Last year saw a record number of UK newspaper editorials opposing climate action – almost exclusively from right-leaning titles – new Carbon Brief analysis shows.
The analysis is based on hundreds of UK national newspaper editorials, which are the formal “voice” of the publications.
The 354 editorials published in 2023 relating to energy and climate change add to thousands more collected in a long-running project started by Carbon Brief.
Newspapers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail published 42 editorials in 2023 arguing against climate action – nearly three times more than they have printed before in a single year.
They called for delays to UK bans on the sale of fossil fuel-powered cars and boilers, as well as for more oil-and-gas production in the North Sea. In response to such demands, prime minister Rishi Sunak performed a “U-turn” in September on some of his government’s major net-zero policies.
Last year also saw a surge in hostility towards climate protesters, with editorial attacks doubling compared to recent years.
This analysis is part of a project assessing the attitudes of UK newspapers to climate change and energy since 2011. It shows that after a period of embracing climate action, right-leaning publications have largely returned to their historic stance of arguing against climate action.
- Record opposition to action
- Cost of net-zero
- Labour criticism
- Targeting climate activists
- Methodology
Record opposition to action
Carbon Brief captured 354 articles in its database of climate- and energy-related newspaper editorials last year, touching on topics ranging from UK energy bills to flooding in Libya.
Roughly half of these – 174 in total – specifically called for either more or less climate action. The main focus of these editorials was the UK government’s net-zero target and the policies it is implementing, or failing to implement, in order to achieve this goal.
As the chart below shows, the 42 editorials arguing for less action last year marked a new record for the past 13 years of climate coverage.
There was a clear partisan divide in attitudes towards climate action.
Nearly every editorial published in left-leaning and centrist titles that offered an opinion on climate action advocated for more to be taken. These made up around three-quarters of the articles calling for “more action” overall.
The Guardian, for example, published editorials calling for an end to oil exploration in the UK and for the world to get rid of fossil fuels “entirely”.
By contrast, around half of the climate-related editorials published in right-leaning titles, such as the Sun and the Daily Mail, actively opposed climate action. Only one-third of these editorials supported climate action and the remainder expressed a mix of views.
As the chart below shows, the past two years have seen a dramatic fall in the share of right-leaning newspaper editorials supporting climate action – and a rise in the share opposing it.
Prior to this downward trend, right-leaning titles with long histories of climate scepticism had been showing growing enthusiasm for climate action. The Daily Express and the Sun even launched special climate initiatives in 2021, as the UK prepared to host the COP26 summit.
The drop in support for climate action among right-leaning newspapers was followed by the government rolling back some of its climate policies in 2023. (See: Cost of net-zero.)
Carbon Brief also analysed a smaller set of 64 editorials from the 354 published in 2023 that discussed notable energy sources – specifically, renewables, nuclear power and fracking for shale gas.
Within this group, there were 14 editorials that were explicitly anti-renewable energy.
This is the highest number since 2013, when there was widespread opposition to wind energy within the right-leaning press.
Some of the criticism last year was reminiscent of that era. The Sun, for example, said solar and wind generation “will never reliably power a country this size and with such variable weather”.
(While other low-carbon energy sources would be needed, the Climate Change Committee has concluded that the UK could achieve a reliable decarbonised power system by 2035 in which wind and solar meet 70% of demand.)
A Sunday Telegraph editorial said that “supposed progress” in renewables had “only been achieved thanks to lavish subsidies”. (In fact, wind and solar remain the cheapest way to generate electricity in the UK.)
Cost of net-zero
By far the most common anti-climate action narrative in newspaper editorials last year was the economic impact of what the Sun on Sunday called “bonkers net-zero policies that will just push prices up”. (Energy prices remain elevated thanks to expensive gas.)
The cost of net-zero, especially the up-front cost of buying electric vehicles and heat pumps, was consistently framed by right-leaning newspapers as something British people, in the words of the Sun, “just cannot afford”. (These papers invariably fail to mention the costs of inaction.)
This has been a popular topic among some right-wing and climate-sceptic commentators since the net-zero target was first proposed. This is in spite of analysis indicating that a net-zero transition would, ultimately, save UK households money.
As the chart below shows, costs emerged as an even bigger talking point in 2023, with one-third of all climate-related editorials referencing the issue. There were twice as many editorials in the past year mentioning the high costs of action than there has ever been.
Many, such as the Daily Mail, cited the wider economic situation in the UK as a reason not to act on climate change:
“When net-zero was made legally binding by 2050, Britain had not had Covid, the Ukraine war and rampant inflation. Now the country is skint and can’t afford it.”
(It is worth mentioning that publications such as the Daily Mail have been making similar arguments since long before any of these issues emerged. In 2017, it stated that climate action had only come at a “crippling cost to Western economies”.)
In light of what they argued were “unaffordable” costs, these publications argued that the best course of action would be to abandon “unrealistic” net-zero policies.
(The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the costs of failing to act on climate change would be “much larger” than the costs of taking action.)
Right-leaning publications published numerous editorials calling for the government to delay or scrap plans to phase out gas boilers and internal combustion engine cars, introduced under former Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson. One Daily Telegraph editorial said:
“There would surely be huge political benefits to scrapping all these pointlessly punitive measures.”
On 20 September, Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak gave a speech in which he announced a series of rollbacks of net-zero policies that he said would protect “hard-working British people” from “unacceptable costs”. These included delays to the phase-out of fossil fuel-powered vehicles and boilers, as well as efficiency rules.
(Far from reducing costs, the rollbacks are expected to cost renters £2bn per year and drivers £6bn cumulatively, by leaving homes more draughty and cars more expensive to run.)
As the chart below shows, the speech followed a flurry of editorials warning of the costs of net-zero. After Sunak’s announcement, these editorials almost stopped entirely.
Left-leaning and centrist publications rejected the notion that net-zero policies would inevitably place an economic burden on people in the UK.
The Guardian noted that, while “reaching net-zero will be costly and disruptive”, this just made it vital to have a “well-thought-out plan to share the cost equitably”. The Financial Times made the case for “green growth”, stating:
“True leadership…would involve finding ways to carry voters with [Sunak] through the challenges ahead and seizing on the green transition to rekindle growth and spur innovation.”
Labour criticism
Sunak’s net-zero rollback was widely perceived by the UK press as an attempt to put “clear blue water” between himself and Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition Labour party.
Meanwhile, there was a concerted effort in the right-leaning press to discredit Labour’s two flagship climate announcements – namely, pledges to spend £28bn each year on “green” investment and to stop issuing new oil-and-gas licences.
This was particularly evident in the Sun and the Daily Mail, the UK’s two most widely read national newspapers. Of the 128 climate- or energy-related editorials from these newspapers captured in Carbon Brief’s database last year, 31 took aim at Labour’s climate proposals.
The debate around North Sea oil and gas was a major talking point last year, with many right-leaning editorials stating that new drilling licences would be vital for the UK’s energy security. (After a surge of interest in 2022, fracking was virtually forgotten last year, with just two editorials mentioning it in 2023.)
Labour officially announced in May that it planned to stop all new oil-and-gas developments.
Right-leaning newspapers responded by implying that environmental activist group Just Stop Oil and low-carbon energy tycoon Dale Vince were responsible for setting Labour’s policies. This claim was based on the fact that Vince, who had financially supported Just Stop Oil, had also given £1.5m to Labour.
In total, there were 16 editorials in the Sun, the Sun on Sunday and the Daily Mail about Vince’s support for Just Stop Oil and Labour. They described Vince as “bankrolling” Labour and helping to “dictate its green agenda”, framing Labour as “allies” of Just Stop Oil and “in their pocket”.
(Vince’s £1.5m in donations to Labour were spread over 10 years. The Labour Party has received donations totalling nearly £30m in the most recent 12 months for which official data is reported. The Conservatives have received £43m over the same period.)
These narratives were later picked up by then net-zero secretary Grant Shapps, who wrote a letter to Starmer in July concerning Vince’s support, and called Labour the “political wing of Just Stop Oil”.
(Responding to criticism, Starmer said in August that Labour would honour existing North Sea licences and maintain oil-and-gas fields “for decades to come”. He called Just Stop Oil’s more radical demands “contemptible”. Vince announced in October he would stop funding Just Stop Oil.)
More broadly, there was also an effort to frame Labour’s “green” policies as what the Sun called a “turn-off for much of the electorate”. This was particularly true following the Uxbridge by-election in July, where the Labour London mayor Sadiq Khan’s anti-air pollution policy, the ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ), was viewed as significant in Labour narrowly missing out on winning the seat.
There were also many editorials throughout 2023 attacking shadow net-zero secretary Ed Miliband, with the Sun stating:
“Labour wanted to gamble a monstrous £28bn a year in borrowed money on a ‘green industrial revolution’ dreamed up by Ed Miliband, a man voters rejected in 2015 as incompetent.”
The media continues to fuel speculation over Labour’s £28bn “green prosperity plan”, which Starmer recently defended.
Targeting climate activists
Climate activists have been a major target for right-leaning newspapers in recent years, especially since Extinction Rebellion’s mass protests in 2019.
Yet their hostility towards climate activists reached new levels last year. There were 56 editorials taking aim at these groups, with 43 of these targeting Just Stop Oil. As the chart below shows, this is more than double the previous record of 25, set in 2022.
Editorials in the Sun and the Daily Mail described Just Stop Oil as a “criminal cult”, “eco-loons” and “deranged”. The Sun devoted entire editorials to targeting individual activists for taking flights or driving a car to the supermarket to buy fruit.
In a year that saw the government introduce strict and controversial new legislation to crack down on protests, UK newspapers were vocal in their support for tougher treatment of climate activists.
Prior to new penalties being introduced under the Public Order Act, a Times editorial about Just Stop Oil protests stated that “the law is as asinine as the tactics of those narcissists”.
The Sun, meanwhile, said the police were “too busy with fashionable woke causes and politely escorting Just Stop Oil protesters to bother with catching crooks”.
Methodology
This is a 2023 update of previous analysis conducted for the period 2011-2021 by Carbon Brief in association with Sylvia Hayes, a PhD researcher at the University of Exeter. The 2022 update can be found here.
The full methodology can be found in the original article, including the coding schema used to assess the language and themes used in editorials concerning climate change and energy technologies.
The analysis is based on Carbon Brief’s editorial database, which is regularly updated with leading articles from the UK’s major newspapers.
The post Analysis: Record opposition to climate action by UK’s right-leaning newspapers in 2023 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Record opposition to climate action by UK’s right-leaning newspapers in 2023
Greenhouse Gases
DeBriefed 13 February 2026: Trump repeals landmark ‘endangerment finding’ | China’s emissions flatlining | UK’s ‘relentless rain’
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Landmark ruling repealed
DANGER DANGER: The Trump administration formally repealed the US’s landmark “endangerment finding” this week, reported the Financial Times. The 2009 Obama-era finding concluded that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and has provided a legal basis for their regulation over the past two decades, said the New York Times.
RACE TO COURT: Multiple environmental groups have already threatened to sue over the administration’s decision, reported the Guardian. The fate of the ruling is likely to ultimately be decided by the Conservative-majority Supreme Court, explained the New York Times.
‘BEAUTIFUL CLEAN COAL’: Separately, Donald Trump signed an executive order requiring the Pentagon to buy coal-fired power, a move aimed to “revive a fuel source in sharp decline”, reported the Los Angeles Times. Despite his efforts,Trump has overseen more retirements of coal-fired power stations than any other US president, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Around the world
- CLIMATE TALKS: UN climate chief Simon Stiell said in a speech on Thursday that climate action can deliver stability in the face of a “new world disorder“ while on a visit to Turkey, which will host the COP31 climate summit later this year, reported BusinessGreen.
- IBERIAN CATASTROPHE: A succession of storms that hit Spain and Portugal in recent weeks have caused millions of euros worth of damage to farmlands and required more than 11,000 people to leave their homes in Spain’s southern Andalusia region, said Reuters.
- RISKY BUSINESS: The “undervaluing” of nature by businesses is fuelling its decline and putting the global economy at risk, according to a new report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), covered by Carbon Brief. Carbon Brief interviewed IPBES chair Dr David Obura at the report’s launch in Manchester.
- CORAL BLEACHING: A study covered by Agence France-Presse found that more than half of the world’s coral reefs were bleached over a three-year period from 2014-17 during Earth’s third “global bleaching event”. The world has since entered a fourth bleaching event, starting in 2023, a scientist told AFP.
- ‘HELLISH HOTHOUSE EARTH’: In a commentary paper, scientists argued that the world is closer than thought to a “point of no return”, which could plunge Earth into a “hellish hothouse” state, reported the Guardian.
7.4 gigawatts
The record amount of solar, onshore wind and tidal power secured in the latest auction for new renewable capacity in the UK, reported Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- Human-caused climate change made the hot, dry and windy weather in Chile and Argentina three times more likely | World Weather Attribution (Carbon Brief also covered the study)
- “Early-life” exposure to extreme heat “increases risk” of neurodevelopmental delay in preschool children | Nature Climate Change
- Climate change, urbanisation and species characteristics shape European butterfly population trends | Global Ecology and Biogeography
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
China’s carbon dioxide emissions have “now been flat or falling for 21 months”, analysis for Carbon Brief has found. The trend began in March 2024 and has lasted almost two years, due in particular to falling emissions in major sectors, including transport, power and cement, said the analysis. The analysis has been covered widely in global media, including Agence France-Presse, Bloomberg, New York Times, BBC World Service and Channel 4 News.
Spotlight
UK’s ‘relentless rain’
This week, Carbon Brief takes a deep dive into the recent relentless rain and floods in the UK and explores how they could be linked to climate change.
It is no secret that it can rain a lot in the UK. But, in some parts of the country, it has rained every day of the year so far, according to Met Office data released this week.
In total, 26 stations set new monthly rainfall records for January. Northern Ireland experienced its wettest January for 149 years and Plymouth, in the south-west of England, experienced its wettest January day in 104 years.
Areas witnessing long periods of rain included Bodmin Moor in Cornwall, which has seen 41 consecutive days of rain “and counting”, reported the Guardian. The University of Reading found that its home town had its longest period of consecutive rain – 25 days – since its records for the city began in 1908.
The relentless rainfall has caused flooding in many parts of the country, particularly in rural areas.
There were more than 200 active flood alerts in place across England and Wales at the weekend, with flood warnings clustered around Gloucester and Worcester in the West Midlands, as well as Devon and Hampshire in southern England. A flood “alert” means that there is a possibility of flooding, while a “warning” means flooding is expected.
“Growing up, the road to my school never flooded. But the school has already had to close three times this year because of flooding,” Jess Powell, a local resident of a small village in Shropshire, told Carbon Brief.
Climate link
While there has not yet been a formal analysis into the role of climate change in the UK’s current lengthy period of rain and flooding, it is known that human-caused warming can play a role in wet weather extremes, explained Dr Jess Neumann, a flooding researcher from the University of Reading. She told Carbon Brief:
“Warmer air can hold more moisture – about 7% more for every 1C of warming, increasing the chance of more frequent and at times, intense rainfall.”
The UK owes its rainy climate in large part due to the jet stream, which brings strong winds from west to east and pushes low-pressure weather systems across the Atlantic.
Scientists have said that one of the factors behind the UK’s relentless rain is the “blocking” of the jet stream, which occurs when winds slow, causing rainy weather patterns to get stuck.
The impact of climate change on the jet stream is complex, involving a lot of different factors. One theory, still subject to debate among scientists, is that Arctic warming could play a role, explained Neumann:
“As the Arctic warms faster than the tropics, the temperature gradient that fuels the jet stream weakens, causing it to become slower and wavier. Blocking patterns develop that can cause weather conditions to get stuck over the UK, increasing the likelihood of extreme rainfall and flooding.”
Adaptation needs
Long periods of rain saturate the ground and can have adverse impacts on agriculture and wildlife.
Prof Richard Betts, a leading climate scientist at the Met Office and the University of Exeter, said that these impacts can have harmful effects in rural areas:
“The climate change-driven increase in flood risk is impacting food production in the UK. In 2024, the production of wheat, barley, oats and oilseed rape shrunk by 13% due to widespread flooding of farmland.
“Assistance with recovery after flooding is increasingly important – obviously, financial help via insurance and reinsurance is vital, but also action to reduce impacts on mental health is increasingly important. It’s very stressful dealing with the impacts of flooding and this is often not recognised.”
One key adaptation for floods in the UK could be to “integrate natural flood management, including sustainable urban drainage, with more traditional hard engineering techniques”, added Neumann:
“Most importantly, we need to improve our communication of flood risk to help individuals and communities know how to prepare. We need to shift our thinking from ‘keeping water out’ to ‘living with water’, if we want to adapt better to a future of flooding.”
Watch, read, listen
‘IRREVERSIBLE TREND?’: The Guardian explored how Romania’s emissions have fallen by 75% since the 1990s and have been decoupled from the country’s economic growth.
UNDER THE SEA: An article in BioGraphic explored whether the skeletons of dead corals “help or hinder recovery” on bleached reefs.
SPEEDING UP: Through dynamic charts, the Washington Post showed how climate change is accelerating.
Coming up
- 16-19 February: Sixth meeting of the subsidiary body on implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Rome, Italy
- 20 February: Webinar on the key findings from the International Energy Agency policy brief: the value of demand flexibility: benefits beyond balancing
- 20 February: UN day of social justice
- 22-27 February: Ocean Sciences Meeting, Glasgow, UK
Pick of the jobs
- UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), national senior climate change expert | Salary: Unknown. Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
- British Antarctic Survey, marine biologist | Salary: £31,183. Location: Antarctica
- Green Climate Fund, regional lead for resource mobilisation – Europe | Salary: $109,000. Location: Seoul, South Korea
- Scientific American, documentary film proposals | Up to $80,000 per commissioned film
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 13 February 2026: Trump repeals landmark ‘endangerment finding’ | China’s emissions flatlining | UK’s ‘relentless rain’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
EPA move shows urgent need for congressional climate action
February 12, 2026 – The EPA has finalized its proposal to rescind its 2009 determination that climate pollution endangers public health and welfare, also known as the “endangerment finding.” The EPA’s primary argument is based on a reinterpretation of Congress’ intent under the Clean Air Act for the EPA to broadly regulate pollutants.
As a reminder, the endangerment finding provides the legal foundation under the Clean Air Act for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Without it, the EPA would lack clear authority under that statute to regulate emissions from sources like vehicle tailpipes and certain industrial facilities.
It’s worth noting that the vast majority of emissions reductions in the U.S. to date have resulted from cleaner energy sources replacing coal, as a result not of federal regulations, but of market forces as clean technologies became cheap.
Still, over half a million public comments were submitted on the EPA’s draft rule, including a formal comment from CCL that emphasized EPA’s mandate from Congress to regulate climate pollution.
Today’s decision reveals in stark terms that regulations alone are not a reliable path to enduring climate action. Federal regulations and executive orders tend to be temporary, shifting with each new presidential administration.
“It’s simply not enough for Congress to direct an agency to regulate climate pollution — Congress needs to pass laws that actively shift our economy toward clean energy, whether through carbon pricing, faster energy permitting processes, or other policy tools like the ones we advocate for here at Citizens’ Climate Lobby,” said Jennifer Tyler, CCL’s Vice President of Government Affairs.
That’s why CCL’s focus remains on working with lawmakers to pass lasting climate solutions.
“Legislative action provides durable policy that will drive the deep, long-term emissions reductions we need. That’s especially true when Members of Congress from both parties work together on solutions, as we urge them to,” Tyler added.
The EPA’s decision will next be challenged in the courts, a process that will likely take several years and may ultimately reach the Supreme Court. CCL appreciates that our allies in the climate space are equipped to fight on this particular battlefront and will be bringing these lawsuits.
“CCLers will continue to work together — across the aisle and across the country — to build political will for effective climate solutions in Congress,” affirmed Ricky Bradley, CCL’s Executive Director.
CONTACT: Flannery Winchester, CCL Vice President of Marketing and Communications, 615-337-3642, flannery@citizensclimate.org
###
Citizens’ Climate Lobby is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots advocacy organization focused on national policies to address climate change. Learn more at citizensclimatelobby.org.
The post EPA move shows urgent need for congressional climate action appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.
Donald Trump has overseen more retirements of coal-fired power stations than any other US president, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
His administration’s latest efforts to roll back US climate policy have been presented by interior secretary Doug Burgum as an opportunity to revive “clean, beautiful, American coal”.
The administration is in the process of attempting to repeal the 2009 “endangerment” finding, which is the legal underpinning of many federal climate regulations.
On 11 February, the White House issued an executive order on “America’s beautiful clean coal power generation fleet”, calling for government contracts and subsidies to keep plants open.
On the same day, Trump was presented with a trophy by coal-mining executives declaring him to be the “undisputed champion of beautiful clean coal”.
These words are in sharp contrast to Trump’s record in office, with more coal-fired power plants having retired under his leadership than any other president, as shown in the figure below.
This is because coal plants have been uneconomic to operate compared with cheaper gas and renewables – and because most of the US coal fleet is extremely old.
In total, some 57 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity has already been retired during Trump’s first and second terms in office, compared with 48GW under Obama’s two full terms and 41GW under Biden’s single term.
Even in relative terms, the US has lost a larger proportion of its remaining coal fleet for each year of Trump’s presidencies than for either of his recent predecessors.
Trump’s record hints at the many practical and economic factors that have driven US coal closures, regardless of the preferences of the president of the day.
Indeed, Trump made variousefforts to prop up coal power during his first term in office. These were ultimatelyunsuccessful, as the figure below illustrates.
Coal plants have been retiring in large numbers over the past 20 years because they were uneconomic relative to cheaper sources of electricity, including renewables and gas.
These unfavourable market conditions, alongside air pollution regulations unrelated to climate change, have resulted in a steady parade of coal closures under successive presidents.
By 2024, wind and solar were generating more electricity in the US than coal.
More recently, analysis from the US Energy Information Administration shows that surging power prices have improved the economics of both coal and gas-fired power plants.
These rising prices have been driven by increasing demand, including from data centres, and by higher gas prices, due to increasing exports at liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals.
These factors saw coal-power output increase by 13% year-on-year in 2025, only the second rise in a decade of steady decline for the fuel, according to the Rhodium Group.
Nevertheless, many utilities have still been looking to shutter their ageing coal-fired power plants.
The vast majority of US coal plants are nearing retirement. Three-quarters of US coal capacity is more than four decades old and only 14% is less than 20 years old, as shown in the figure below.
In response, the Trump administration has recently invoked legislation designed for wartime emergencies to force a number of uneconomic coal plants to remain open.
Despite Trump’s efforts, clean energy made up 96% of the new electricity generation capacity added to the US grid in 2025. None of the new capacity came from coal power.
The post Analysis: Trump has overseen more coal retirements than any other US president appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Trump has overseen more coal retirements than any other US president
Trump Administration Dropped Controversial Climate Report From Its Decision to Rescind EPA Endangerment Finding
Gallup Disappears into Ignominy
The First Casualty of Trump’s Climate Action Repeal: The U.S. EV Transition
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change6 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases6 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits