Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement have increased by 1.1% in 2023, hitting a new record high of 36.8bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2), according to the 2023 Global Carbon Budget report by the Global Carbon Project.
The new report finds that the increase in fossil emissions in 2023 has been largely driven by increased emissions in China – without which the global total would have remained approximately flat at 2022 levels.
Total global CO2 emissions – including land use and fossil CO2 – increased by approximately 0.5% in 2023, driven by a combination of a small drop in land-use emissions, but an increase in fossil CO2 emissions.
However, total CO2 emissions remain ever so slightly below the highs set in 2019 and have been relatively flat since 2015.
The 18th edition of the Global Carbon Budget, which is published today, also reveals:
- Global land-use emissions have likely been falling over the past two decades, driven by decreasing rates of deforestation in Brazil and other countries. However, land-use emissions remain highly uncertain and trends should be interpreted with caution.
- Most of the increase in fossil emissions was from coal and oil. Global coal emissions reached a new record high, though oil emissions still remain below pre-pandemic levels. Gas emissions and those from cement and other sources remained relatively unchanged.
- China’s fossil CO2 emissions are estimated to be up 4% this year, while India’s are up 8.2%. US and European Union emissions are expected to fall by 3% and 7.5%, respectively.
- Emissions from international aviation and shipping have grown by an estimated 11.9% in 2023, reflecting a 28% increase in aviation emissions (as the sector continues to recover from pandemic lows) and a 1% increase in shipping emissions.
- Global CO2 concentrations in 2023 set a new record of 419.3 parts per million (ppm), up 2.4ppm from 2022 levels. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now 51% above pre-industrial levels.
Global CO2 emissions virtually tie 2019 record
While CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have exceeded pre-pandemic levels over the past two years, total CO2 global emissions – which includes those from land-use change – have remained marginally below 2019’s record of 40.9GtCO2.
In 2023, the global total effectively tied the 2019 record. The central estimate provided by the Global Carbon Budget is 0.1% lower than the prior record, though the large uncertainties – particularly for land-use change emissions – reduces confidence in the relative ranking of the two.
Each year the Global Carbon Budget is estimated to include the latest data as well as improvements to modelling sources and sinks, resulting in some year-to-year revisions to the historical record.
The figure below shows the 2023 (dark blue solid line), 2022 (yellow dotted), 2021 (bright blue dotted) and 2020 (red dotted) global CO2 emissions estimates, along with the uncertainty (shaded area) of the new 2023 budget.
The 2023 figures are quite similar to the 2022 numbers over the past decade, though it shows somewhat higher emissions during the 1980s and 1990s.
Annual total global CO2 emissions – from fossil and land-use change – between 1959 and 2023 for the 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 versions of the Global Carbon Project’s Global Carbon Budget, in billions of tonnes of CO2 per year (GtCO2). Shaded area shows the estimated one-sigma uncertainty for the 2023 budget. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Growth in total CO2 emissions has substantially slowed down over the past decade (2013-22), with an average growth of 0.14% per year. This is much lower than the 2.1% per year average growth rate over the previous decade (2003-12) and the longer-term average growth rate of 1.7% between 1959 and 2012.
The continued growth in fossil-fuel emissions has been largely counterbalanced by a slight decline in land-use emissions. However, the uncertainties surrounding land-use emissions remain quite large. As more data is collected there may be upward or downward revisions in the record over the past decade – as seen in both 2021 and 2022 versions of the Global Carbon Budget.
The figure below breaks down global emissions (black line) in the 2023 budget into fossil and (grey) land-use (yellow) components. Fossil CO2 emissions represent the bulk of total global emissions in recent years, accounting for approximately 90% of emissions in 2023 (compared to 10% for land-use). This represents a large change from the first half of the 20th century, when land-use emissions were approximately the same as fossil emissions.
Global fossil emissions include CO2 emitted from burning coal, oil and gas, as well as the production of cement. However, the Global Carbon Budget also subtracts the cement carbonation sink – CO2 slowly absorbed by cement once it is exposed to the air – from fossil emissions in each year to determine total fossil emissions.
Global CO2 emissions separated out into from fossil and land-use change components between 1959 and 2023 from the 2023 Global Carbon Budget. Note that fossil CO2 emissions are inclusive of the cement carbonation sink. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Recent analyses by both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Climate Analytics have suggested that global fossil emissions may peak in 2023, as the growth of clean energy accelerates and fossil fuel use declines.
However, hopes for an imminent peak in global emissions should be tempered by past failed predictions. Back in 2016, there were suggestions that global emissions had peaked and would decline. Similarly, a number of researchers (including one of the authors of this article) estimated that fossil emissions would peak in 2019 in the wake of Covid-19 disruptions. In reality, fossil emissions set new records in both 2022 and 2023.
It is also important to emphasise that stopping the growth of CO2 emissions does not stop CO2 from accumulating in the atmosphere or stop the world continuing to warm. For warming to stop, global CO2 emissions need to not only peak, but rapidly fall to net-zero.
Land-use emissions
The Global Carbon Budget estimates that land-use emissions will be 4.1GtCO2 in 2023, down around 5% from 2022 and continuing a small downward trend over the past two decades. However, despite declines in land-use emissions from deforestation, they remain substantially higher than CO2 removals from intentional reforestation and afforestation projects.
The Global Carbon Project now provides a database of land-use emissions by country, though it does not provide country-level emissions through to 2023 yet. The figure below highlights the four countries with the largest land-use emissions in 2022 – Brazil (grey shading), Indonesia (red), the Democratic Republic of Congo (bright blue) and China (yellow) – as well as land-use emissions in the rest of the world (purple).
Annual CO2 emissions from land-use change by major emitting countries and the rest of world from 1959-2022. Note that country-level land-use change emissions are not yet available for 2023. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
The decline in global land-use emissions over the past two decades was driven in part by decreasing rates of deforestation in countries such as Brazil, as well as slightly increasing removals of CO2 from reforestation and afforestation projects.
However, these estimates are subject to large uncertainties – as recently as 2020 researchers thought land-use emissions had been increasing – and the Global Carbon Budget authors suggest that long-term trends should be interpreted with caution.
This year’s budget provides a first estimate of how land-use emissions break down into different categories. They find that permanent deforestation is responsible for emissions of around 4.2GtCO2 per year, with around 1.9GtCO2 removed per year by reforestation and afforestation.
(In addition, there is currently a tiny 0.00001GtCO2 removed by permanent carbon removal technologies, such as direct air capture and enhanced rock weathering.)
Deforestation due to shifting cultivation cycles (where deforestation is temporary before land is abandoned to return to forest cover) is responsible for emissions of around 2.9GtCO2 per year, while regrowth in previously cultivated areas removes around 2.8GtCO2 per year. This results in only a small net source of emissions (~0.1GtCO2 per year).
The harvesting of trees for wood (as well as other forest management) leads to net emissions of around 0.8GtCO2 per year, as deforestation for timber production is higher than regrowth rates globally – though this will vary substantially by country and region.
Finally, other emissions from land management, such as peat drainage and burning as well as other land transitions, are responsible for around 1.4GtCO2 per year.
Emissions from wildfires are also presented in the new report, which notes that it is not an additional CO2 source – rather, forest fires are part of the net land carbon sink (or included as land-use emissions if triggered by humans for deforestation purposes).
Chinese emissions drive rising global fossil CO2
Global emissions of fossil CO2 – including coal, oil, gas and cement – increased by around 1.1% in 2023, relative to 2022, with an uncertainty range of 0.0% to 2.1%. This represents a new record high and is 1.4% above the 2019 pre-Covid levels.
The figure below shows global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, divided into emissions from China (red shading), India (yellow), the US (bright blue), EU (dark blue) and the remainder of the world (grey).
Annual fossil CO2 emissions by major countries and the rest of the world from 1959-2023, excluding the cement carbonation sink as national-level values are not available. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
China represents 31% of global CO2 emissions. Their emissions in 2023 are projected to increase by 4% (with an uncertainty range of 1.9% to 6.1%), driven by a rise in emissions from coal (+3.3%), oil (+9.9%) and natural gas (+6.5%). The strong growth in Chinese emissions in 2023 is partly due to a delayed rebound from Covid-19 lockdowns.
India represents 8% of global emissions. In 2023, Indian emissions are projected to increase by 8.2% (ranging from 6.7% to 9.7%), with a 9.5% increase in emissions from coal, a 5.3% increase in emissions from oil, a 5.6% increase in emissions from natural gas and a 8.8% increase in emissions from cement.
The large growth in coal in India is being driven by rapid increases in electricity demand. While India is installing large amounts of renewable energy, it is still far from sufficient to meet the growth in demand. Emissions from India now exceed those from the European Union, though they remain much smaller on a per-capita basis.
The US represents 14% of global emissions (though is responsible for a much larger portion of historical emissions and associated atmospheric accumulation of CO2). US emissions are projected to decrease by 3% in 2023 (ranging from -5.0% to -1.0%). This is being driven by a large decrease in coal emissions, which are expected to fall by more than 18% compared with 2022 levels. Oil emissions are expected to decline by a slight 0.3%, reflecting the rise of electric vehicles, while emissions from gas are expected to increase by 1.4%.
The European Union represents 7% of global emissions. EU emissions are expected to decrease by a sizable 7.4% in 2023, driven by a 18.8% decline in coal emissions, a 1.5% decline in oil emissions and a 6.6% decline in natural gas emissions (driven in part by higher prices and the phaseout of Russian gas).
A combination of rapidly increasing renewable capacity, electric vehicle adoption, lower energy demand and generally high fossil energy prices are driving fairly rapid emissions reductions.
The rest of the world represents 40% of global emissions, of which 2.8% is international aviation and shipping. Emissions in the rest of the world are expected to grow by 0.4% in 2023 – though this is entirely due to growth in international aviation and shipping, which are expected to grow by 11.9% (reflecting a 28% increase in aviation emissions and a 1% increase in shipping emissions). The large increase in aviation emissions reflects the ongoing recovery from pandemic-era declines.
Excluding international aviation and shipping, emissions in the rest of the world are expected to fall by 0.4%.
The total emissions for each year between 2019 and 2023, as well as the countries and regions that were responsible for the changes in absolute emissions, are shown in the figure below. Annual emissions for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and estimates for 2023 are shown by the black bars. The coloured bars show the change in emissions between each set of years, broken down by country or region – the US (bright blue), European Union (dark blue), China (red), India (yellow) and the rest of the world (grey). Negative values show reductions in emissions, while positive values reflect emission increases.
Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (black bars) and drivers of changes between years by country (coloured bars), excluding the cement carbonation sink as national-level values are not available. Negative values indicate reductions in emissions. Note that the y-axis does not start at zero. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
In the absence of an increase in Chinese emissions, global CO2 emissions would have remained flat between 2022 and 2023, with declines in the US, the EU and the rest of the world counterbalancing increases in India and in shipping and aviation.
The large (0.5GtCO2) increase in Chinese emissions relative to 2022 resulted in an overall year-over-year increase in global fossil CO2.
However, there is reason to think that the large increase in Chinese emissions in 2023 will not persist, given that it in part reflected economic recovery after extended Covid lockdowns. As a recent Carbon Brief guest post argued, the combination of slowing economic growth and rapidly expanding clean energy deployments suggests that Chinese emissions might fall in 2024, though it is too early to know with confidence.
The Global Carbon Project also notes that emissions have declined over the past decade (2013-22) in 26 nations despite continued domestic economic growth, representing a long-term decoupling of CO2 emissions and the economy.
These countries include Belgium, Brazil, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US and Zimbabwe. Collectively they represent 28% of global emissions.
Coal emissions reach record highs
Global fossil fuel emissions primarily result from the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas. Coal is responsible for more emissions than any other fossil fuel, representing approximately 41% of global fossil CO2 emissions in 2023. Oil is the second largest contributor at 32% of fossil CO2, while gas rounds out the pack at 21%.
These percentages reflect both the amount of each fossil fuel consumed globally, but also differences in CO2 intensities. Coal results in the most CO2 emitted per unit of heat or energy produced, followed by oil and natural gas.
The figure below shows global CO2 emissions from different fuels over time, covering coal (grey shading), oil (red) and gas (blue), as well as cement production (yellow) and other sources (purple). While coal emissions increased rapidly in the mid-2000s, it has largely plateaued since 2013. However, coal use increased significantly in 2021 and modestly in 2022 and 2023.
Annual CO2 emissions by fossil fuel from 1959-2023, excluding the cement carbonation sink. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Global emissions from coal increased by 1.1% in 2023 compared to 2023, while oil emissions increased 1.5% and gas emissions increased by 0.47%. Emissions from cement and other sources increased by 0.64%.
Despite setting a new record this year, global coal use is only 4% above 2011 levels – a full 12 years ago. By contrast, during the 2000s, global coal use grew at a rate of around 4% every single year.
The total emissions for each year between 2019 and 2023 (black bars), as well as the absolute change in emissions for each fuel between years, are shown in the figure below.
Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (black bars) and drivers of changes between years by fuel (coloured bars), excluding the cement carbonation sink. Negative values indicate reductions in emissions. Note that the y-axis does not start at zero. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
Even though they have been increasing over the past three years, global CO2 emissions from oil remain below pre-pandemic highs of 2019.
Similarly, emissions from natural gas decreased notably in 2022 and were flat in 2023, reflecting the effect of higher prices due to geopolitical instability associated with the conflict in Ukraine.
The global carbon budget
Every year, the Global Carbon Project provides an estimate of the overall “global carbon budget”. This is based on estimates of the release of CO2 through human activity and its uptake by the oceans and land, with the remainder adding to atmospheric concentrations of the gas.
(This differs from the commonly used term “carbon budget”, referring to the amount of CO2 that can be released while keeping warming below global limits of 1.5 or 2C.)
The most recent budget, including estimated values for 2023, is shown in the figure below. Values above zero represent sources of CO2 – from fossil fuels and industry (grey shading) and land use (yellow) – while values below zero represent “carbon sinks” that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Any CO2 emissions that are not absorbed by the oceans (dark blue) or land vegetation (green) accumulate in the atmosphere (blue).
Annual global carbon budget of sources and sinks from 1959-2023. Fossil CO2 emissions include the cement carbonation sink. Note that the budget does not fully balance every year due to remaining uncertainties, particularly in sinks. Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
The ocean takes up around 26% of total human emissions, or around 10.4GtCO2 per year. The ocean CO2 sink has been relatively flat from 2019 to 2022 due to persistent La Niña conditions (which tend to result in lower ocean CO2 uptake), but increased in 2023 in response to the emerging El Niño event.
The land sink takes up around 31% of global emissions, or 12.3GtCO2 per year on average. However, the land sink is expected to be notably lower in 2023 – only 10.4GtCO2 – due to the effect of El Niño on global vegetation.
Global CO2 emissions from fires were above average this year – at 7-8GtCO2 over the first 10 months of the year – largely due to the extreme wildfire season in Canada.
While fire emissions are presented alongside the global carbon budget for the first time in the 2023 report, a direct comparison cannot be made between fire emissions and other carbon budget components as they already show up in both parts of the land sink and land use emissions.
Overall, the impact of the ongoing emissions from human activity is that atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.
The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 in 2023 is expected to be around 2.4ppm, which matches the average rate over the past decade (2013-22). The emerging El Niño event is expected to contribute to a somewhat higher growth of atmospheric CO2 in 2024.
Atmosphere accumulation hits new heights
More than 40% of human emissions since the industrial revolution have accumulated in the atmosphere, with the remainder absorbed by land and ocean sinks.
The upper chart in the figure below shows the cumulative human emissions (dark blue line) and atmospheric CO2 accumulation (red) since 1750. The lower chart shows the percentage of cumulative emissions remaining in the atmosphere.
Cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (with the carbonation sink removed) and land use as well as atmospheric CO2 accumulation between 1750 and 2023 (top). Percentage of cumulative CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere over time (bottom). Data from the Global Carbon Project; chart by Carbon Brief.
The fact that global emissions substantially exceed atmospheric accumulation is a clear sign that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions, and that other natural systems including the ocean and biosphere are net sinks rather than sources.
This is reinforced by direct measurements showing that both are absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere over time.
The fact that less than half of human-caused emissions remain in the atmosphere over time is, ultimately, a good thing; it means that the world has experienced much less severe climate change than if all emissions remained in the atmosphere.
However, as the world continues to warm, the oceans and potentially the land will become less able to absorb a portion of our emissions. This means that the portion of human emissions remaining in the atmosphere is expected to increase in future.
The post Analysis: Growth of Chinese fossil CO2 emissions drives new global record in 2023 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Growth of Chinese fossil CO2 emissions drives new global record in 2023
In 2026, the dangers of fossil fuel dependence have been laid bare like never before. The illegal invasion of Iran has brought pain and destruction to millions across the Middle East and triggered a global energy crisis impacting us all. Communities in the Pacific have been hit especially hard by rising fuel prices, and Australians have seen their cost-of-living woes deepen.
Such moments of crisis and upheaval can lead to positive transformation. But only when leaders act with courage and foresight.
There is no clearer statement of a government’s plans and priorities for the nation than its budget — how it plans to raise money, and what services, communities, and industries it will invest in.
As we count down the days to the 2026-27 Federal Budget, will the Albanese Government deliver a budget for our times? One that starts breaking the shackles of fossil fuels, accelerates the shift to clean energy, protects nature, and sees us work together with other countries towards a safer future for all? Or one that doubles down on coal and gas, locks in more climate chaos, and keeps us beholden to the whims of tyrants and billionaires.
Here’s what we think the moment demands, and what we’ll be looking out for when Treasurer Jim Chalmers steps up to the dispatch box on 12 May.
1. Stop fuelling the fire
2. Make big polluters pay
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
4. Build the industries of the future
5. Build community resilience
6. Be a better neighbour
7. Protect nature
1. Stop fuelling the fire
In mid-April, Pacific governments and civil society met to redouble their efforts towards a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. Moving beyond coal, oil and gas is fundamental to limiting warming to 1.5°C — a survival line for vulnerable communities and ecosystems. And as our Head of Pacific, Shiva Gounden, explained, it is “also a path of liberation that frees us from expensive, extractive and polluting fossil fuel imports and uplifts our communities”.
Pacific countries are at the forefront of growing global momentum towards a just transition away from fossil fuels, and it is way past time for Australia to get with the program. It is no longer a question of whether fossil fuel extraction will end, but whether that end will be appropriately managed and see communities supported through the transition, or whether it will be chaotic and disruptive.
So will this budget support the transition away from fossil fuels, or will it continue to prop up coal and gas?
When it comes to sensible moves the government can make right now, one stands out as a genuine low hanging fruit. Mining companies get a full rebate of the excise (or tax) that the rest of us pay on diesel fuel. This lowers their operating costs and acts as a large, ongoing subsidy on fossil fuel production — to the tune of $11 billion a year!
Greenpeace has long called for coal and gas companies to be removed from this outdated scheme, and for the billions in savings to be used to support the clean energy transition and to assist communities with adapting to the impacts of climate change. Will we see the government finally make this long overdue change, or will it once again cave to the fossil fuel lobby?
2. Make big polluters pay
While our communities continue to suffer the escalating costs of climate-fuelled disasters, our Government continues to support a massive expansion of Australia’s export gas industry. Gas is a dangerous fossil fuel, with every tonne of Australian gas adding to the global heating that endangers us all.
Moreover, companies like Santos and Woodside pay very little tax for the privilege of digging up and selling Australians’ natural endowment of fossil gas. Remarkably, the Government currently raises more tax from beer than from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) — the main tax on gas profits.
Momentum has been building to replace or supplement the PRRT with a 25% tax on gas exports. This could raise up to $17 billion a year — funds that, like savings from removing the diesel tax rebate for coal and gas companies, could be spent on supporting the clean energy transition and assisting communities with adapting to worsening fires, floods, heatwaves and other impacts of climate change.
As politicians arrive in Canberra for budget week, they will be confronted by billboards calling for a fair tax on gas exports. The push now has the support of dozens of organisations and a growing number of politicians. Let’s hope the Treasurer seizes this rare window for reform.
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
As the price of petrol and diesel rises, electric vehicles (EVs) are helping people cut fuel use and save money. However, while EV sales have jumped since the invasion of Iran sent fuel prices rising, they still only make up a fraction of total new car sales. This budget should help more Australians switch to electric vehicles and, even more importantly, enable more Australians to get around by bike, on foot, and on public transport. This means maintaining the EV discount, investing in public and active transport, and removing tax breaks for fuel-hungry utes and vans.
Millions of Australians already enjoy the cost-saving benefits of rooftop solar, batteries, and getting off gas. This budget should enable more households, and in particular those on lower incomes, to access these benefits. This means maintaining the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and building on the Household Energy Upgrades Fund.
4. Build the industries of the future
If we’re to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to be building the clean industries of the future.
No state is more pivotal to Australia’s energy and industrial transformation than Western Australia. The state has unrivaled potential for renewable energy development and for replacing fossil fuel exports with clean exports like green iron. Such industries offer Western Australia the promise of a vibrant economic future, and for Australia to play an outsized positive role in the world’s efforts to reduce emissions.
However, realising this potential will require focussed support from the Federal Government. Among other measures, Greenpeace has recommended establishing the Australasian Green Iron Corporation as a joint venture between the Australian and Western Australian governments, a key trading partner, a major iron ore miner and steel makers. This would unite these central players around the complex task of building a large-scale green iron industry, and unleash Western Australia’s potential as a green industrial powerhouse.
5. Build community resilience
Believe it or not, our Government continues to spend far more on subsidising fossil fuel production — and on clearing up after climate-fuelled disasters — than it does on helping communities and industries reduce disaster costs through practical, proven methods for building their resilience.
Last year, the Government estimated that the cost of recovery from disasters like the devastating 2022 east coast floods on 2019-20 fires will rise to $13.5 billion. For contrast, the Government’s Disaster Ready Fund – the main national source of funding for disaster resilience – invests just $200 million a year in grants to support disaster preparedness and resilience building. This is despite the Government’s own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) estimating that for every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, there is a $9.60 return on investment.
By redirecting funds currently spent on subsidising fossil fuel production, the Government can both stop incentivising climate destruction in the first place, and ensure that Australian communities and industries are better protected from worsening climate extremes.
No communities have more to lose from climate damage, or carry more knowledge of practical solutions, than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The budget should include a dedicated First Nations climate adaptation fund, ensuring First Nations communities can develop solutions on their own terms, and access the support they need with adapting to extreme heat, coastal erosion and other escalating challenges.
6. Be a better neighbour
The global response to climate change depends on the adequate flow of support from developed economies like Australia to lower income nations with shifting to clean energy, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage.
Such support is vital to building trust and cooperation, reducing global emissions, and supporting regional and global security by enabling countries to transition away from fossil fuels and build greater resilience.
Despite its central leadership role in this year’s global climate negotiations, our Government is yet to announce its contribution to international climate finance for 2025-2030. Greenpeace recommends a commitment of $11 billion for this five year period, which is aligned with the global goal under the Paris Agreement to triple international climate finance from current levels.
This new commitment should include additional funding to address loss and damage from climate change and a substantial contribution to the Pacific Resilience Facility, ensuring support is accessible to countries and communities that need it most. It should also see Australia get firmly behind the vision of a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.
7. Protect nature
There is no safe planet without protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity that sustain us and regulate our climate.
Last year the Parliament passed important and long overdue reforms to our national environment laws to ensure better protection for our forests and other critical ecosystems. However, the Government will need to provide sufficient funding to ensure the effective implementation of these reforms.
Greenpeace has recommended $500 million over four years to establish the National Environment Agency — the body responsible for enforcing and monitoring the new laws — and a further $50 million to Environment Information Australia for providing critical information and tools.
Further resourcing will also be required to fulfil the crucial goal of fully protecting 30% of Australian land and seas by 2030. This should include $1 billion towards ending deforestation by enabling farmers and loggers to retool away from destructive practices, $2 billion a year for restoring degraded lands, $5 billion for purchasing and creating new protected areas, and $200 million for expanding domestic and international marine protected areas.
Conclusion
This is not the first time that conflict overseas has triggered an energy crisis, or that a budget has been preceded by a summer of extreme weather disasters, highlighting the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels. What’s different in 2026 is the availability of solutions. Renewable energy is now cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Global momentum is firmly behind the transition away from fossil fuels. The Albanese Government, with its overwhelming majority, has the chance to set our nation up for the future, or keep us stranded in the past. Let’s hope it makes some smart choices.
The 2026 budget test: Will Australia break free from fossil fuels?
Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economies
In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
-
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way -
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry
Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energy
The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org global campaign to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all
The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Computer models that use artificial intelligence (AI) cannot forecast record-breaking weather as well as traditional climate models, according to a new study.
It is well established that AI climate models have surpassed traditional, physics-based climate models for some aspects of weather forecasting.
However, new research published in Science Advances finds that AI models still “underperform” in forecasting record-breaking extreme weather events.
The authors tested how well both AI and traditional weather models could simulate thousands of record-breaking hot, cold and windy events that were recorded in 2018 and 2020.
They find that AI models underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events.
A study author tells Carbon Brief that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI weather forecasts
Extreme weather events, such as floods, heatwaves and storms, drive hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year through the destruction of cropland, impacts on infrastructure and the loss of human life.
Many governments have developed early warning systems to prepare the general public and mobilise disaster response teams for imminent extreme weather events. These systems have been shown to minimise damages and save lives.
For decades, scientists have used numerical weather prediction models to simulate the weather days, or weeks, in advance.
These models rely on a series of complex equations that reproduce processes in the atmosphere and ocean. The equations are rooted in fundamental laws of physics, based on decades of research by climate scientists. As a result, these models are referred to as “physics-based” models.
However, AI-based climate models are gaining popularity as an alternative for weather forecasting.
Instead of using physics, these models use a statistical approach. Scientists present AI models with a large batch of historical weather data, known as training data, which teaches the model to recognise patterns and make predictions.
To produce a new forecast, the AI model draws on this bank of knowledge and follows the patterns that it knows.
There are many advantages to AI weather forecasts. For example, they use less computing power than physics-based models, because they do not have to run thousands of mathematical equations.
Furthermore, many AI models have been found to perform better than traditional physics-based models at weather forecasts.
However, these models also have drawbacks.
Study author Prof Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the research institute for statistics and information science at the University of Geneva, tells Carbon Brief that AI models “depend strongly on the training data” and are “relatively constrained to the range of this dataset”.
In other words, AI models struggle to simulate brand new weather patterns, instead tending forecast events of a similar strength to those seen before. As a result, it is unclear whether AI models can simulate unprecedented, record-breaking extreme events that, by definition, have never been seen before.
Record-breaking extremes
Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as the climate warms. Record-shattering extremes – those that break existing records by large margins – are also becoming more regular.
For example, during a 2021 heatwave in north-western US and Canada, local temperature records were broken by up to 5C. According to one study, the heatwave would have been “impossible” without human-caused climate change.
The new study explores how accurately AI and physics-based models can forecast such record-breaking extremes.
First, the authors identified every heat, cold and wind event in 2018 and 2020 that broke a record previously set between 1979 and 2017. (They chose these years due to data availability.) The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to identify these records.
This produced a large sample size of record-breaking events. For the year 2020, the authors identified around 160,000 heat, 33,000 cold and 53,000 wind records, spread across different seasons and world regions.
For their traditional, physics-based model, the authors selected the High RESolution forecast model from the Integrated Forecasting System of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. This is “widely considered as the leading physics-based numerical weather prediction model”, according to the paper.
They also selected three “leading” AI weather models – the GraphCast model from Google Deepmind, Pangu-Weather developed by Huawei Cloud and the Fuxi model, developed by a team from Shanghai.
The authors then assessed how accurately each model could forecast the extremes observed in the year 2020.
Dr Zhongwei Zhang is the lead author on the study and a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He tells Carbon Brief that many AI weather forecast models were built for “general weather conditions”, as they use all historical weather data to train the models. Meanwhile, forecasting extremes is considered a “secondary task” by the models.
The authors explored a range of different “lead times” – in other words, how far into the future the model is forecasting. For example, a lead time of two days could mean the model uses the weather conditions at midnight on 1 January to simulate weather conditions at midnight on 3 January.
The plot below shows how accurately the models forecasted all extreme events (left) and heat extremes (right) under different lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy.
The chart on the left shows how two of the AI models (blue and green) performed better than the physics-based model (black) when forecasting all weather across the year 2020.
However, the chart on the right illustrates how the physics-based model (black) performed better than all three AI models (blue, red and green) when it came to forecasting heat extremes.
The authors note that the performance gap between AI and physics-based models is widest for lower lead times, indicating that AI models have greater difficulty making predictions in the near future.
They find similar results for cold and wind records.
In addition, the authors find that AI models generally “underpredict” temperature during heat records and “overpredict” during cold records.
The study finds that the larger the margin that the record is broken by, the less well the AI model predicts the intensity of the event.
‘Warning shot’
Study author Prof Erich Fischer is a climate scientist at ETH Zurich and a Carbon Brief contributing editor. He tells Carbon Brief that the result is “not unexpected”.
He adds that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
The analysis, he continues, is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI models are likely to continue to improve, but scientists should “not yet” fully replace traditional forecasting models with AI ones, according to Fischer.
He explains that accurate forecasts are “most needed” in the runup to potential record-breaking extremes, because they are the trigger for early warning systems that help minimise damages caused by extreme weather.
Leonardo Olivetti is a PhD student at Uppsala University, who has published work on AI weather forecasting and was not involved in the study.
He tells Carbon Brief that “many other studies” have identified issues with using AI models for “extremes”, but this paper is novel for its specific focus on extremes.
Olivetti notes that AI models are already used alongside physics-based models at “some of the major weather forecasting centres around the world”. However, the study results suggest “caution against relying too heavily on these [AI] models”, he says.
Prof Martin Schultz, a professor in computational earth system science at the University of Cologne who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the results of the analysis are “very interesting, but not too surprising”.
He adds that the study “justifies the continued use of classical numerical weather models in operational forecasts, in spite of their tremendous computational costs”.
Advances in forecasting
The field of AI weather forecasting is evolving rapidly.
Olivetti notes that the three AI models tested in the study are an “older generation” of AI models. In the last two years, newer “probabilistic” forecast models have emerged that “claim to better capture extremes”, he explains.
The three AI models used in the analysis are “deterministic”, meaning that they only simulate one possible future outcome.
In contrast, study author Engelke tells Carbon Brief that probabilistic models “create several possible future states of the weather” and are therefore more likely to capture record-breaking extremes.
Engelke says it is “important” to evaluate the newer generation of models for their ability to forecast weather extremes.
He adds that this paper has set out a “protocol” for testing the ability of AI models to predict unprecedented extreme events, which he hopes other researchers will go on to use.
The study says that another “promising direction” for future research is to develop models that combine aspects of traditional, physics-based weather forecasts with AI models.
Engelke says this approach would be “best of both worlds”, as it would combine the ability of physics-based models to simulate record-breaking weather with the computational efficiency of AI models.
Dr Kyle Hilburn, a research scientist at Colorado State University, notes that the study does not address extreme rainfall, which he says “presents challenges for both modelling and observing”. This, he says, is an “important” area for future research.
The post Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
-
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”
-
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
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测