As the closure of the Strait of Hormuz wreaks havoc on fossil-fuel supplies across the world, a prominent narrative in western media has been that low-carbon energy has helped mitigate the worst of the impact on China.
While Chinese-language media has featured similar arguments, it has also highlighted China’s coal industry and broader energy security narratives.
Below, Carbon Brief looks at how Chinese news outlets have covered the implications of the US and Israel war with Iran on energy use.
Justification for ‘new energy’ system
As the conflict has intensified, several Chinese-language outlets have put the spotlight on China’s clean-energy infrastructure.
The tensions highlight the “importance” of energy security and the energy transition, writes Bo’ao forum secretary-general Zhang Jun in a commentary for the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily.
The China Youth Daily, a party-run newspaper oriented towards younger readers, says the conflict has “exacerbated” fragile energy supply chains, underscoring the need to “develop ‘new energy’ sources for energy security”.
Building “localised” clean-energy capacity is a “strategic necessity”, as well as an important aspect of climate action, writes Wang Ning, associate researcher at the government-affiliated Institute of World Economy in the state-supporting Global Times.
Meanwhile, Liu Ying, research fellow at Renmin University’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, tells state news agency Xinhua that China is well-placed to benefit if the crisis catalyses a “restructuring of the global energy order” and hastens uptake of solar and wind power.
Echoing this sentiment, WeChat account Photovoltaic News, which is run by an unnamed individual, says: “New energy is precisely the core of China’s strength.”
Coal is king?
However, the broader commentary on the war has tended to emphasise China’s “all-of-the-above” approach to the energy transition.
State broadcaster CCTV ran a segment on 6 April underscoring Chinese president Xi Jinping’s focus on the “need to accelerate the planning and construction of a new energy system to ensure energy security”. The broadcast did not explicitly mention the conflict.
It said Xi also emphasised “coordinating” hydropower development with ecological conservation, “actively” building nuclear power in a “safe and orderly manner” and ensuring energy supply by “strengthening” development of the energy system across production, supply, storage and sales.
A “greener, more diversified and more resilient” energy system will “provide a strong guarantee for China’s energy security and economic development”, CCTV added, but it also emphasised the need to develop “clean and efficient” fossil fuels.
A “sharp commentary” in the People’s Daily – a designation for comments that the newspaper finds important – says that a range of initiatives, from “diversified energy imports” to “vigorous development of green energy” allowed China to “secure its energy supply” and “take the initiative in energy security”.
Similarly, an editorial in commercial news outlet 21st Century Business Herald says that China is “less likely to face direct impacts from this oil crisis” because of its reliance on both coal and renewables.
It also notes the opportunity that the conflict represented in terms of greater global demand for Chinese clean-energy technology.
Coal’s role in the energy mix as a “ballast” and “peak-shaving” tool “continues to strengthen”, says economic news outlet Jiemian – although the outlet also acknowledges China’s “vigorous” clean-energy additions.
Pro-coal accounts on WeChat especially emphasise the fuel’s role in the crisis.
Coal will “continue to serve as the cornerstone of energy supply”, says Coal Vision, a WeChat account run by Xiamen Zhengzhuo Trading, a firm that trades coal and other commodities.
Similarly, Guizhou Coal Data argues: “When a real emergency strikes, you have to ask: which energy source do we truly control? There’s only one answer: coal.” The account is run by the information services firm Guizhou Yuteng Coal Industry Big Data Information Center.
Several outlets also highlight China’s efforts to secure gas supplies from elsewhere.
Wen Shaoqing, columnist at nationalist outlet Guancha, writes that an agreement between China and Turkmenistan shortly after the conflict began that reaffirmed plans to develop a new gas pipeline represented a “strategic” move to secure the “nation’s survival”.
Notably, two articles in Guancha summarising foreign outlets’ coverage of China’s response – both emphasising the role renewable energy played in insulating China from the energy shock – also received more than 100,000 views.
Security in coal chemicals
Meanwhile, Xinhua has published an article on “turning China’s advantage in coal resources into an advantage in developing natural gas”, although it does not explicitly mention Iran.
It adds that the head of China’s state-owned PetroChina Coalbed Methane Co has argued that coalbed methane could “propel China from [being] an energy giant to an energy powerhouse”.
Shortly after the Xinhua article was published, Jiemian said China had a responsibility to develop coalbed methane to “secure our energy self-sufficiency”.
Similarly, several news outlets have covered the “boon” that the war might be for China’s coal-chemical industry.
An article posted by WeChat account Xinghai Intelligence Bureau argues that China’s development of a coal-chemical industry, rather than “new energy”, is what prepared it for “worst-case scenarios” such as the war. The account is run by technology media company Beijing Lightspeed Time Network Technology.
Finance news outlet EastMoney says that the “strategic value” of China’s coal-chemical industry will likely rise “against the backdrop of growing global instability”.
The post Analysis: How Chinese media is covering the Iran energy crisis appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: How Chinese media is covering the Iran energy crisis
Countries’ climate plans would cut global emissions only half as much by 2035 as the UN projected a year ago, its annual assessment showed, after the US exit from the Paris Agreement and weaker new pledges worsened the outlook.
Taking into account the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of 154 countries, which cover about 71% of global emissions, and current policies in the rest of the world, global emissions would fall to about 6% below 2019 levels by 2035. Last year’s update, based on 113 countries, put the figure at 12%.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, emissions need to go down by 60% over the same period to limit global warming to 1.5C – a threshold that is now inevitably going to be breached, at least temporarily.
The latest NDCs put the world on course for between 2.1C and 3.2C of warming by the end of the century, depending on what countries do beyond 2035. That is slightly higher than the 1.9C–3.0C range that the UN climate body estimated in last year’s update, published during COP30.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
More than 30 countries have failed to submit an NDC, but only three have repeatedly ignored the committee’s efforts to engage with them
US exit worsens picture
A major factor is the US, the world’s second-largest emitter. Last year’s UN assessment included the pledge to cut emissions by between 61% and 66% by 2035, made under the administration of former President Joe Biden.
But, since the US has officially left the Paris Agreement, its NDC has been excluded from the tally and its emissions projections have now been derived from current policies, which point to far higher levels of pollution.
US emissions grew significantly last year as a result of growing electricity demand and the policies of President Donald Trump’s administration, which has rolled back support for clean energy and backed the burning of fossil fuels.
Weak new NDCs
Another reason for weaker emission reduction projections is that the approximately 40 new NDCs submitted since last year’s update have been less ambitious than the earlier UN modelling had hoped for.
India, the world’s third-largest emitter, submitted its NDC in April. Its plan would let emissions climb to 6.3 billion tonnes by 2035, almost 64% above 2023 levels, according to analysis by Climate Action Tracker (CAT). Its targets are weaker than India’s current policies and it could meet them as early as 2030.
-
Turkish giant sponsoring COP31 cut climate goals then cashed in on oil boom
COP31 sponsors should be screened for “climate integrity”. Yet Koç Holding has become a top partner while its oil refiner runs flat out and its climate targets slip -
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
UK approves gas drilling despite admitting blow to “climate leadership” status
The government accepts that approving the Jackdaw field will weaken its climate reputation and downplays the legal weight of the International Court of Justice opinion
Saudi Arabia’s plan, submitted at the end of last year, sets no 2035 target, but has only a 2040 goal to reduce, avoid or remove 335 million tonnes a year against an undisclosed baseline. CAT rates it “critically insufficient”, estimating 2035 emissions at between 13% below and 18% above 2019 levels.
About 30 countries, including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina, have still not produced an updated NDC, which all governments should have submitted more than a year and a half ago.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell said this year’s assessment report demonstrates again that collective progress remains insufficient, that global transitions are very uneven and that many countries face substantial barriers to delivering their targets and pledges.
He added that COP31 in Türkiye can help address some of the key gaps highlighted in this year’s reports, through ambitious outcomes on emission-cutting efforts, adaptation, climate finance and just transitions, as well as presidency-led initiatives on electrification, curbing methane emissions and progressing towards zero waste.
The post National climate plans now promise half the emission cuts expected by UN appeared first on Climate Home News.
National climate plans now promise half the emission cuts expected by UN
Climate Change
‘A strong start’: WA’s transition to renewable energy powerhouse aided by Premier’s announcement
PERTH, Tuesday 27 October 2026 — In response to WA Premier Roger Cook’s announcement of a doubled renewable energy target for WA’s main energy system, reported today, the following comments can be attributed to WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Geoff Bice:
“A Western Australian renewable energy target of 75% by 2030-31 is a welcome step in the right direction following sustained calls from across the WA community including unions, industry and advocacy groups.
“This common sense policy is a vital roadmap for WA’s shift to affordable and reliable solar and wind backed by batteries, and gives certainty to business and investors in a volatile global environment.
“Clear policy on renewable energy for WA’s main electricity grid will allow the phase out of polluting coal-fired power from the system and begin to remedy our reliance on expensive and polluting gas.
“This commitment is a positive first step for WA’s clean energy future, but the Cook Government must also address the state’s rising climate pollution driven by the gas industry and industrial processing.
“A natural step towards tackling rising emissions is rejecting any new fossil fuel projects, including Woodside’s proposal to drill for gas at Scott Reef.
“Expert advice and analysis compiled by Greenpeace and Springmount Advisory clearly lays out a viable pathway for WA to follow a staged transition away from fossil fuels and unlock almost $1 trillion of economic value by 2060 by replacing gas exports with green exports.
“The renewable energy target is a strong start — it must now be paired with emissions reduction targets to ensure climate pollution from WA starts falling urgently, and a plan for WA to become a renewable energy powerhouse must be prioritised.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Emma Sangalli at emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465
‘A strong start’: WA’s transition to renewable energy powerhouse aided by Premier’s announcement
Climate Change
WA EPA warned Woodside of ‘serious, significant and irreversible’ harms to Scott Reef from gas plans, new documents reveal
SYDNEY/PERTH, Tuesday 27 October 2026 — In response to Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (WA EPA) documents about Woodside’s plans to drill for gas at Scott Reef, as reported today, the following comments can be attributed to Glenn Walker, Head of Nature at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:
“These WA EPA documents show the depth of concern echoed by multiple regulators about Woodside’s plans to drill for oil and gas at Scott Reef, a proposal that flouts legislated nature protection principles.
“The WA EPA appears to have informed Woodside that the Browse project was bound for rejection based on an extensive review process and the opinion of multiple state government departments and independent experts.
“Greenpeace analyses have confirmed this year that Woodside’s gas drilling plans at Scott Reef still risk destroying vulnerable green turtle homes, further endangering pygmy blue whales with atomic bomb-level seismic blasting noise, and unleashing the worst oil spill in Australian history.
“The federal environment department raised similar red flags about oil spill risk from Woodside’s Scott Reef drilling plans in 2025 and 2026 before handing the project’s assessment over to the National Environmental Protection Authority.
“Woodside’s suggested ‘fixes’ in response to grave concerns for the wellbeing of Scott Reef and threatened species have been unilaterally criticised by independent experts for lacking in scientific basis and adequate detail.
“It would be a major backflip for both the WA EPA and the National EPA to now recommend approving this project. It is now critical that these regulators maintain their independence from corporate and political influence and reject this destructive project once and for all.”
-ENDS-
Notes to editor
Greenpeace Technical assessments of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan, the Turtle Management Plan, and an analysis of Woodside’s Browse Oil Spill Modelling and Risk Mitigation Plan
High res images and footage of Scott Reef can be found here
Media contact:
Emma Sangalli at emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org or 0431 513 465