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.
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
Climate Change
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
After a five-year long legal battle, the Constitutional Court of South Africa has blocked Shell and local partner Impact Africa’s permit to explore for oil and gas off the country’s East Coast, in a landmark victory for local communities and civil society.
“Today’s judgment makes me feel very happy and proud that the ocean is not for profit for mining companies,” said East Coast resident and environmental campaigner Siyabonga Ndovela.
The verdict culminates a years-long process in which non-profits Sustaining the Wild Coast, Natural Justice, Greenpeace Africa, and others took legal action against Shell, Impact Africa and the South African government for failing to consult affected communities – a legal requirement in the country.
The Constitutional Court ruled that Shell and Impact Africa had not complied with resource governance law, had failed to meaningfully conduct public consultation and had failed to consider the impact on climate change, cultural rights, livelihoods and ecological harm.
The ruling references last year’s landmark advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which states that countries have a legal duty to prevent and repair damage to the climate system. The South African judges argued climate change “transcends borders” and that states’ obligations “must be understood within the broader framework of international law.”
“This case must also be understood against the backdrop of well-documented struggles by coastal communities to protect their land, marine resources and ways of life in the face of extractive activities that they believe threaten their very existence,” wrote Justice Narandran Kollapen.
The Constitutional Court found that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.The ruling upholds a 2022 regional court decision against Shell and overturns a 2024 appeal that allowed the company to conduct fresh public consultations under the original exploration right. Today’s decision means the right, initially granted in 2014, must be set aside.
Celebrating the decision, Sherelee Odyar, oil and gas campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home News that the court confirmed “serious failures” in the awarding of exploration rights to Shell and Impact Africa, which “can not simply be corrected later”.
The Wild Coast is a biodiversity hotspot which has been conserved over generations by coastal communities who rely on the ocean and land. “Our land and sea are central to our livelihoods and our way of life. Over generations we have conserved them, and they have conserved us,” reads the founding statement in the case.
A Shell spokesperson said it noted the ruling, responding that “we are committed to responsible offshore exploration, meaningful stakeholder engagement and environmental stewardship.”
The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.
“Renewed strength” for communities
The ruling adds to a series of legal challenges brought by civil society groups against oil companies and the government as South Africa has expanded oil and gas development since 2014 under Operation Phakisa, a plan aimed at “unlocking the economic potential of the oceans”.
On the West Coast, Walter Steenkamp, Chair of Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, which is involved in a separate ongoing legal action against TotalEnergies, said that “today’s court case gave me renewed strength.”
The case could also set a precedent for future oil developments, said Alessandro Mazzi, legal governance researcher at the University of Wageningen. He added that the verdict “sends a strong signal to investors that where projects affect people’s land, livelihoods and environment, meaningful consultation and genuine ecological assessment are an integral part of responsible investment”.
Janet Solomon, coordinator of advocacy group Oceans not Oil, said that the Court’s emphasis on democratic participation, culture, livelihoods and the health of future generations in handing down the verdict signals a shift in jurisprudence on environmental governance, saying that this focus “may prove to be the judgment’s most enduring legacy.”
The post South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right appeared first on Climate Home News.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Climate Change
Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?
China has published a new five-year plan for coal, the latest in a slew of important policy documents for the country’s energy transition.
The 15th five-year plan for the development of the coal industry was published by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA) on 10 August, covering the period 2026-2030.
This is a key period, covering the years building up to China’s pledge to peak its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions “before 2030”.
Government-affiliated organisations had previously mooted the possibility of coal consumption peaking before 2027.
However, the new plan does not set a specific, government-endorsed year for peaking coal consumption, instead including a broader goal to peak use of the fuel in this five-year period.
It also discusses the “green and low-carbon transition” of the coal industry, coal-related methane emissions and the “clean and efficient use” of the fuel.
But, in general, the plan emphasises the importance of coal in China’s energy system and focuses on the systems underpinning its production.
Analysts tell Carbon Brief that the plan confirms a “broader trend” – driven by the conflict in the Middle East – in which coal’s role in China as a “cheap and secure” source of energy is reinforced – instead of plotting a phase-down or transition for the industry.
Nevertheless, as the deadline for peaking CO2 emissions looms, the plan does warn the sector of the need to diversify into other industries – including clean energy and chemicals – as coal consumption peaks.
Below, Carbon Brief looks closer at what the plan means for China’s use of coal over the next five years and how it relates to wider climate targets.
What does the plan say about peaking coal?
Five-year plans are a key tool in Chinese governance, used to guide economic and social development across the economy.
The plan for coal is the latest topic-specific document to address climate and energy matters within the 15th five-year plan period of 2026-30. It is subordinate to the overarching 15th five-year plan, which covers China’s broad socio-economic strategy.
Other topic-specific plans for the period cover climate change, developing a “new-type energy system” and renewable energy, among other topics.
The coal plan opens by stating that coal is a “foundational [source of] energy” for China:
“[Coal is] vital to the national economy, people’s livelihoods and national energy security, and plays a crucial role in providing foundational support and systemic regulation within the energy supply system.”
However, the plan also covers the 15th five-year plan period (2026-2030), the final five-year period before China is expected to have peaked its carbon emissions.
The 15th five-year plan period marks a time of “significant transformation” for the coal industry, the plan says.
Policy documents issued in April 2026 called for the “strict control” of fossil fuels and created a framework for local governments to be graded on coal use in their region.
Coal has traditionally been the largest source of energy in China and is responsible for around 80% of its emissions.
But its role is gradually being superseded by non-fossil energy, which accounted for more than half of the country’s power mix in 2025. In the first half of 2026, coal supplied less than 50% of power generation, while its share of total energy consumption fell to 51.4%, as shown below.

The five-year plan for coal signals “continuity” of China’s aim of “safeguarding energy security while advancing the low-carbon transition”, says Kevin Tu, non-resident fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Another key factor behind the plan is concerns from policymakers around energy security, exacerbated by the conflict in the Middle East.
In an article published in early August, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily noted the “severe volatility” the war has created in energy markets, adding that “China’s energy system has withstood these shocks”.
It quoted NEA head Wang Hongzhi stating in a press conference that “coal is [China’s] greatest source of confidence in ensuring a stable energy supply”.
The conflict will “reinforce coal’s role in China’s energy system”, both as a source of energy and as a feedstock for commodities, Li Shuo, China climate hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute, tells Carbon Brief.
The plan outlines a number of aims to be achieved by 2030, starting with a goal to “further strengthen” the coal industry’s “ability to be a ‘bottom-line guarantee’”.
The other targets in the plan, to be achieved by 2030, include:
- Peaking coal consumption;
- “Basically establishing” a modern coal-industrial system;
- Optimising the “layout” of coal production and development;
- Increasing the proportion of “high-quality, advanced” coal-production capacity;
- “Clearly improving” levels of “safe, green development” and “clean, efficient use” of coal;
- Increasing the share of coal produced by “large-scale, modernised coal mines” to 87%;
- Developing a diversified coal-based industrial structure;
- Improving mechanisms to ensure a “dynamic balance” between supply and demand.
The large share of China’s CO2 emissions that come from coal and China’s carbon-peaking and neutrality targets are not the main focus of the five-year plan.
“This is clearly neither a coal phase-out nor phase-down plan,” Tu tells Carbon Brief. He adds that it grants China “considerable flexibility…over the pace of the transition”.
A pledge to peak coal consumption during the five-year plan period is reiterated several times in the document. Notably, the plan says that China will “promote coal consumption successfully reaching a peak”.
This, it says, is “guided” by China’s “dual-carbon” goals for peaking and neutrality, but is also based on the premise of “guaranteeing the secure supply of energy”
However, the plan does not provide a government-endorsed target year for peaking consumption.
State-affiliated organisations, such as Xinhua, have suggested that coal consumption is “expected to peak around 2027”. Independent analysis has stated that emissions from coal consumption may have already peaked.
“The absence of a 2027 deadline is significant, but I would be careful not to over-interpret it,” Tu tells Carbon Brief.
While a 2027 peak for coal remains possible, in his view, it is dependent on factors such as “electricity-demand growth, renewable generation, industrial activity, weather conditions and coal demand from the chemical sector”.
Similarly, Li believes that it will be “market and technological progress”, rather than state directives, that determine exactly when coal consumption and emissions will peak.
“Beijing’s regulatory interventions, if any, will be limited to making sure the peaking timelines do not blow past 2030,” he says.
What does the plan say about China’s coal production?
The plan does not set a concrete target for coal production during the five-year plan period. In contrast, total coal production targets for 2015 and 2020 had been set in the 12th and 13th five-year plans.
The plan also reduces a target for “reserve production” capacity, which was first announced in 2024.
The plan reiterates that, by 2030, China should “establish a coal reserve-production capacity of 100m metric tonnes or more per year”. This was first mentioned in the 15th five-year plan for building a “new-type energy system”, published in June.
Despite China’s rapid buildout of renewable energy, reserve coal capacity is necessary, argues state news agency Xinhua. It says that, to balance the variability of renewable energy, coal will shift to “playing a supporting and regulating role to safeguard energy supply”.
Nevertheless, the new reserve goal is lower than the target of 300m tonnes of coal set when China first announced the establishment of the system in 2024.
“Overall, this five-year plan is targeted at the coal industry, not the energy transition”, says Yang Biqing, energy analyst at Ember, although the energy transition and the peaking of coal consumption form the overarching context for the plan.
Provinces in northern China will continue to provide the majority of China’s coal, according to the plan.
It reiterates a pledge from the new-type energy five-year plan that China will continue building “coal-supply security bases” in the provinces of Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Xinjiang. It says these bases will supply more than 80% of China’s coal by 2030.
This does not indicate a change in direction, as coal production is already increasingly concentrated in northern China. In 2025, 82% of China’s coal came from these four provinces.
New or expanded coal mines in these provinces – with the exception of southern Xinjiang – must have a minimum annual production capacity of 1.2m tonnes, says the plan.
This is an “important signal”, Tu tells Carbon Brief. He notes that the plans suggest that “China’s coal transition is not simply about reducing the quantity consumed”, but also about creating a “more concentrated, efficient, flexible and resilient” coal system.
The plan also calls for a more centralised approach to managing coal. It states that in 2026-2030, any new production capacity must be “included in the single ledger” – essentially meaning that it must be approved by the central government – before it can be implemented.
Yang tells Carbon Brief that this could indicate that the government is trying to prevent a potential “rush” to get new capacity approved as coal consumption starts to plateau and fall.
What does the plan say about coal’s greenhouse gas emissions?
The plan includes sections on the need to “accelerate” the low-carbon transition of the industry, as well as the “clean and efficient use” of coal.
The former section largely focuses on the production and processing of coal, while the latter addresses emissions associated with its consumption.
Suggested policies include promoting energy efficiency, water conservancy and electrification, coupled with greater use of renewable-energy sources at coal mines.
In addition to promoting a successful peaking of coal consumption, the plan also re-affirms existing policies around promoting energy efficiency and carbon-emission reduction.
It calls for “accelerate energy conservation and consumption reduction in key coal-consuming industries”, largely through methods already established by existing policies.
This includes phasing out inefficient coal-fired equipment, replacing coal-fired equipment with “clean energy” alternatives, reducing use of “dispersed coal” and promoting clean heating sources such as distributed solar heating and waste heat utilisation.
Tom Wang, executive director of People of Asia for Climate Solutions, describes the plan as “more of a coal exploration plan, rather than a coal transition plan”. He tells Carbon Brief that while several policies call for “green” or “smart” development, the plan does not address the greenhouse gas emissions underpinning each step of coal extraction, processing and combustion.
Another major focus is on utilisation of coalbed methane, a significant source of China’s methane emissions.
China will “implement work plans to increase coalbed-methane reserves and production”, the plan says, including a “rapid ramp-up” of production in deep coalbed-methane sites.
Affixed to the main five-year plan is an appendix further detailing plans for coalbed methane.
It notes that utilising coalbed methane has “multiple benefits”, such as improving safety, “increasing the supply of clean energy” and reducing emissions. [Methane is a fossil fuel.]
The government is targeting 26bn cubic metres of coalbed-methane production and 6.5bn cubic metres of mine-gas utilisation by 2030, it says.
At least 18bn cubic metres will be sourced from the Ordos Basin, a region spanning several northern provinces, according to an action plan published by the NEA.
In its coverage of the Ordos action plan, the state-run newspaper China Daily said that developing coalbed methane is a “vital strategic move to optimise [China’s] energy mix and ensure domestic gas supply”.
Reporting by Xinhua and economic news outlet Jiemian said that coalbed methane could help China become an “energy powerhouse” and “secure [its] energy self-sufficiency”, respectively.
In addition, the coal industry will “steadily advance methane-emission control” and “actively participate in the reduction of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions”, according to the appendix.
However, Sun Xiaopu, senior China counsel at the thinktank Institute For Governance and Sustainable Development, tells Carbon Brief, the plan “does not establish an absolute methane-emissions reduction target”.
She notes that the implications for emissions may only become clear as implementation frameworks for meeting the utilisation targets are released.
How does the plan tell coal companies to evolve?
Despite reaffirming the importance of coal, the plan emphasises that the overall role of the fuel in China will change. It adds that the coal industry must adapt to this changing reality.
As the coal industry “modernises”, coal companies must “strengthen management” of mine closures and exit plans. They must also plan for a “smooth transition” and “prudently handle” workforce relocation, debt resolution and ecological restoration, it says.
Companies should also be supported in expanding into industries such as “power, new energy and chemicals”, according to the plan.
A number of major coal producers, as well as at least one oil giant, have already established wings focused on “new energy”.
But the focus on the use of coal to make chemicals is one of the “most consequential parts of the plan”, says Tu.
China must promote the shift to coal being used “equally” as a fuel and a feedstock, the plan says.
The plan urges policymakers to push through “construction of strategic coal-to-oil and gas bases”
The chemicals sector is China’s fastest source of emissions growth, although it remains well behind power and other industries in terms of total emissions.
Tu notes that the plan calls on the coal-chemicals industry to decarbonise production, such as through low-carbon power, green hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.
As such, he says, the policy signal is “not to exit coal chemicals, but to make them more efficient, higher-value and potentially less carbon-intensive”.
Li echoes this, telling Carbon Brief that the sector is “likely to receive a major boost from the conflict in Iran”. He adds:
“We will probably see further capacity expansion in the sector and I doubt environmental arguments will convince Chinese authorities to take a different approach.”
related
Q&A: What is in China’s new five-year plan for climate change?
Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ for renewables mean for climate change?
Interview: Dr Sun Yixian on his new database tracking Chinese climate ‘leadership’
Q&A: What do China’s provincial five-year plans say about climate and energy?
The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?
Climate Change
New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus
The world saw the lowest amount of new coal mine capacity brought online for at least 10 years in 2025, according to a new report, as clean energy displaces coal for electricity generation in East Asia.
A report by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) found that new coal mine capacity declined by nearly 40% from 2024, the second consecutive year new mine capacity has hit a decade low. This represents an acceleration of a steady decline that began in 2019.
The slowdown in new coal mine openings was driven by China and Australia, where new additions fell by 44% and 96%, respectively. In China, the report said this was partly due to solar and wind displacing coal for electricity generation – although coal rebounded in the first half of 2026 – and the National Energy Administration implementing new rules to curb new mine openings.
In Australia, a 96% reduction in new coal mine capacity was driven by shrinking demand from the countries that import Australian coal for electricity, like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the report said.
This trend is likely to continue, according to GEM, as the Australian state of New South Wales recently banned new coal mines on undeveloped greenfield land. South Korea has promised to stop building coal-fired power plants that cannot capture and store the emissions produced. Meanwhile, Japan is pushing for a post-Fukushima nuclear revival to displace coal.
This Australian coal community is co-designing its own green future
Globally, growth in coal demand has slowed over the last few years and the International Energy Agency expects it to plateau through to 2030 because of the growth of renewable energy, nuclear and fossil gas.
Openings down, pipeline up
But while new coal mine openings fell, the amount of global coal mine capacity proposed increased by 11%. This was almost entirely driven by a spate of projects in the eastern Indian states of Jharkhand and Odisha.
“If built,” the GEM report says, “the projects would commit India – a country with no formal coal phaseout timeline – to years of coal expansion and would put a 1.5C-aligned transition away from fossil fuels farther out of reach”.
The Indian government says it needs to increase coal production to meet growing electricity demand from economic growth and from dealing with heatwaves. It plans to open more than 20 new coal mines to meet its coal production targets.
Because of energy security concerns, India is also aiming to produce chemicals with Indian coal rather than imported gas. China is also pursuing this strategy, although the Global Energy Monitor report said that Indian coal’s high ash content means the South Asian nation will find it harder to make chemicals from coal.
Nations agreed at COP26 five years ago to “phase down” coal power – a commitment that China and India successfully pushed to weaken from “phase out”. At COP28 in 2023, governments agreed to transition away from all fossil fuels in energy systems.
Since then, wealthy nations have partnered with coal-producing countries like South Africa, Vietnam and Indonesia on plans to transition from coal to clean energy. But, after preliminary talks, India and these governments did not agree a JETP.
The post New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus appeared first on Climate Home News.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits


