The number of new coal plants under development in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) region has reached record lows since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015.
The OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 38 member countries, founded in 1961 to stimulate economic growth and global trade. It includes many of the world’s wealthiest countries.
In all, the number of proposed coal plants in the OECD region has decreased from 142 in 2015 to five today – a 96% fall.
This is according to the latest data from Global Energy Monitor’s Global Coal Plant Tracker (GCPT), which includes the third quarter (Q3) of 2024.
The GCPT catalogues all coal-fired power units 30 megawatts (MW) or larger, with the first survey dating back to 2014.
The fall in proposals puts the OECD region well on its way to meeting UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres’s 2019 call for “no new coal”, defined as the cancelling of all unabated coal proposals not already under construction.
It means that one of the five remaining proposals could be the last new coal-fired power station to ever be built in the OECD.
The OECD and no new coal
Of the 13 OECD countries with coal plant proposals in 2015, all but Turkey have since pledged to stop building new coal plants.
Indeed, since 2015, proposed coal-fired capacity in the OECD has fallen from 142 coal proposals totalling 111 gigawatts (GW) to just five proposals totalling 3GW, GCPT data shows.
However, there are exceptions for coal plants that significantly lessen or “abate” carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
Four of the five proposals – shown in the map below – include plans for CCS.
Moreover, none of the five proposals currently have the necessary permits for construction. This means it will likely be several years before construction begins – if they are built at all, as most of the proposals in the OECD since 2015 have been abandoned entirely.
Of the 111GW of new coal capacity that was proposed in 2015, 82% (91GW) has since been shelved or cancelled, compared to 17% (19GW) commissioned.
This is a large part of the reduction in the coal pipeline in the OECD, shown in the figure below.
The most recent coal plants to enter the construction phase in the OECD broke ground in 2019. Its 1GW of capacity remains under construction today.
The 111GW of proposals in 2015 listed in the GCPT were located across 13 countries: Australia, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Turkey, the UK and the US.
Since 2015, 12 of the 13 countries have pledged support for no new coal, whether as part of the international Powering Past Coal Alliance or through a domestic moratorium on new coal plant permits. The UK phased out coal power entirely this year.
These commitments to no new coal have been aided by the decreasing costs of competing power sources, including gas and – increasingly – solar and wind power.
Additionally, many countries have seen sustained opposition campaigns to new coal plants over the pollution they would cause, their high energy costs and population displacement.
As the OECD turns away from new coal, coal power capacity in the region peaked in 2010 at 655GW and has since declined by about one-third to 443GW, as countries shut down ageing coal plants.
Turkey resists no new coal
To date, the government of Turkey has resisted calls for no new coal, despite repeated rollbacks in its coal plans.
The vast majority of the country’s proposed coal plants have never materialised, as shown in the figure below.
Specifically, since 2015, more than 70GW of planned coal plant capacity in Turkey has been called off, compared to 6GW commissioned, translating into a cancellation rate of 92% since 2015. This is one of the highest cancellation rates in the world, GCPT data shows.
Coal plant proposals in Turkey face a myriad of challenges, including strong public opposition over coal plant pollution and coal industry privatisation. Additionally, domestic lignite coal is low-quality and unreliable, often leading many plants to use higher-cost imported coal instead, weakening the economic case for continued reliance on coal.
In the third quarter of 2024, the licenses for two coal plants – Karaburun and Kirazlıdere – were cancelled due to irregularities in the environmental permitting process and the loss of interest in the investment by plant sponsors. Another plant, Malkara, was shelved due to a lack of activity, GCPT notes.
The developments have left Turkey with only one coal plant proposal – a remarkable development after being among the top 10 countries with proposed coal-powered capacity for nearly a decade.
Despite this, Turkey has not committed to ending new coal plant proposals. Indeed, its recently updated enhanced climate plan, known as a nationally determined contribution submitted during COP29, makes no mention of coal phaseout.
The country’s remaining proposal is a 688MW two-unit expansion of the sizable Afşin-Elbistan power station complex in the city of Kahramanmaraş.
Local residents have opposed the project, saying the increase in pollution in the densely populated city will lead to thousands of premature deaths and cost billions of dollars.
Australia, Japan, the US and ‘clean coal’
The remaining four coal plant proposals in the OECD are located in Australia, Japan and the US.
While the government of Australia recently pledged support for no new coal and the Japanese and US governments were part of the recent G7 commitment to coal phaseout, the three countries also support CCS to lessen or “abate” emissions from coal plants.
Abated coal plants may be considered compatible with no new coal pledges if they “substantially reduce” carbon emissions enough to meet Paris-aligned targets.
Critics argue that coal CCS proposals are more expensive and polluting than cleaner electricity alternatives, often relying heavily on government subsidies in order to be economically viable.
Only a handful of CCS coal plants have ever reached commercial operation – and none have captured as much of the resulting CO2 as they were targeting.
The Japanese government signed on to a G7 agreement earlier this year to phase out unabated coal power by the mid-2030s and continues to promote a suite of “clean coal” technologies, both domestically and abroad.
The country’s single remaining coal plant proposal is a new coal “gasification” unit at J-Power’s Matsushima power station, dubbed GENESIS. The plant would gasify the coal, then co-fire the resulting gases with biomass, ammonia and hydrogen, before using CCS to abate the resulting emissions.
Under outgoing president Joe Biden, the US also signed on to the G7 agreement and was one of twelve countries that joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance during COP28 in 2023.
The country has two Department of Energy (DOE)-backed coal-fired power plant proposals that include plans for CCS, as required under pending Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for new coal power plants.
While the future of both the coal pledges and regulations are uncertain, given the recent re-election of Donald Trump, to date the former president has been unable to turn the tide for coal. More coal power capacity was retired under Trump’s first term than either Barack Obama or Biden, and no new coal plants have been built in the US for over a decade.
Australia’s Labor party voted into power in 2022 recently joined a COP29 call for no new unabated coal. The country has not commissioned a new coal plant since 2012, with over 13GW of proposed coal-fired capacity cancelled since 2010.
The country’s remaining coal proposal, the Collinsville (Shine Energy) power station, has been touted by its sponsors as a “high efficiency, low emissions” (HELE) coal project with plans to include CCS.
Despite these sparse plans for the development of further coal projects, therefore, it seems clear that the end is in sight for coal power in the OECD.
The post Analysis: Only five proposals for coal plants remain across OECD’s 38 countries appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Only five proposals for coal plants remain across OECD’s 38 countries
SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.
Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:
“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.
“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.
“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara is the Executive Director of the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), an Indonesia-based economic think tank. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the Director of the China-Indonesia desk at CELIOS.
Indonesia produces around 60% of the world’s nickel, a metal used to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) – more than any other country in the world. But in 2026, the government sharply reduced how much of its nickel can be extracted from the ground.
Production quotas were reduced by around 40% this year compared to 2025. Weda Bay, the largest nickel mine on Earth, had its allowance cut by more than 70% and exhausted its full-year quota by the end of May, halting mining entirely; it cannot resume large-scale extraction until next year unless regulators grant an extension.
The policy has sparked a vivid debate in Indonesian policy circles: how can the country shift its strategy from a decade of mining vast quantities of cheap nickel to producing a high-value and low-carbon material that the rest of the world wants for EV batteries.
The cuts aren’t a silver bullet to clean up Indonesia’s nickel industry, whose smelters are powered by coal – the most polluting fossil fuels. But alongside stricter enforcement of environmental rules, it is one side of efforts to produce more sustainable nickel for a premium.
Restricting Indonesia’s nickel output
Production quotas were introduced to stop the collapse of nickel prices because of oversupply in the market. Prices had fallen more than 40% in 2023 alone and kept sliding as Indonesian supply kept growing, hitting a four-year low of around $13,900 a ton in late 2025.
Critics called the recent tightening of production quotas proof that Indonesia’s nickel strategy has failed, arguing that the industry shouldn’t need to throttle its own output to survive. But when assessed against what the policy was supposed to do – push up nickel prices – it has worked. Prices jumped to $20,000 a ton in May, the highest since 2024.
-
Big banks’ lending to coal backers undermines Indonesia’s green plans
Foreign banks involved in Indonesia’s $20-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership have also funded companies working on coal power expansion, a TBIJ and Climate Home News investigation reveals -
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Renewables developers need reliable electricity infrastructure and stable policies to help the region meet climate goals and surging demand for power
Chinese industry groups representing companies that have invested billions to mine and refine the country’s nickel were furious, warning Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto that the cuts put $50 billion worth of investment at risk. But much of that Chinese capital is sunk into smelters and processing plants built specifically to run on Indonesian ore, and cannot simply be moved elsewhere. That gives Jakarta more room to hold its ground than the warning suggests.
Stronger environmental enforcement
Since the start of the year, Indonesia’s forestry task force has seized more than four million hectares of land from mines and plantations operating illegally in protected forests, collecting over two trillion rupiah ($113 million) in fines.
This included 148 hectares seized from Weda Bay for lacking a forestry permit. The share of nickel produced from illegal small-scale mining also fell from about a quarter in 2022 to roughly 10% by 2024.
The crackdown responds to serious environmental damages in the nickel industry. On Obi Island, a waste pond collapsed after heavy rain in June 2025, flooding three villages and killing a resident. Internal company tests found chromium-6 – a carcinogen – in the water, in quantities far above the legal limit. The footprint of another mine near Raja Ampat, which is home to some of the world’s richest coral reefs, grew 60-fold in just eight years.
The market is responding to early cleanup efforts. Low-carbon nickel now sells for a real premium, roughly $18,800 to $19,300 a ton compared with $17,900 to $18,300 otherwise, as carmakers seek to source cleaner materials to comply with the European Union’s new emissions rules for imports.
In turn, this is incentivising the industry to do more to green its operations. Vale Indonesia’s smelter in South Sulawesi now runs almost entirely on hydropower, for example.
None of this addresses coal use, however. Major Indonesian nickel producers still emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023. Indonesia may be cracking down on illegal mining and rewarding cleaner producers but it is still running its mines on the dirtiest fuel available.
Unequal benefits
For Indonesia to truly benefit from producing cleaner and high-value nickel, it needs to reap the economic benefits too. Although the industry has boosted the country’s economic growth, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
Konawe in Southeast Sulawesi is home to a major smelting complex. Growth in the district jumped from 6% to 22% between 2015 and 2023, driven almost entirely by the nickel industry, according to a study by the Lowy Institute study. At the same time, poverty levels increased slightly and unemployment remained unchanged.
-
Nickel mining for electric vehicles is destroying lives in Indonesia
Indonesia’s abundant nickel reserves are crucial for a low carbon world. But extracting them is ruining local peoples’ lives and causing rampant deforestation -
Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone
Indonesia supplies the EV industry with critical battery materials but the sector’s rapid expansion is infringing the rights of Indigenous peoples -
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
The government has abandoned its plan to shut down a major coal plant, which was a key part of the deal, raising doubts about the donor-backed approach
In Halmahera, another epicentre of the nickel industry, spending by the poorest fifth grew just 5% between 2019 and 2022, compared with 28% for the wealthiest fifth, according to a separate study.
Part of the reason for this inequality is the system for transferring mining royalties to district authorities where the mines are located. In theory, they are entitled to the largest share. But in practice, payments are delayed, companies routinely dispute what they owe and royalties are pooled and distributed across a larger area.
The Natural Resource Governance Institute has found that decentralisation handed local governments power to approve new mines faster than they could build their capacity to manage them. Higher output raises national income on paper, but local governments remain constrained by fiscal rules and infrastructure costs that scale with mining.
None of this makes the 2026 quota cuts a mistake. Indonesia has every right to defend its pricing power over a resource it controls. But limiting extraction isn’t going to fix underlying issues around environmental enforcement and revenue-sharing. That requires rules that are consistently enforced, royalties that reach communities living by the mines, and a plan to wean smelters off coal.
The post Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry appeared first on Climate Home News.
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits