With national climate plans through to 2035 due in the coming weeks, some governments are planning to use carbon offsets purchased from other countries to meet their new emissions-cutting goals. But early efforts by Japan to develop such credits highlight potential problems for the new Paris Agreement offsetting mechanism, which experts fear could unleash a fresh wave of greenwashing.
Bilateral agreements to transfer emission reductions from one country to another are taking off after rules were finalised at COP29 last November, with countries looking for new ways to fund climate action and achieve targets set out in their updated national plans.
But long before the climate summit in Baku, Japan had already spent over a decade setting up its international carbon offsetting mechanism modelled on Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement. Tokyo says the scheme will “contribute to the decarbonization of the world”, while providing a reservoir of credits that, in future, both Japan’s government and its companies can draw on to meet their climate goals.
But a Climate Home News analysis of Japan’s current projects – from forest protection to energy-efficient lighting in Southeast Asia – raises questions over the climate benefits and environmental integrity of some of the offsets.
In one of Cambodia’s most endangered ecosystems – the Prey Lang forest – Climate Home found that tree-cutting has soared since the start of Japan’s largest such project, whose offsets rely on deforestation falling. Meanwhile, across the developing world, Tokyo earns carbon credits by using public subsidies to fund emissions reductions by its corporate giants, including fast-fashion firm Uniqlo.
Booming trade
Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement allows countries to trade “mitigation outcomes”, such as carbon credits, directly through bilateral deals. Typically, a wealthy nation funds programmes in a developing country to cut pollution in exchange for units known as ITMOs. These can help governments meet their national climate targets or be used by companies to comply with carbon-offsetting schemes, such as CORSIA for airlines.
Activity under the mechanism has accelerated this year after governments ironed out some of its final details at COP29 in Baku. There are now over a hundred bilateral agreements between more than 60 countries, with many more signalling in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) their intention to draw on Article 6.2 to meet part of their emissions-reduction goals.
Yet, as the profile of bilateral offsets grows, observers are concerned that Article 6.2’s light-touch regulations and limited oversight will usher in a new wave of poor-quality offsets that will reduce emissions only on paper – as has been the case in the voluntary market before recent top-level efforts to improve integrity.
Agreed on the back of tumultuous negotiations, the framework for Article 6.2 gives countries near-total freedom. They can decide amongst themselves how emission reductions are calculated and which environmental or social safeguards to put in place.
‘Free-for-all’
“We have this nice bit of text saying that ITMOs should be real, verified and additional – but that doesn’t really mean anything as there is no system in place that guarantees that,” said Federica Dossi, an Article 6 expert at Brussels-based group Carbon Market Watch. “It’s a free-for-all”.
After approving the terms of trading between themselves, countries are required to submit to the UN climate change body only limited information, which is reviewed by a technical team in what observers have described as a “box-ticking exercise”.
Industry says carbon capture still an expensive last resort to cut emissions
The UN’s expert panel can admonish countries if their disclosure around bilateral offsetting is incomplete, but it is forbidden from casting judgement on the quality of the cooperative activities.
Unlike in the nascent UN carbon crediting mechanism under Article 6.4 or the voluntary carbon market, there is no way to prevent countries from generating, or using, offsets that have little or no integrity.
“There are essentially no enforcement measures,” said Injy Johnstone, a research fellow in Net-Zero Aligned Offsetting at the University of Oxford. “This is one of the biggest gaps.”
Japan leads development
Few other countries have been at the forefront of the development of Article 6.2 like Japan. Long before the gavel came down approving the framework, Tokyo had already spent years working on its mechanism for bilateral offsetting: the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM).
“Countries that had already agreed partnerships would have never agreed to more stringent rules that could have invalidated their work up until then,” said Johnstone, who has closely followed the development of Article 6.2 governance and co-authored guidance on how countries can engage responsibly with the mechanism.
According to analysis by the UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre, more than three-quarters of the 162 existing Article 6.2 projects fall under Japan’s Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM), a scheme through which the Japanese government earns carbon credits by partnering with developing nations on emissions-reduction initiatives.
-
“Public health emergency”: Report shows fossil fuel impacts on every stage of life
The Global Climate and Health Alliance documents how fossil fuel extraction and use harms people throughout their lives, with the worst effects on marginalised groups -
COP observers invited to reveal who is bank-rolling their participation at climate talks
As UN climate change body introduces new voluntary transparency measures, campaigners welcome “much needed step” to keep fossil fuel influence out of the talks -
Countries trail COP30 clash over global response to shortfall in national climate plans
China, India and Saudi Arabia rejected a COP30 dialogue on an upcoming UN review of climate plans, widely expected to show the world is not on track to limit global warming to agreed levels
The JCM is effectively a forerunner to the bilateral offsetting mechanism introduced by Article 6.2. Tokyo set it up in 2013 – before the Paris Agreement came into being – after refusing to renew its support for the Kyoto Protocol amid growing frustration with its carbon-offsetting tool, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
“Japan thought [the CDM] was too heavily regulated,” Yuri Onodera of Friends of the Earth Japan explained to Climate Home.
Thirty-one countries have signed up to Japan’s scheme, with India being the latest – and largest – to join in August.
Additionality concerns
The JCM serves multiple purposes. When fully implemented, it will grant Japan a steady supply of credits that can either be counted by the government towards its international climate targets or used by companies to comply with carbon-pricing mechanisms.
But the JCM also directly supports Japan’s corporate giants both by providing ready-made markets for their low-carbon technologies or by subsiding their efforts to cut emissions overseas.
Fast Retailing, which runs an $80-billion clothing empire, has tapped the scheme to switch to more energy-efficient LED lights in its Uniqlo stores across Indonesia and Thailand with financial backing from the Japanese government.
Nearly a third of all JCM projects involve Japanese tech giants like Sharp or Panasonic installing solar panels in factories or shopping malls, which are often themselves run by subsidiaries of Japanese firms abroad.
Carbon market experts told Climate Home such projects would be regarded as low-integrity and possibly excluded from other carbon crediting mechanisms.
Renewable energy offsets last year failed to obtain a quality label from the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), a leading oversight body. That’s because existing rules do not go far enough to prove that the projects need the funding generated by selling carbon credits – a concept known as “additionality”.
Under Article 6.2, countries are free to come up with their own definition of additionality – and, Onodera said, Japan applies a “very lax and vague” one.
The Japanese government is planning to use the offsets generated by some of these projects to achieve its international emission-cutting targets under the Paris Agreement.
In its latest nationally determined contribution (NDC), published in early 2025, Japan said it aimed to accumulate ITMOs equivalent to 100 million tonnes of CO2 by 2030. If those are all counted towards the country’s NDC, it means about 15% of Japan’s planned emission reductions by 2030 will be achieved by funding measures to cut pollution overseas rather than taking action at home. The share of carbon offsets is set to rise to 20% in 2040.
Carbon Market Watch’s Dossi warned that the NDC process risks turning into “an accounting trick” if those ITMOs fail to meet high-integrity standards. “You would see countries claim that they are achieving climate targets when, in the real world, their emissions continue rising or stay at the same level,” she said.
Protecting Prey Lang?
The Japanese government, however, will not be the only beneficiary of the JCM. Japanese companies will also be able to use credits generated under the mechanism, for example, to comply with the country’s carbon pricing system.
The biggest existing JCM project is funded by Mitsui, a Japanese conglomerate with significant fossil fuel interests, in Cambodia. It aims to protect the Prey Lang, a vital biodiversity hotspot and one of the largest remaining lowland evergreen forests in Southeast Asia.
Prey Lang plays a key role in absorbing carbon from the atmosphere and combating climate change. But the forest has been plagued by widespread logging to harvest luxury timber, expand rubber plantations and set up mining operations – something experts say often happens with the complicity of the Cambodian government.
In 2018, the Cambodian environment ministry and Mitsui partnered up on a REDD+ project in a portion of the forest with the support of American environmental NGO Conservation International. Their stated goal was to reduce deforestation by bolstering law enforcement and improving the living conditions of local communities.
But trees have disappeared at a rapid rate since the project began. Forest loss nearly tripled between 2017 and 2024, according to Climate Home analysis based on data from monitoring service Global Forest Watch. In that period, around 4,000 hectares of forest vanished – an area equal to 12 times the size of New York’s Central Park.
“Deforestation has dramatically reduced the forest cover in the REDD+ project and it is extremely serious,” a spokesperson for the Prey Lang Community Network, a group of mainly Indigenous communities living in and around the area, told Climate Home by email.
Pressure from Cambodian authorities
The community network has been carrying out its own patrols and monitoring illegal activity in the forest since 2004 – long before the REDD+ project started. “The only reason Prey Lang is still there is because of the Indigenous people,” said Ida Theilade, a professor at the University of Copenhagen who has researched Prey Lang extensively. “Their lifestyle is tied to the forest.”
Sony Oum, Cambodia country director at Conservation International, said the NGO works “directly with the target villages to ensure broad participation […] and to support local communities’ role in conservation”.
But, despite its extensive local knowledge, the community network said it had been excluded from participating in the REDD+ project. The developers “have instead collaborated with sub-national and national authorities, which still oppose the activities of grassroots groups”, its spokesperson told Climate Home.
Observers have accused the Cambodian government of accelerating a crackdown against environmentalists and reporters who have documented illegal activities in the Prey Lang.
Journalist Uk Mao, who had reported on logging in the wildlife sanctuary, was arrested and charged with incitement and defamation in a case condemned by civil society groups and the UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders. Mao denied all the charges and told Mongabay he is being targeted because of his work.
Cambodian authorities have faced accusations of fuelling the drivers of deforestation in Prey Lang by handing out mining concessions, turning a blind eye to illegal wood harvesting and sanctioning the construction of power transmission lines across the reserve, as reported by Mongabay.
Questions over carbon accounting
Richard Jeo, senior vice president and chief Asia-Pacific field officer at Conservation International, told Climate Home that Prey Lang is “a complex environment”, but “we are seeing progress”. He added that the REDD+ project “is helping to slow deforestation rates compared to nationally reported baselines”.
Carbon credits from so-called ‘avoided deforestation’ activities, like Prey Lang’s, are underpinned by predictions of how many trees would have been cut down without the project, as well as how much carbon dioxide would have been released into the atmosphere as a result.
That is known as the baseline against which the project’s performance is assessed. This system has come under intense scrutiny over the last few years, with critics arguing that flawed methodologies for setting baselines compromise the integrity of carbon offsets.
In Prey Lang, project developers followed a rulebook drawn up by Conservation International and Mitsui themselves and approved by Japan’s JCM. It allowed them to derive the baseline from countrywide deforestation figures produced by the Cambodian government.
They also predicted which portions of the forest would be cut down. This matters because specific types of vegetation – like evergreen or semi-evergreen forest – can store significantly more carbon than others, such as deciduous trees that shed their leaves seasonally. Depending on where forest loss happens, the carbon savings – and the number of offsets issued – can vary significantly.
The project’s baseline anticipated that, in Prey Lang, the overwhelming majority of deforestation would happen in the carbon-rich evergreen and semi-evergreen portions of the forest. That scenario seemed to be confirmed in 2020 when, as part of an internal exercise, the team behind the project looked at satellite images to detect deforestation hotspots in the area and guide its patrols. That analysis found that, in the first two years of the project, close to 90% of forest loss had occurred in the evergreen and semi-evergreen areas.
But the first monitoring report required under the JCM before issuing carbon credits painted a completely different picture. Drawing on data from the Cambodian government, it recorded soaring forest loss overall. But it also reported that the evergreen portion was left untouched and the vast majority of the clearing happened in areas made up of deciduous vegetation and bamboo trees, which have lower or no capacity to absorb carbon and store it, respectively.
Despite rising deforestation in the Prey Lang, this meant project developers could still show that CO2 emissions caused by tree-cutting were not as high as the baseline scenario had anticipated. In December 2023, the JCM’s committee, made up of representatives from the Japanese and Cambodian governments, approved the findings and authorised the release of a first batch of over 600,000 credits.
University of Copenhagen researcher Theilade told Climate Home there appears to be “a lot of creative accounting” going on. “Can you actually say any carbon credits should be generated? I am not sure when you look at the deforestation happening,” she added.
Greenwashing risk
A spokesperson for Mitsui told Climate Home the firm has “helped provide resources that have led to a reduction in deforestation rates” against the project’s official baseline scenario, as well as giving funding for the development of a system that will enable community-led conservation in the future. “Meaningful forest protection takes time, and we will provide support to Prey Lang for as long as possible,” the statement added.
Conservation International’s Jeo said “protecting Prey Lang requires long-term, reliable funding” and carbon financing represents “a needed, viable mechanism” for achieving that.
“Lasting progress comes from doing the work, learning and adapting as data and methods evolve — that’s what this project is doing,” he added.
However, the lack of clarity over the methods used to measure avoided emissions reductions in this flagship programme, as revealed by Climate Home, suggests that governments will need to pay close attention to how they justify offsets under Article 6.2.
Given the power it affords to individual countries, Oxford University’s Johnstone said its integrity rests on them acting responsibly and building on the limited safeguards available.
Otherwise, she warned, the risk is that this mechanism “could enable greenwashing on a scale that we have never seen before”.
The post As governments bet on carbon trading, Japan’s early scheme spotlights pitfalls appeared first on Climate Home News.
As governments bet on carbon trading, Japan’s early scheme spotlights pitfalls
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
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility