A Conservative victory over the Liberals in the Canadian election could lead to nearly 800m extra tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
This amounts to the entire annual emissions of the UK and France combined.
These extra emissions would cause around C$233bn ($169bn) in climate damages around the world, based on the Canadian government’s official costings.
The right-leaning Conservative party, led by Pierre Poilievre, has pledged to cut one of the nation’s most significant climate policies – industrial carbon pricing – as well as other key regulations.
If these policies are removed and not replaced, modelling by researchers from Simon Fraser University and University of Victoria shows that Canada’s gradually declining emissions would likely start to creep up again in the coming years.
In contrast, emissions would continue to fall under the policies currently backed by Mark Carney’s centrist Liberal party, which has overseen a modest decrease over the past decade.
However, Carbon Brief analysis of the modelling also suggests that neither of the major parties’ policy platforms would put Canada on track to reach any of its climate targets.
These figures complement analysis by the Canadian government showing that the nation still needs to implement more ambitious measures in order to reach its target to cut emissions to net-zero by 2050.
(For more on Canada’s election, see Carbon Brief’s manifesto tracker, which captures what the major parties have said about climate change, energy and nature.)
Conservatives could raise emissions
Canada is the world’s 10th biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Significant contributors include its sizeable oil-and-gas sector and high emissions from transport.
The nation has been relatively slow to decarbonise. However, after a decade of rule by the Liberals, led by prime minister Justin Trudeau, there has been a small dip in Canada’s emissions.
With a federal election looming, an unpopular Trudeau resigned and was replaced in March by Carney, an economist with a background in climate finance.
His main rival in the election, which takes place on 28 April, will be the Conservatives, a party that until recently was the clear favourite. Conservative leader Poilievre has accused the Liberal government of pursuing “net-zero environmental extremism” and Carney of being part of the “radical net-zero movement”.
A sudden shift in polling that put the Liberals ahead has been widely attributed to their right-leaning opponents’ alignment with Donald Trump. This alignment has become politically toxic, following the US president’s tariffs and talk of annexing Canada.
Carbon pricing is at the heart of Canadian climate politics. Poilievre has long pledged to “axe the tax”, referring to a consumer levy that is meant to incentivise people to use less fossil fuel.
When Carney took office, his first action was to cut this carbon tax to zero, effectively ending his party’s signature climate policy.
In response, Poilievre pledged to cut the “entire carbon tax”, referring to a federal backstop on carbon pricing applied to major industrial emitters, such as fossil-fuel producers. He has also committed to abandoning other climate regulations.
The impact of these rollbacks is illustrated by the “Conservatives” line in the figure below, based on the party’s climate-related announcements to date. Notably, Canada’s emissions would be expected to start rising again, reversing some of the recent decline.
The “Liberals” line is based on current federal policies, excluding the consumer carbon tax. It would see a continued, steady drop in emissions if the Liberals retain power, even if they fail to implement any new climate policies after the election.
As such, a Conservative victory could mean an additional 771m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) entering the atmosphere by 2035.
Along with the US, Canada has long calculated the “social cost of carbon” and other greenhouse gases, in order to place a value on any emissions changes resulting from new regulations.
Based on Carbon Brief analysis of the government’s own figures for this metric, the extra emissions released under a Conservative government could result in global damages worth C$233bn ($169bn).
The emissions trajectories out to 2035 are based on modelling carried out by climate scientists Emma Starke, a PhD researcher at Simon Fraser University, and Dr Katya Rhodes, an associate professor at the University of Victoria.
Starke and Rhodes simulated the policy platforms of the two major Canadian parties using the CIMS energy-economy model, a well-established tool for understanding the country’s federal climate policies.
The researchers ran the models out to 2035, twice the normal parliamentary term length, to reflect the timespan it can take for policies to significantly affect annual emissions.
Starke tells Carbon Brief the “simple message” of their work is that a federal Liberal government is “likely to continue reducing emissions while a Conservative government would see them rise significantly”.
If the Conservative party were to trigger such a reversal, Canada would be the only G7 nation with rising emissions.
The nation is already something of an outlier, with slower emissions cuts than most major global-north economies and per-capita emissions three times higher than the EU average.
Even in the “Liberals” scenario modelled by Starke and Rhodes, emissions would only fall to 1990 levels in 2035. Meanwhile, nations such as the UK and Germany have already roughly halved their emissions from 1990 levels, even as their economies have expanded.
Canada continues to miss targets
Canada has a net-zero target for 2050. Under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, it also has interim targets of cutting its emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2026, 40-45% by 2030 and 45-50% by 2035.
As the yellow lines in the chart above show, neither of the major Canadian parties has set out a policy programme that is sufficient to achieve the nation’s climate targets.
Emissions cuts from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), which count towards these targets, are not captured in the CIMS modelling of the two parties’ climate policies.
However, even when accounting for projected LULUCF emissions reductions, Carbon Brief analysis suggests a potential Liberal government’s annual emissions could be nearly one-third higher than the 2030 target.
Under a Conservative government, this gap could widen to more than 50% higher. (For more information about LULUCF estimates, see the Methodology.)
For context, the Conservatives’ gap in 2030 would be nearly equivalent to the entire annual emissions of Bangladesh. The Liberals’ gap in the same year would be roughly the size of Kuwait’s annual emissions.
This pessimistic outlook is supported by analysis from the Canadian government itself and independent analysts at the Canadian Climate Institute (CCI). Both have repeatedly shown that Canada is not on track to achieve its climate targets. (Analysts at Climate Action Tracker have also described Canada’s policies as “insufficient” to reach the world’’s Paris Agreement targets.)
This is confirmed by the most recent official projections, published by the government in December 2024 alongside Canada’s first “biennial transparency report” (BTR) to the UN.
The chart below shows that neither of the main scenarios modelled by the government would be sufficient for Canada to reach its targets, meaning further policies would be needed to get on track.
Even in the government’s most optimistic scenario, Canada would only achieve an 18% emissions cut by 2026 – rather than the 20% being targeted – and a 34% cut by 2030, rather than 40%.
The “reference” scenario, shown by the upper grey line in the chart above, accounts for all federal, provincial and territorial policies that were in place by August 2024 and assumes no further government action. (This means it does not include more recent actions, such as scrapping consumer carbon pricing.)
The “additional measures” scenario, shown by the lower grey line in the chart above, includes extra measures that were announced, but not yet implemented.
It also includes extra emissions cuts from nature-based solutions, agricultural changes and a small number of international carbon credits purchased from the Western Climate Initiative. (Both scenarios also include accounting contributions from LULUCF.)
As the chart shows, the “Liberals” scenario modelled by Starke and Rhodes broadly aligns with the reference scenario, once LULUCF contributions are included. (This is despite Starke and Rhodes excluding the consumer carbon tax, see below.)
In the introduction to Canada’s 2024 BTR, Liberal climate minister Steven Guilbeault writes:
“We have more work to do to achieve our enhanced 2030 target of 40-45% below 2005 emissions.”
The parties’ climate platforms
In an election dominated by the growing economic threat from the US, climate change has not been seen as a key issue by either politicians or voters. (See Carbon Brief’s election manifesto tracker for more on how climate has featured so far.)
The modelling by Starke and Rhodes captures the impact of the climate policy proposals that have been announced by the Liberals and the Conservatives ahead of election day.
These mainly consist of Conservative commitments to eliminate parts of Canada’s climate strategy, citing high costs. Perhaps most significantly, the party has pledged to scrap industrial carbon pricing.
This policy involves setting limits on emissions from high-polluting businesses such as steel and fossil-fuel companies. Industries pay for emissions above a certain limit and can obtain saleable credits if they reduce their emissions below that limit.
Provinces and territories can set up their own pricing systems, but there is a federal backstop representing the minimum standards that are required.
Oil-producing regions have already moved to abandon industrial carbon pricing, challenging the federal government to enforce the backstop.
Canada’s climate policies overlap and complement each other in various ways, making it difficult to assign shares of emissions cuts to specific policies.
However, the CCI calculated in 2024 that industrial carbon pricing was set to be the “single biggest driver of emissions reductions” by 2030, accounting for 20-48% of emissions cuts expected over the next five years.
Consumer carbon pricing, commonly referred to simply as the “carbon tax”, is paid by households and small businesses on fuels such as petrol and gas. The CCI estimates that it would only have been responsible for 8-14% of emissions cuts by 2030.
Both parties have abandoned consumer carbon pricing and this is captured in the emissions trajectories modelled by Starke and Rhodes.
The Conservative election manifesto confirms earlier pledges to scrap a list of climate policies, which are also captured in the modelling. These include Canada’s electric vehicle sales mandate, clean-fuel regulations and clean-electricity regulations.
The electric-vehicle targets, part of Canada’s objective to phase out petrol and diesel vehicle sales by 2035, have been dismissed by Poilievre as a “tax on the poor” that result in people being “forced to pay” extra for electric cars.
Poilievre has referred to clean-fuel regulations, which are intended to boost hydrogen and other alternative fuels in the transport sector, as another form of “carbon tax”. Government estimates suggest these measures would cut emissions by 26MtCO2s annually by 2030.
Unlike these transport-related measures, the clean-electricity regulations are not set to kick in until 2035, so they make minimal difference to the two parties’ trajectories.
The Conservatives have also pledged to scrap the planned emissions cap on Canada’s oil-and-gas sector. The modellers left this out of their simulations, as it has yet to be legislated and there are still uncertainties about its implementation.
The modelling assumes that the Conservatives remove these climate policies and then do not replace them with anything else.
This may not be how things would play out. While the Conservatives are traditionally more opposed to climate action than the Liberals, they have not confirmed that they would withdraw from their national or international obligations altogether.
Indeed, Poilievre has described “technology, not taxes” as “the best way to fight climate change”, saying clean industries should be encouraged in Canada by expanding tax credits. Such proposals are not captured in this modelling.
Starke and Rhodes write that these would in any case have limited impact:
“We do not analyse the effect of various subsidies such as tax credits and grants because all political parties promise these and they have only a marginal effect on greenhouse gas emissions.”
There is also uncertainty around the impact an escalating trade war might have in Canada – including its fossil-fuel sector – as politicians seek to bolster domestic industries. This makes it harder to predict future emissions trajectories under the two parties.
The Conservatives have been more vocal about backing Canada’s fossil-fuel industry, but the Liberals have also expressed support for the sector, including pipeline projects. However, the lack of clarity on such measures mean they only have a “modest effect” in the CIMS modelling, according to Starke and Rhodes.
Methodology
The “Liberal” and “Conservative” scenarios in this article come from modelling by Emma Starke, a PhD researcher at Simon Fraser University, and Dr Katya Rhodes, an associate professor at the University of Victoria.
They used the CIMS energy-economy model to simulate the impact of removing key climate policies, in cases where parties have been clear about their intention to do so.
They did not account for policies that were deemed to have “only a marginal effect on greenhouse gas emissions” and focused on “key regulatory and pricing policies because these are the most important for reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. Their approach is outlined in an article for Policy Options.
The analysis uses the “medium growth scenario” from Statistics Canada forecasts of population and GDP growth.
In the first chart, Carbon Brief uses historical emissions data from Canada’s official greenhouse gas inventory, which at the time of publication includes figures up to 2023. Note that Canadian historical emissions data has undergone changes between years as the government has shifted its methodology. This results in differences between datasets.
Canada’s emissions targets use the baseline year of 2005, for example a 40-45% reduction from 2005. In the most recent inventory, annual emissions in 2005 were 759MtCO2e. This baseline year does not include emissions from LULUCF.
However, Canada can use “accounting contributions” from the LULUCF sector to meet its emissions targets. This involves using a “reference level approach” for managed forest and associated harvested wood products, meaning the government compares actual emissions and removals to a projected “reference level”. It uses a “net-net approach” for all the other LULUCF sub-sectors, meaning both emissions are removals are accounted for to get a net emissions figure.
For simplicity, Carbon Brief has left LULUCF contributions, which are relatively small, out of the historical emissions figures used in the first chart.
The CIMS modelling does not include emissions from LULUCF, so these are not included in the “Liberal” and “Conservative” emissions trajectories. However, in order to calculate the size of the emissions gap between the trajectories and Canada’s future targets, Carbon Brief simply added figures from government projections to these trajectories. These figures amount to emissions reductions of roughly 28-31MtCO2e annually from 2030 out to 2040.
In the second chart, Carbon Brief has used emissions data from the Canadian government’s most recent emissions projections, which appeared in its BTR, published at the end of 2024. These figures are slightly different from the ones in the most recent inventory, include LULUCF contributions and only go out to 2022.
Besides LULUCF contributions, the government reports separately on the impact of nature-based climate solutions, “agriculture measures” and credits purchased under the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), all of which are considered “additional measures” in its modelling. Nature-based solutions and “agriculture measures” cut another 12MtCO2e annually from 2030 onwards, whereas WCI credits are barely used. These figures are included in the “additional measures” government estimate in the second chart.
The post Analysis: Conservative election win could add 800m tonnes to Canada’s emissions by 2035 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Conservative election win could add 800m tonnes to Canada’s emissions by 2035
Climate Change
Cropped 1 July 2026: Heatwave scorches Europe | UK 2050 farm plan | What’s next for the High Seas Treaty
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
Heatwave scorches European agriculture
‘PUSHED TO THEIR LIMITS’: The record-breaking heatwave that swept through much of western and central Europe in recent weeks had myriad impacts across the continent, reported Carbon Brief. Martin Lines, chief executive of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, explained: “Prolonged high temperatures place huge stress on livestock, dry out soils and reduce crop resilience, all while putting more pressure on nature.” The Times noted that “refrigerated warehouses were pushed to their limits” by the high temperatures.
POULTRY PROBLEMS: “At least several hundred thousand poultry” perished in France due to the extreme temperatures, the head of a French poultry-industry group told Reuters. A separate Reuters article said that “cows and pigs were suffering from heat stress” in Belgium, “which has raised concerns about milk and meat production”. Meanwhile, UK government data obtained by Carbon Brief showed that “twice as many animals died due to heat stress en route to slaughterhouses” amid record heat in 2025, compared to 2024.
FIRE AND ICE: The heatwave also had widespread impacts on the natural world. A wildfire scorched 200 hectares of moorland in Derbyshire, reported the Times. Derbyshire’s fire service said: “The ground is tinder dry and the slightest spark…could soon escalate to a major incident.” Agence France-Presse reported that “Swiss glaciers are set to lose an enormous amount of ice”, noting that this is the “second-earliest arrival on record of the tipping point known as ‘glacier-loss day’”.
UK 2050 farm plan
FARM CHANGES: The UK government launched a 2050 “farming roadmap” for England, setting out aims to make agriculture more resilient to climate change, increase domestic food production and boost nature recovery. The plan is “full of ambition”, but “falls short” on action and delivery, said National Farmers’ Union president Tom Bradshaw in a statement. Meanwhile, the government also announced £47m in funding for peatland protection and restoration schemes.
FOREST LOSS: UK companies may soon be required to “check that their supply chains are free from products linked to illegal land clearances”, reported the Times. The government revived plans for anti-deforestation rules for products such as soya, palm oil, cocoa and rubber, said the newspaper. The rules will initially target goods linked to illegal deforestation, but later move to a “blanket ‘deforestation-free’ standard”, it noted, adding that similar plans in the EU have been repeatedly delayed.
FRAUGHT FUND: UK energy secretary Ed Miliband was “poised to announce” a £400m commitment to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, but the plan was “shelved over ‘optics concerns’” amid a “bitter row over defence spending”, said the Times. Meanwhile, one of Europe’s oldest and largest trees died after “becoming stressed by a series of hot, dry summers”, reported the Guardian. The Major Oak, which has grown in England’s Sherwood Forest “for at least 1,000 years”, did not produce leaves this year, said the newspaper.
News and views
- OCEAN ACTION: The Our Ocean Conference concluded in Mombasa, Kenya, with more than 300 voluntary commitments from governments, civil-society groups, non-governmental organisations and others, said Carbon Brief. Observers told the outlet that “these pledges must now be backed up by action”.
- HOT SEAS: Record-high global ocean temperatures in June could lead the world to “uncharted territory”, said the Financial Times. Meanwhile, the Independent reported that a species of sea star thought to be extinct was found off the coast of California.
- EU PLANS: The European parliament approved rules to allow the use of gene-edited plants, marking a “major shift” in the EU’s approach to modified crops, reported Bloomberg. Meanwhile, Grilled, a new investigative newsletter, said the EU is “considering an overhaul of how it measures methane emissions from livestock”.
- BRAZIL BLAZES: Last year, fires caused a “significant spike in forest loss” across three areas in Brazil home to Indigenous peoples living in “voluntary isolation”, according to Mongabay. Indigenous leaders told the outlet that fire “affects their productive practices and destroys the biodiversity and vegetation they depend on”.
- DISCLOSURE DISPARITY: The Biodiversity Footprint Company analysed the climate- and biodiversity-related disclosures of “120 of the world’s largest listed companies”. It found that “companies disclose roughly two-thirds of assessed climate information, yet less than one-20th of the equivalent biodiversity information”.
- FRUITLESS: Fruit growers across the US south-western state of Utah “are reporting near-total harvest losses”, reported High Country News. It noted that a warm, dry winter, followed by a “record-breaking spring heatwave”, led orchards to bloom early, but the crop was then “devasta[ed]” by a “series of April freezes”.
Spotlight
‘Up and running immediately’: what’s next for the High Seas Treaty
This week, Carbon Brief speaks to Rebecca Hubbard, director of the High Seas Alliance, about the High Seas Treaty (also known as the agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or BBNJ). This interview was conducted at the Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, Kenya.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Carbon Brief: What connects BBNJ and climate change?
Rebecca Hubbard: The high seas cover half of the planet, or two-thirds of the global ocean. The ocean is essential for many things, including producing oxygen, absorbing carbon and absorbing the enormous amount of excessive heat we’ve produced as a result of burning fossil fuels. The ocean, including the high seas, cannot perform its critical climate-regulating role without healthy populations, without being healthy, and – at the moment – the high seas are not protected.
In fact, only around 1% of the high seas are protected and they’re under immense pressure from shipping, fishing, pollution [and] climate change – both heating and acidification. The High Seas Treaty, for the first time ever, gives us the legal framework to be able to protect the high seas. By being able to protect and better manage the high seas, we are assuring its critical role in protecting us from the worst of climate change.
CB: What were your hopes or expectations coming into this conference?
RH: My hopes were that we would get strong engagement and leadership from African states in the High Seas Treaty and we have seen that, which is really fantastic. There’s been a lot of support, a lot of leadership from African governments on the treaty and on their ambitions to not just complete their ratification processes, but to also start looking at creating marine protected areas. They want to be engaged and involved in leading and delivering those processes and I think that’s really exciting. It’s a great opportunity for the whole world. We can really get some exciting collaborations.
CB: What has been missing from the conversation here?
RH: I actually don’t think much has been missing, because I think there’s been a lot of different conversations. There’s been conversations around the need for finance to implement the treaty and this is something that’s common across all multilateral environmental agreements – certainly no stranger to the climate process. We’re going to need this huge amount of resources to implement the treaty. Where is that money coming from?
CB: We’ve got almost exactly six months until COP1 [the first Conference of the Parties for the High Seas Treaty scheduled for January 2027]. What needs to happen between now and then?
RH: We need as many more countries to ratify as possible. We hope that well over 100 countries will be party to the agreement by COP1, so that they can be at the decision-making table. We need countries to really prepare for that COP, so that they’re ready to really efficiently make the decisions founded off all of the work that we’re done through the PrepCom [preparatory commission] meetings [and] so that we can get the rules of procedure and the subsidiary bodies that are going to be essential to an effective implementation up and running immediately.
There is so much to do and we do not have time to waste with circular negotiations, rehashing resolved issues. We also need countries to continue to prepare for implementation, particularly back in their capitals – establishing inter-ministerial committees, so that you have a cohesive and united approach from governments that reflects a whole-of-government approach. That’s what’s going to be essential for effective implementation.
Watch, read, listen
‘ELEPHANT MARSH’: Mongabay delved into the knock-on effects of a 2023 cyclone on farming households living in Malawi wetlands.
REEF RESILIENCE: In bioGraphic, journalist Claudia Geib explored the unexpected resilience of a coral reef in Miami that is home to some critically endangered species.
TRUMP VS ALGAE: The Guardian Science Weekly podcast discussed the causes of algal blooms, in light of the green algae saga at the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool in Washington DC.
FRAUGHT FARMING: A century-old state law protects the water rights of just a handful of users on the Deschutes River at the expense of the region’s farmers, said Oregon Public Broadcasting.
New science
- Growing oil crops, such as oil palm and coconuts, potentially caused the long-term loss of 1.5% of global plant and animal species between 1995 and 2020, with largest impacts in the tropics | Nature Food
- “Climate-smart agriculture” is improving household resilience in Ethiopia, but scaling its benefits requires addressing “local realities and inequalities” | Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
- Drought has been linked to “abundance declines” and range shifts in 40% of 37 birds species living in the deserts of the western US | Conservation Letters
In the diary
- 1-3 July: UN Food and Agriculture Organization global conference on “smart farming” | Rome (webcast available)
- 13-31 July: Meeting of the International Seabed Authority assembly and council | Kingston, Jamaica
- 14 July: Launch of the “state of food security and nutrition in the world” report | New York City
- 27 July-1 August: Scientific and technical subsidiary body meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity | Nairobi, Kenya
The post Cropped 1 July 2026: Heatwave scorches Europe | UK 2050 farm plan | What’s next for the High Seas Treaty appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
Proposal for ‘Hyperscale’ data centre in remote Northern Territory demonstrates need for urgent moratorium
SYDNEY, Wednesday 1 July 2026 — The proposal for the ‘Project Ares’ data centre in remote Northern Territory, which would be powered by off-grid gas and renewables, has prompted renewed calls from Greenpeace for an urgent moratorium, citing serious concerns about emissions and environmental harm.
The application for the project under the EPBC Act reveals the gas-fired generation for the project would be approximately 1,038MW at full build-out, which would more than double the NT’s current gas-fired generating capacity.
A recent report by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and independent expert Ketan Joshi, Energy Vampires: the AI data centres draining Australia, revealed how the frenzied rollout of AI data centres in Australia is set to derail the renewable energy transition, entrench gas and turbocharge climate pollution.
Solaye Snider, Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “Proposals like Project Ares, which would have significant off-grid gas powered generation and emissions, should not be moving along while there are still zero binding regulations to limit the impacts of AI data centres on our communities and environment.
“This hyperscale project proposes massive new off-grid gas infrastructure, making a mockery of the Federal Government’s unenforceable ‘expectations’ that data centres will cover their own power use with renewables. Communities will pay the price for the data centre industry’s endless hunger for energy at any cost.
“This proposal also raises serious questions about where this new gas would come from. Could it come from fracking the Beetaloo? Communities deserve to have the full picture before this project is approved.
“The Australian Government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the rapid roll-out of AI data centres. We need an urgent moratorium on the construction and approval of new data centres, so our government can take appropriate time to legislate the regulations and safeguards we so desperately need.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
When Tropical Storm Ana made landfall in Malawi in 2022, it hit the landlocked country’s electricity system hard, destroying a third of its hydropower capacity and causing nationwide system shutdowns.
Even before the storm, Malawi’s power supply – generated mostly from renewables including solar and hydro – had been unreliable for many years, suffering from persistent outages.
The Malawian government is now hoping to improve the stability of its grid power with the construction of a battery energy storage system (BESS) in its capital that will charge up with surplus electricity generated when the sun is shining and hydropower dams are running, and release it when needed.
More than 80% of Malawi’s electricity comes from renewables and the country has been expanding capacity by adding more solar power while decommissioning 78 megawatts (MW) of diesel generation. But climatic impacts such as cyclones disrupt the grid and threaten to reverse energy transition gains.
West Africa’s first lithium mine awaits go-ahead as Ghana seeks better deal
To ensure a more stable supply, Malawi is building the 20 MW/30 megawatt hour (MWh) battery storage system in Lilongwe with support from the Global Energy Alliance (GEA), under Mission 300 – an initiative led by development banks and their partners to connect 300 million Africans to electricity by 2030.
The project in Malawi aims to stabilise the country’s grid, smooth its intermittent power supply, and reduce its reliance on diesel generators, as well as averting about 10,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year.
Battery energy storage systems act like giant power banks, absorbing clean electricity during periods of lower demand and releasing it for use when demand is high or generation drops. A typical BESS includes battery packs, inverters that allow electricity to flow between the batteries and the grid, transformers, and cooling and safety systems.
Damola Omole, director of the ‘Grids of the Future, Africa’ programme at the GEA, a philanthropic organisation, said BESS offers the “flexibility needed to smoothly integrate high levels of variable renewables” into the power grid. In doing so, it can reduce reliance on expensive diesel generation and protect consumers and industries from rising energy costs, he added.
Can BESS drive Africa’s industrialisation?
As calls to develop local green industries grow louder in Africa, Omole said there is a need to prioritise upgrading national grids with BESS so they can “transmit reliable, cost-reflective power directly to commercial clusters”.
While financiers previously doubted that intermittent solar and wind could meet the needs of industrial production, utility-scale BESS has demonstrated that renewables can deliver “predictable, steady output just like traditional fossil-fuel baseload power”, he added.
In recent years, African leaders, including William Ruto of Kenya, Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Emmerson Mnangagwa of Zimbabwe, have called for the continent to use the energy transition to drive green industrialisation and create value from its resources at home.
At a mining investment conference in Nairobi in April, Ruto said Africa had stayed at the bottom of the value chain for too long but would now collaborate to process its minerals within the continent. “We will refine them here and we will manufacture them here,” he told African ministers and business executives.
Kenya seeks regional coordination to build African mineral value chains
However, deploying energy at scale to advance this industrial ambition has long been a problem, while about 600 million Africans still lack access to electricity. BESS could therefore become a critical technology in the continent’s development drive, experts say.
Michael Iwu, West Africa business development manager at Empower New Energy, which finances and co-develops renewable energy, said BESS is challenging the narrative that solar and wind power alone cannot provide enough reliable electricity to run factories and other energy-intensive industries. Modern battery systems can now support business operations for several hours, helping maintain production during grid outages, he added.
For GEA’s Omole, the key question has shifted to how quickly countries can build the battery storage, grid infrastructure and market frameworks needed to unlock the potential of renewables.
BESS to help renewables displace fossil fuels
While BESS is still in its initial stages of deployment in Africa, interest is growing as countries look for ways to make renewable energy more reliable.
South Africa is leading with the largest and first of its kind utility-scale BESS on the continent. With the capacity to discharge up to five uninterrupted hours of power, the system is keeping homes and businesses running in Worcester, a southwestern town of more than 100,000 people.
Egypt is also investing heavily in battery storage. In 2025, the country launched its first utility-scale BESS, a 300-MWh facility integrated with a 500 MW solar plant in the southern city of Aswan. It has also committed more than $1 billion to strengthen its electricity grid and update regulation to support battery storage projects.
Africa needs more than export bans to cash in on critical minerals, experts say
Falling battery prices are helping drive the rapid deployment of energy storage. According to BloombergNEF, battery packs for stationary storage (used in BESS) cost an average of $70 per kilowatt-hour in 2025, down 45% from 2024.
Soon the role of BESS in supporting the grid integration of wind and solar could reduce reliance on fossil fuels and help the world meet ambitious climate goals, according to a GEA report released in April.
Stephen Nicholls, director of South-Africa based energy think-tank African Energy Futures, said the rapid pace of technological development and the falling costs of BESS are attracting growing attention.
He said improvements in storage duration could further strengthen the role of renewables in industrial power systems. While most commercial and utility-scale battery systems currently provide around four to eight hours of storage, Nicholls said researchers are developing units capable of storing electricity for extended periods.
“The cheaper the storage and the longer the storage, the more [BESS] will replace fossil fuels like gas,” he added.
Limited awareness and data
However, significant obstacles to BESS deployment still stand in the way of its massive potential. Iwu of Empower New Energy said limited awareness of utility-scale BESS, as well as concerns about financing and a lack of long-term performance data continue to slow investment across Africa.
Governments and developers need to build more pilot projects and demonstration sites to generate evidence of the technology’s value and benefits and boost confidence among investors and policymakers, he added. To scale BESS, we need to “keep amassing this [evidence] data and keep talking about it and exploring it,” Iwu said.
Two to tango: How governments can unlock private investment for national climate goals
To help address those barriers, Omole said a BESS Consortium under the Global Energy Alliance is working with governments, development banks and other technical partners to de-risk the sector for private financiers by generating evidence from early projects, mobilising public finance to attract private capital, and introducing policies that make battery storage commercially viable.
“This coordinated action helps African nations bypass legacy infrastructure constraints, integrate massive volumes of clean energy, and secure the reliable power required for large-scale industrialisation,” Omole explained.
The post Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future?
Cropped 1 July 2026: Heatwave scorches Europe | UK 2050 farm plan | What’s next for the High Seas Treaty
Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Building The Circular Economy With Glacier CEO Rebecca Hu-Thrams
Proposal for ‘Hyperscale’ data centre in remote Northern Territory demonstrates need for urgent moratorium
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 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”
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测