprint in these countries is dominated by solar exports, except for Tanzania, where financing for a hydropower project and a small solar project make up most of the projected emission reduction. There are also significant wind power equipment exports into South Africa.
China’s role in global clean-energy supply chains
In 2024, clean-energy industries contributed more than 10% of China’s GDP for the first time, generating an estimated total economic output of $1.9tn.
This milestone underscores the scale of China’s clean-energy economy and its dominant role in the global manufacturing of solar panels, batteries and EVs.
On the surface, this may suggest that other countries have limited economic opportunities in clean energy. However, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced picture.
China’s involvement in global supply chains is still largely limited to exports and manufacturing, while most of the value is downstream.
For instance, a solar panel now accounts for approximately one-quarter of the total value of a utility-scale solar power plant. IRENA reported a global weighted average investment cost of $758 per kilowatt (kW) of capacity for utility-scale solar and an average module cost of $261/kW in 2023, or 34% of the total.
Module prices fell by 35% in 2024, further reducing the share of modules in total project costs. In the case of rooftop installations, which represented 43% of all newly added solar in 2023, the total investment costs are approximately 80% higher, implying a much lower share of the modules in overall costs.
Similarly, batteries exported at 2024 prices represent only about a quarter of the value of the EVs into which they are integrated. The average export value of a Chinese pure electric passenger vehicle was $22,000, calculated based on values and volumes in China Customs data. At a battery pack cost of $94 per kilowatt hour (kWh) of capacity, an average-sized 63kWh battery pack will cost a quarter of this. Out of the average retail price of an EV in Europe, some €46,000, the battery pack will make up only a sixth of the cost.
These figures highlight a key point: most of the economic value in clean energy lies downstream – in project development, system integration, installation and end-user services – rather than in upstream manufacturing, where China dominates.
In 2024, China exported $177bn worth of solar panels, EVs, batteries and wind turbines, making up roughly 5% of its total exports. If China maintains its current global market share, this figure could rise significantly.
(These exports could reach $1.1tn by 2035, according to a recent analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) – driven primarily by a projected 12-fold increase to 2035 in the global EV market outside China – under the International Energy Agency’s 1.5C-compatible net-zero emissions by 2050 scenario.)
Trumping the $177bn value of the exports from 2024, however, the downstream value of overseas clean-energy products and projects relying on Chinese components is an estimated $720bn annually, four times the value of the exported raw components.
This includes the value of solar and wind power plants built using Chinese modules and turbines, as well as the revenue from the sales of EVs using Chinese batteries and battery materials.
Further investment in overseas manufacturing – Chinese companies building solar, battery and EV plants abroad – could lift this downstream value to an estimated $1.2tn annually.
China’s outsized role in upstream clean-energy manufacturing creates potential supply chain vulnerabilities that many countries will want to address, by diversifying supply sources and strengthening domestic capabilities.
However, China’s dominance is not synonymous with capturing the majority of the economic value in global clean-energy development. Rather, it reflects a strategic advantage in segments that other economies have often neglected, due to low value and profitability.
Implications of China’s expanding footprint
China’s rapid expansion in clean-energy manufacturing and exports is already reshaping emissions trajectories in several key regions.
In particular, markets in MENA and sub-Saharan Africa – where domestic clean-energy industries remain nascent – have benefited from lower costs and improved access to technology through Chinese imports. This dynamic has helped accelerate clean-energy deployment and shift emissions outlooks downward in these regions.
At the same time, China’s central role in global supply chains has raised concerns over supply security. Many countries are now taking steps to diversify their sourcing of key components such as solar panels, batteries and EVs.
However, given the scale and cost advantages of China’s clean-energy manufacturing sector, its products are likely to remain a large part of the global clean-energy landscape for the foreseeable future.
Economically, China’s footprint is more narrowly focused on upstream manufacturing. As clean-energy deployment continues to expand globally, there is significant potential for Chinese firms to increase their participation in downstream activities – including infrastructure development, operations and maintenance – capturing a larger share of value-added abroad.
These dynamics also reinforce China’s strategic interest in the continuation and acceleration of the global clean-energy transition.
As global demand for clean-energy technologies grows, Chinese industries stand to benefit from increased export volumes.
This economic incentive is beginning to translate into diplomatic engagement. In recent public remarks, for example, President Xi Jinping emphasised China’s role in advancing the clean-energy sector, suggesting a potential shift toward more proactive international positioning on climate and clean energy.
How avoided emissions are calculated
The manufacturing of solar panels and EV batteries is energy- and carbon-intensive, resulting in upfront carbon emissions from manufacturing.
In the case of exports and overseas manufacturing, the avoided CO2 emissions depend on the CO2 intensity of the power grid in the country where the equipment is used.
The left-most shape in the figure below shows the CO2 intensity of electricity generation in countries taking clean-energy exports from China. The width of the shape indicates the share of exports, by value, going to countries with a given carbon intensity.
The bulge in the shape shows that on average, China exports clean-energy equipment to countries with a lower CO2 intensity of power generation than its own grid (dashed line).
This increases the CO2 emission reductions from battery and EV exports, relative to using these products in China, but reduces them from solar panel and wind turbine exports.
Specifically, the average CO2 intensity of electricity in China’s export markets in 2024, weighted by value, was 395 grams of CO2 per kWh (gCO2/kWh), compared to 580gCO2/kWh in China.
The centre and rightmost shapes in the figure below illustrate the equivalent distributions for countries hosting Chinese overseas manufacturing and project financing.
CO2 intensity of electricity generation in destination markets for China’s clean-energy exports, overseas manufacturing and project finance, weighted by the value of the relevant engagements. Dashed line shows China’s CO2 intensity. Source: Analysis by Lauri Myllyvirta for Carbon Brief.
Based on the country-by-country CO2 intensities and the volume of different clean-energy exports from China, the emissions associated with manufacturing these products are, on average, offset in less than a year of operation.
Chinese solar panels pay back their upfront manufacturing emissions in four months, on average, while wind turbines take two years and EVs and batteries three years.
There is, however, wide variance between different destinations.
For example, EVs exported to the countries with the most carbon-intensive power generation, such as Uzbekistan or Botswana, result in no reduction in CO2 emissions from their operation under current conditions. These countries would need to achieve substantial reductions in the carbon intensity of their power system to realise emissions reductions from the use of EVs.
On the other hand, EVs exported to countries with very clean grids can pay back their upfront CO2 emissions in less than a year.
Similarly, solar panels and wind turbines exported to countries where power generation is already almost fully decarbonised, such as Sweden or Ethiopia, result in no emission reductions, when assessed using the average carbon intensity of power generation.
However, this does not tell the whole story because solar and wind exports to such countries could prevent increases in power generation from fossil fuels in response to growth in demand.
Much of China’s overseas manufacturing investment, though not all, is in markets with a lower average CO2 intensity of power generation than in China itself, which shortens the CO2 payback time from clean-energy equipment produced by those overseas manufacturing plants.
In the case of calculating avoided emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), a major question is how much they are driven with electricity and how much with fuel.
PHEVs are likely to be driven more on fuel in markets with weaker charging infrastructure and weaker incentives for using electricity. For simplicity, this analysis assumes a 50-50 split in all markets. Improving infrastructure and incentives would increase the emissions savings from existing and new PHEVs, as well as likely increasing the share of full EVs in new sales.
About the data
Data on China’s exports by country are taken from China Customs. Trans-shipments from the mainland through Hong Kong are treated as exports from China, with data on Hong Kong’s international trade – which is reported separately – taken from UN COMTRADE.
The product categories used in the analysis are as follows:
EVs: electric and hybrid motor vehicles, including freight, public transport and tractors (HS codes 870122, 870123, 870124, 870220, 870230, 870240, 870340, 870350, 870360, 870370, 870380, 870441, 870451, 870460).
Battery: Lithium-ion accumulators and primary lithium cells (850760, 850650).
Solar: PV generators, photovoltaic cells, solar panels, solar-grade silicon and inverters (850171, 850172, 854140, 854142, 854143, 854149, 854150, 850440, 280461, 381800).
Wind: Wind-powered electric generators (850231).
Data on overseas manufacturing and power generation deals is taken from a mapping project by Climate Energy Finance.
Emission reductions from solar panels and wind turbines were calculated using the average utilisation – sometimes referred to as the “capacity factor” – of each technology in the destination country, along with its average CO2 intensity of power generation in 2024, both taken from Ember data.
This is a conservative assumption, as new solar and wind will mainly replace fossil-fuelled power generation, resulting in higher emission reductions in countries where fossil fuels make up a small share of total power generation.
Emission reductions from EVs and plug-in hybrids were calculated using the following assumptions for the size of the battery pack in kilowatt hours (kWh), the mileage, the emissions of an internal combustion-engine (ICE) alternative and the fuel use per 100km:
| BEV | PHEV | Heavy-duty vehicle (buses and trucks) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battery pack, kWh | 63 | 15 | 350 |
| Mileage, km/year | 15,000 | 15,000 | 80,000 |
| ICE emissions, g/km | 230 | 230 | 800 |
| EV electricity and fuel use, per 100km | 21kWh | 15kWh + 4 litres | 150kWh |
Emission reductions from battery exports are calculated assuming that the batteries are installed in BEV and PHEV passenger vehicles, with an equal split.
Combustion-engine vehicle CO2 emissions are estimated based on average real-world fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions from petrol and biofuel production, as well as from combustion.
Annual mileage for passenger vehicles is based on data for China, the EU and the US, while it is based on US data for heavy duty vehicles. Upfront manufacturing emissions from EVs are the additional emissions compared with building a fuel-burning vehicle.
The value of solar projects using Chinese equipment is based on averages for total investment costs in 2023 from IRENA, adjusted for the reported 35% fall in module costs in 2024.
As the IRENA cost data is for utility-scale solar, the average across the utility-scale and distributed segments, such as rooftops, is estimated assuming that rooftop installations have 80% higher costs and make up a share of 43% of all newly added solar, based on data for 2023.
The total volume of solar equipment and materials exports from China in 2024 is conservatively calculated based on the reported value of solar module exports from China Customs and module export volume, as well as estimating the volume of the exports of polysilicon, wafers and solar cells using the same average value per GW as for solar modules.
The value of EVs sold overseas using Chinese batteries is estimated based on the total value of the EV market by region and market share of Chinese batteries and battery materials globally.
The market share in the overseas market is calculated based on 2024 power battery installations in China and globally, assuming that the market share of Chinese battery materials is 100% in China. The value of EVs exported from China is subtracted from this value to avoid double counting.
CO2 emissions from overseas manufacturing were calculated using the above estimates for emissions from production in China, adjusted to the average intensity of power generation in the host country.
The post Analysis: China’s clean-energy exports in 2024 alone will cut overseas CO2 by 1% appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: China’s clean-energy exports in 2024 alone will cut overseas CO2 by 1%
The US is expected to resume its attempt to sink measures for a greener global shipping sector at closed-door talks between governments at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in early September.
The US and oil-producing allies like Saudi Arabia want to weaken a proposed plan for cleaner fuels that aims to reduce planet-heating emissions from the industry, which relies heavily on dirty bunker fuels. Shipping currently represents 3% of global emissions.
Those that want a softer system are likely to back a Liberian proposal which expert analysis suggests would see emissions fall by only half at most by 2050, far short of the sector’s agreed climate goals.
After several years of debate, governments provisionally agreed in April 2025 on the “Net Zero Framework” (NZF), a series of emissions reduction targets for shipowners, backed up with financial rewards for meeting the targets and fees for missing them.
But in October 2025, after a high-profile intervention from US President Donald Trump and threats of sanctions and visa restrictions, the US convinced a majority of voting nations to postpone the adoption of the NZF for a year.
Ralph Regenvanu, climate minister for the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, called the delay “unacceptable” given the urgency of accelerating climate change.
After a round of low-profile talks in May, the first of three further sets of talks on how to clean up shipping will begin at the IMO’s riverside headquarters in London on Tuesday, culminating in a final public session in November.
Em Fenton, who follows the talks as senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, an NGO focused on aviation and shipping, said governments should not be sidetracked by alternative proposals to the NZF, calling them “a distraction from a hard-fought multilateral compromise”.
“If countries want to deliver a just and fair maritime transition, there is really only one choice: back the NZF and stand together in solidarity against those who would tear it apart,” Fenton added.
Five proposals on the table
Governments will discuss five different proposals submitted in advance of next week’s meeting. The most ambitious of these is from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, which has proposed a levy on the entirety of a ship’s emissions rather than just those above a certain level, as the NZF envisions.
That had been the original demand of Pacific nations before the NZF was provisionally adopted in April 2025. At the time, Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe described the NZF as disappointing and not ambitious enough.
For this reason, six Pacific countries abstained in the vote on the NZF. While they supported the original plan for its adoption in October 2025, they have used the delay to push again for more ambition.
John Kautoke, advisor to a group of Pacific nations called 6PAC+, told Climate Home News that the NZF “cannot diminish its already inadequate ambition. If anything, the NZF must increase in ambition if we are going to renegotiate its parameters.”
-
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
A new bill prevents corporations being sued for the climate damage their emissions cause, as the government says climate action should be handled at the national level not in court -
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue -
As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31
Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans
Analysis by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) suggests that, of the five proposals, only Tuvalu’s would meet the 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets for global shipping that were agreed by governments in 2023. Those were for cuts of 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and then reaching net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”.
Despite this, the UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa have formally proposed that governments adopt the NZF, which won support in a 63-13 vote among governments at the April 2025 talks. Trump’s US walked out halfway through.
According to IMarEst’s analysis, while the NZF proposal will not be enough to meet the industry’s targets, it will reduce emissions more cheaply than the Pacific proposal.
A proposal by Brazil – which fought hard for the NZF last October – suggests tweaking the framework to make meeting targets easier in the short term and harder in the long term.
While this compromise will make it more appealing to the owners of polluting ships and countries that support them, IMarEst estimates it would lead to higher cumulative emissions than either the NZF or Pacific proposals.
The NZF stipulates that fees for high-polluting shipowners should be be put into a Net Zero Fund and used to promote clean shipping fuels and a fairer transition. The Brazilian proposal would delay raising and spending these funds by two years, from 2029 to 2031.
Liberia’s proposal weakens emissions cuts
The US and Saudi Arabia are likely to swing behind a new proposal from Liberia, whose government makes millions of dollars a year selling the right for shipowners to register their vessels in the small West African nation via a US-based company.
This proposal would weaken the emissions reduction targets. IMarEst says it would cut the industry’s emissions at most by a half by 2050, falling far short of the target agreed in 2023 for international shipping to reach net zero “close to 2050”.
It would also replace the NZF’s fees for missing targets with a carbon trading system. As a result, there would be no Net Zero Fund and therefore less money available to incentivise green fuels and make the transition more equitable for poorer nations.
Pacific advisor Kautoke said that, as well as preventing shipping from reaching zero emissions by 2050, Liberia’s proposal would mean the Pacific “will not receive any support to deal with the disproportionately negative impacts created by the cost of the transition”.
“We get a double blow if we adopt the Liberian proposal,” he warned. “We get all the cost of a transition without any support, and we have an industry that continues to burn fossil fuels to an unforeseen point.”
Japanese proposal favours shipowners
Japan has submitted a late proposal to amend the NZF so that shipowners have more control over how the fees they would pay for emitting above a set threshold are spent.
University College London professor Tristan Smith has argued that this change means there will be no central mechanism to incentivise investments in clean fuels. He wrote on LinkedIn that under the system put forward by Japan, shipowners would be able to select which green projects their fees would go to. They could choose their own or those of a sister company or other shipowners, rather than funding broader just transition projects that would benefit marine workers or developing countries hit by rising shipping costs.
Despite its flaws, Smith added that Japan’s proposal “could still get taken seriously by some, given how appealing it may seem to shipowners who have consistently demanded control of revenues, and given how the US and other member states have pushed back against the IMO Net Zero Fund and [greenhouse gas] pricing.”
Tacit or explicit approval?
Next week, governments are expected to make statements saying which proposals – or which aspects of proposals – they prefer. Another set of talks will be held from November 23-27 before a potentially final round from November 30-December 4.
A new framework to tackle shipping emissions could be adopted at those talks if two-thirds of countries that are present and signed up to a regulation called Marpol Annex VI – endorsed by just over 100 states – vote in favour of it, as they did in April 2025.
The US and its allies are also trying to change the rules to make the next stage more difficult. Decisions that have been adopted at IMO meetings usually take effect automatically unless a certain number of countries object within a certain time period decided by governments, a system known as tacit approval.
But the US wants that to require explicit approval instead, so that any new emissions standard would not come into force unless enough governments – representing a certain percentage of the world’s shipping fleet – actively indicate support for it.
Critics say this change would give a small number of countries with large shipping registries the power to block implementation. Liberia has the world’s biggest shipping registry, run by an American company, followed by Panama and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Liberia and Panama have supported the US at the talks on the Net Zero Framework. The Marshall Islands has long been one of the most vocal supporters of climate action in shipping but, with its officials and shipping registry income vulnerable to US retaliation, did not sign on to the recent Pacific proposal vowing to strengthen the NZF if it is re-opened.
Brazilian negotiator Adriana de Medeiros Gabinio warned in April that the NZF’s opponents are trying to change the rules by which it comes into force as a “safety net to block” it.
The post Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks
SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.
Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:
“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.
“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.
“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits