The UK has “added” around £450m to its climate-aid spending in developing countries by changing how it defines “climate finance”, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
In a statement to parliament, the government has laid out a new plan to meet its goal of providing £11.6bn of international climate finance (ICF) between 2021/22 and 2025/26.
It relies on expanding the activities that the UK classifies as ICF to include payments into development banks and more money for the private sector.
When compared to pre-revision data obtained by Carbon Brief via freedom of information (FOI) request earlier this year, these changes appear to “add” hundreds of millions of pounds to the UK’s climate aid over the past two years.
These changes would mean ICF spending has “risen” since 2020.
This contrasts strongly with Carbon Brief analysis published last week which showed how, prior to these changes, spending had fallen for two years in a row.
This development comes after months of concern that the UK would not be able to meet its ICF goal. Cuts to foreign aid and the diversion of funds to house refugees had rendered the ICF target a “mathematical impossibility”, according to former minister Zac Goldsmith.
Meeting the target
The government committed in 2019 to spending £11.6bn on ICF between 2021/22 and 2025/26. It said this would amount to “doubling” its ICF spending from its previous five-year target of £5.8bn.
In his statement to parliament on 17 October, development minister Andrew Mitchell set out “how we expect to meet our target”, publishing figures for the total spend in 2021/22 and 2022/23, plus estimated ranges for the following three years.
The figure he gave for 2021/22 was £1.65bn. This is £181.6m more than the £1.47bn figure provided to Carbon Brief by FOI earlier this year. (That approximate figure has also been cited by Mitchell himself, who said in July the UK had spent “over £1.4bn” on ICF in 2021/22.)
The ICF figure given for 2022/23 was £1.63bn, which is £267.4m more than the £1.36bn figure stated in Carbon Brief’s FOI results. That number was based on “provisional” data provided by the government, as well as an estimate for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs ICF contribution. It was backed up by a leaked civil service document reported by the Guardian.
In total, this amounts to an additional £449.1m over these two years.
As the chart below shows, the new figures mean ICF has increased since 2020/21 rather than declined.
In response to Carbon Brief’s previous analysis, climate-finance experts said it looked increasingly unlikely that the UK would be able to meet its £11.6bn goal. Carbon Brief calculated spending would have to roughly double and remain that high for three years.
As part of his statement, Mitchell laid out an “expected range” for the UK’s ICF between 2023/24 and 2025/26, which would result in between £11bn and 12bn being spent across the full five-year period.
While this projected increase would be less pronounced than the earlier figures suggested, it is still significant, as the chart below shows. Mitchell said this reflected “both the increasing importance of tackling climate change and the growth in our economy”.
‘Moving the goalposts’
The government has arrived at these figures by expanding the range of spending it categorises as climate finance. Experts and campaigners have described the act as “moving the goalposts” and “an exercise in double-counting”.
One major change is that the UK now counts climate-related contributions to the World Bank and other multilateral development banks towards its climate-finance goals. This would amount to roughly an additional £200m a year.
Until now, the UK has limited how much of its investments through British International Investment (BII) and other private finance mobilisation programmes count as climate finance. Now, the government plans to loosen these restrictions, meaning more money will go to businesses rather than country-led responses to climate change.
The government has defended its changes on the basis that other major climate-finance contributors, such as Germany, Japan and the US, already use these approaches.
Mitchell said in his statement that “the UK has long looked to lead on climate action”, citing its record providing climate finance overseas. However, Euan Ritchie, a senior development finance policy advisor at the thinktank Development Initiatives, tells Carbon Brief:
“The UK has been one of the better climate-finance reporters in the past…Justifying slackening in reporting standards based on what other countries are doing is problematic. We want other countries to be improving their reporting to be in line with the UK, not vice versa.”
As Mitchell’s statement points out, the UK has historically provided 85% of its ICF as grants – generally seen as superior to loans for debt-laden countries – while the global average for grant-based finance is 26%. Experts tell Carbon Brief that the new approach will likely mean more UK climate finance is distributed as loans.
In addition, as the 2019 pledge to “double” UK climate finance was based on the original calculations, the new methodology means the £11.6bn goal is no longer comparing like for like.
Catherine Pettengell, executive director at Climate Action Network UK, tells Carbon Brief:
“It is an accounting exercise to get to a specific figure and is nothing about doubling the amount of finance available or the intended impact and outcomes of climate finance. With costs of climate change escalating around the world, relabelling existing finance is so far from what is actually needed.”
Previously, there had been suggestions that the government could only achieve its goals by taking aid from other funding streams. Given this, Ian Mitchell, an economist at the Center for Global Development, pointed out that broadening the climate-finance definition provided a better option for meeting the £11.6bn target than taking funds from health or education aid.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) declined to comment on Carbon Brief’s analysis.
The post Analysis: UK ‘adds’ £450m to its climate-finance spending by changing definition appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK ‘adds’ £450m to its climate-finance spending by changing definition
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
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 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Change1 year 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”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale
-
Climate Change3 weeks ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop