在巴库举行的COP29会议上，Carbon Brief采访了清华大学环境规划与管理系主任王灿教授，讨论了其领导的研究团队发布的《2024全球碳中和年度进展报告》。
该报告由清华大学大学碳中和研究院和环境学院联合发布，评估了不同国家在减缓气候变化的“目标、技术、资金和国际合作”方面的进展，指出了“碳中和目标与减排成果之间的实施差距”。
在这次内容广泛的采访中，王灿教授介绍了该研究所的研究结果并指出了世界实现净零排放的主要障碍。他还分享了对欧盟碳边境调整机制（CBAM）、中国即将提交的2035气候承诺（NDC）、碳市场、“碳双控” 政策、“十四五” 规划、碳达峰时间表、电气化、储能和氢能等的思考。
以下是采访的全文记录，记录已编辑以保证篇幅和清晰度：
- 关于碳中和执行进展：“我们从执行的角度来跟踪（各国碳中和的进展），更注重实际行动和用科学的方法去评估。”
- 关于发展中国家对气候行动的承诺：“发展中国家应对气候变化的决心和紧迫感非常强烈。因为他们更容易受到气候变化的影响，因此他们更加积极。”
- 关于中国2035年国家自主贡献：“我觉得下一轮NDC还是会跟我们的 “双碳” 政策保持一致的，主要更新是把我们的目标跟公约的时间表对标，比如把目标延长到2035年。”
- 关于全球可再生能源：“（全球可再生能源）已经增长得非常快了，但如果我们要实现2030年（可再生能源发电量实现三倍增长的目标），它必须增长得更快。”
- 关于可再生能源三倍增长的障碍：“我们认为（可再生能源）技术已经发展到可以更快部署的阶段……这本是可以实现的，但未能实现的一个重要因素是最近的贸易壁垒问题……我们发现包括美国在内的国家都有这样的政策。”
- 关于欧盟的碳边境调整机制（CBAM）：“我们认为欧盟的CBAM对欧盟来说是积极的，因为它增加了其碳排放法规，它被认为改善了欧盟的内部政策。但是，它对国际合作来说是负面的，因为它是一项单边政策。”
- 关于实现净零排放的不同途径：“有一些国家已经实现了脱钩，看到经济增长不需要增加碳排放后，就宣布了碳达峰和碳中和。中国还没有实现，所以我觉得这也是一个显著特点，对发展中国家来说很有代表性。”
- 关于中国的碳市场：“我认为这方面的进展会更快……先确定一个（减排）总量，再通过碳市场，可以低成本地实现总量目标。”
- 关于无法实现能源强度目标：“各个目标最终都是为中国更广泛的气候行动服务的，所以我们并不执着于这个（能源强度）目标是否实现。 ”
- 关于更早实现碳达峰：“我个人不排除在某个时点，比如2024年、2025年，出现反弹或者增加。总体来看，从近几年的发展趋势……我们处在一个接近峰值的阶段，或者说是一个平台期。我觉得我比较认同这个判断。”
- 关于中国的电气化：“在我的文章中，电气化与可再生能源不是竞争关系，而是互补，相互支持……在构建这种新能源、可再生能源为主导的电力系统的过程中，终端电气化是非常有帮助的。”
- 关于需要储能系统：“储能是新能源系统建设中不可或缺的组成部分，而新能源的主要组成部分是可再生能源。”
- 关于氢气：“现在有很多问题，比如成本高，储存和运输困难，从长远来看，这些问题都需要解决。我们必须努力去解决，因为没有它，未来的体系和碳中和的道路可能会失败。所以它是一项关键的、不可或缺的技术。”
Carbon Brief：您研究中最重要的发现是什么？
王灿：我们从执行的角度来跟踪（各国碳中和的进展），更注重实际行动和用科学的方法去评估。碳排放目标是定在未来几十年之后的，如果单纯看目标，很难评估我们现在的行动是否充分，所以需要科学、系统的方法来评估。我们认为实际行动很重要，评估行动的方法也很重要。
Carbon Brief：您的报告发现发展中国家的“雄心指数”较高，而发达国家的“雄心指数”较低。这里的“雄心指数”是什么意思？
王灿：当我们谈论“雄心指数”或用指数来表达我之前所说的内容时，我们遵循的理念是看行动而不是看宣言。因此，我们会修改各国的雄心指数。例如，一个国家可能宣称它希望尽快实现碳中和，但却采取设置各种障碍，来阻碍技术流动和阻碍全球合作的行动。[这种情况下，]它的目标可能非常雄心勃勃，但它的行动却有负面影响。我们的指数会考虑到这些因素，并在考虑这些因素后给出分数。截至去年，一些发展中国家的得分较高，而一些发达国家的雄心指数相对较低。
Carbon Brief：所以您的意思是，您会检查各国在其国家自主贡献中宣布的目标，并为他们的气候行动打出正分或负分，然后计算出他们的“雄心指数”的分数？
王灿：是的。
Carbon Brief：您对结果感到惊讶吗？
王灿：我并不感到意外，因为我参与联合国气候公约谈判已有十多年。从谈判过程中，我们可以感受到发展中国家应对气候变化的决心和紧迫感非常强烈。因为他们更容易受到气候变化的影响，因此他们更加积极。发达国家虽然有能力和技术，他们的科学家在这方面有更系统、更科学的知识，但他们不像中国这样的发展中国家那样坚持不懈。中国一旦宣布气候目标，就会系统地、持续地推进。而发达国家出于经济和国际贸易竞争的考虑，并没有这样做。
Carbon Brief：西方对中国2035年国家自主贡献（NDC）尤其感兴趣。您认为中国会提出什么新的气候目标，或者下一轮国家自主贡献应该写些什么？
王灿：我觉得下一轮NDC还是会跟我们的 “双碳” 政策保持一致的，主要更新是把我们的目标跟公约的时间表对标，比如把目标延长到2035年。我们已经有2030年要实现的目标了，下一轮NDC又会开启新一轮的2035年要实现的目标。不同阶段有不同的任务，但都是在一个总体框架下。中国已经公布了 “双碳” 目标，设定了两个时间点，建立了 “1+N” 的政策体系，我觉得无非就是在这样一个体系下把2030年到2035年的任务都具体化，这是我个人的理解和期待。
Carbon Brief：您的报告称，目前全球可再生能源发展速度不足以实现COP28提出的“2030年实现三倍增长”的目标，距离实现气候目标所需的部署规模存在“巨大差距”。阻碍更快增长的主要因素是什么？
王灿：我不确定你的问题和我们在报告中想要表达的观点是否完全一致。我对我们在报告中所说的内容的理解是，虽然我们看到可再生能源发展迅速，而且近年来形势十分乐观，但与2030年全球可再生能源发电量增加三倍的要求和2050年全球净零排放目标相比，仍然存在差距。
（全球可再生能源）已经增长得非常快了，但如果我们要实现2030年（可再生能源发电量实现三倍增长的目标），它必须增长得更快，特别是从全球角度来看。现在有一些国家，比如中国和东南亚的印度尼西亚，在过去一两年里部署（可再生能源）非常快，但在全球范围内，我们还没有看到所预期的速度。这是我们想要传达的核心信息，或者说是我们特别想传达的信息。
背后的原因是，我们认为（可再生能源）技术已经发展到可以更快部署的阶段，从我们的研究来看，部署得更快、更广泛之后，这项技术的进步速度就会加快，进入良性循环。这本是可以实现的，但未能实现的一个重要因素是最近的贸易壁垒问题，贸易壁垒已经从原来的高科技和通讯产品扩展到应对气候变化的可再生能源。
这种贸易壁垒是典型的基于传统、非常狭隘的经济利益的做法。它忽视了一个原本来自西方国际贸易理论的事实，即自由的国际贸易可以促进经济发展、技术进步，从而带来新一轮的共赢。忽略这一事实是短视的行为。在可再生能源领域，中长期的经济利益和对气候变化的坚定承诺都被放弃了。所以，我们认为这是可再生能源发展面临的一个需要解决的问题。
Carbon Brief：您能举一个您所提到的贸易壁垒的例子吗？
王灿：例如提高关税——对进口可再生能源设备征收（高额）关税，以及故意征收此类关税。这是我们在（报告中）国家分析里引用的例子。我们发现包括美国在内的国家都有这样的政策。我们的报告设定了一个框架，在这个框架中，我们检查是否有贸易壁垒政策，以及（这些政策）是否得到执行；然后，如果是，我们会查看它们是否针对减少排放所需的绿色和低碳技术；如果是，我们就会给出不同的权重和负分。
Carbon Brief：目前带来影响最严重的贸易壁垒是什么？
王灿：对风能和太阳能进行进口管制，增加关税，或者此类商业管制清单。
Carbon Brief：主要在美国？
王灿：主要在美国。
Carbon Brief：您如何看待欧盟的碳边境调整机制（CBAM）？
王灿：在我们的评估中，我们认为欧盟的CBAM对欧盟来说是积极的，因为它增加了其碳排放法规，它被认为改善了欧盟的内部政策。但是，它对国际合作来说是负面的，因为它是一项单边政策，其影响可能会阻碍前面提到的技术流动、技术的快速传播以及先进技术在全球的快速部署。
当然，我们还要看得更远、更详细，因为未来几年CBAM涵盖的行业范围会发生变化。目前从国际合作的角度来看，它的负面权重并不高。从执行的角度来看，虽然它主要涵盖电力和氢能（以及其他行业），但目前它的范围并不是很大。
Carbon Brief：您的报告说，没有一条 “单一的零碳路径” 可以适用于所有国家，相反，“不同类型的国家需要采取不同的措施” 。中国实现碳中和的最佳路径是什么？与其他国家有何不同？
王灿：是的，我们想说的是，没有一种模式适合所有国家实现净零排放。不同的国家处于不同的发展阶段，经济结构不同，资源条件不同，甚至政治制度和文化特征也不同，所以实现净零排放的路径肯定会有所不同。各国在政策、目标、技术、资金、国际合作方式等方面确实存在差异——我们刚才谈到了——（所以）我们认为不同的国家应该有不同的模式。
对于中国来说，“双碳”是一个中国特色的政策目标，我们要在2030年前达到碳峰值，在2060年前实现碳中和。2030年前碳达峰，意味着我们还需要时间把经济发展和碳排放脱钩。达不到峰值，就说明我们还没有把这些事情脱钩，经济增长（仍会）导致碳排放的增加。为什么呢？因为我们还是一个发展中国家，而且是世界上最大的发展中国家——世界上工业最多的发展中国家。我们的制造业比较大，人口比较多，我们还处于城镇化、工业化的过程中，碳排放和经济发展还没有完全脱钩。即使在这样的情况下，我们也提出了实现碳中和的目标，更加体现了我们的雄心和决心。
有一些国家已经实现了脱钩，看到经济增长不需要增加碳排放后，就宣布了碳达峰和碳中和。中国还没有实现，所以我觉得这也是一个显著特点，对发展中国家来说很有代表性。很多发展中国家跟我们类似，没有实现脱钩，但要明确应对气候变化的措施，实现（碳达峰和碳中和）两个目标。为了到本世纪中叶实现全球净零排放，发展中国家已经提出了一些目标和路径。
那么路径是什么呢？（就是）达到峰值之后再实现中和。首先有一个快速达到峰值的阶段，峰值要尽可能低。这个阶段需要技术支持、资金支持，以及一些能力建设。比如中国正在建设的碳市场，目前还处于能力建设的阶段——收集碳排放数据、（提升）市场的专业交易能力等等。这个阶段对中国来说非常重要。如果这个阶段基础打得不牢，那么达到峰值之后，碳减排、实现碳中和的阶段可能还需要比较长的时间，我们实现碳中和的难度就会加大。
Carbon Brief：说到中国的碳市场，在我们之前的《Carbon Brief》报告中，一些分析师表示，中国的碳市场还没有完全活跃起来，交易可能还没有发挥出最大的潜力。我们如何才能最大限度地发挥碳市场的潜力？
王灿：我认为这方面的进展会更快。因为今年国务院出台了从“能源消费双控”向“碳排放双控”转变的工作方案，明确了时间表。从现在到2030年，以控制碳强度为主，总量控制为辅。但同时也要探索一些总量控制机制。2030年中国碳排放达到峰值后，将以总量控制为主要机制，以控制碳强度为辅。
只要有总量控制目标，碳交易和碳市场体系就能发挥减排作用。因为碳交易这样的政策工具，本质上就是要以低成本实现一定的总量目标。总量控制目标只是给出一个数量，但这个目标是否能有效分配给排放单位，政府并没有足够的信息去判断。通过碳交易和碳市场，可以以最低的成本实现减排。所以直接回答这个问题的话，（就是）先确定一个（减排）总量，再通过碳市场，可以低成本地实现总量目标。
Carbon Brief：您提到从“能源双控”转向“碳排放双控”。有观点认为，由于今年GDP增速低于排放增速，中国可能无法实现排放强度总量目标。您认为这会产生很大影响吗？
王灿：您指的是什么影响？
Carbon Brief：“十四五” 规划。“十四五” 规划制定了总体能源强度降低目标，但由于经济增长速度低于能源消耗速度，这一目标可能无法实现。
王灿：是的，能源强度目标。
Carbon Brief：您认为这会减缓整个减排进程吗（十四五规划）？
王灿：我认为这个（能源强度）目标是为了实现更广泛的减排目标，因此能否实现可能是最初设定目标时考虑的一个因素。例如，当目标设定在2020年左右时，它没有考虑到近年来的经济形式和技术变化。事实上，与这个目标相对应的还有一个目标，那就是可再生能源总量（到2030年，风能和太阳能发电量达到1200GW）……[这个目标]实现得非常快。所以我们设定的目标中，一些容易实现，也有一些可能比预期更难实现。我想我应该回到我之前的观点，即各个目标最终都是为中国更广泛的气候行动服务的，所以我们并不执着于这个（能源强度）目标是否实现。
从近年来中国推动“双碳”工作来看，中国在（气候）政策建设、降低可再生能源技术开发成本、加快应用速度等方面取得了很大进展。从中央到省级再到市级政府，都在自上而下地围绕公众意识提升、数据收集等推动生态工作的能力建设和推进，比如基线数据的构建，包括探索将碳（排放影响）评价纳入环境影响评价。这些也是我们在《全球碳中和进展报告》中表达的观点。从这个角度看，我们认为习近平总书记提出“双碳”目标以来，中国近三年来的工作是走在正确的轨道上的，有助于我们在2030年前实现碳达峰、在2060年前实现碳中和。
我们正在做扎实的基础工作。这不是口号或“运动式”的工作，（“运动式”的工作）可能带来（短期的）减排，然后反弹。如果我们想可持续地减排，就需要经济和社会的系统性变革。这种系统性变革必须从刚才提到的角度出发，我们必须做一些基础工作。一些工作（带来的变化）在短期内可能不会很快见效，因为（排放）仍然处于攀升阶段，总量还没有完全减少。但这是我们在短期内为长期做准备，而短期是我们无法避免的一个阶段。
Carbon Brief：我们之前发表过一篇分析文章，根据数据，中国可能在2023年就达到碳排放峰值。您如何看待这个研究结果？
王灿：我认为预测峰值不是一种科学方法。到目前为止，我还没有看到任何指标或研究能够预测一个国家已经达到峰值。这是必须用时间来判断的事情，而且可能需要几年时间（峰值出现后），因为排放量可能会反弹。当然，分析和研究需要考虑很多因素，比如人口增长、经济增长、产业结构、能源需求及其背后的能源技术。
有很多指标可以帮助我们做这样的分析。从现有的指标分析来看，我觉得2023年达到峰值没有错，肯定是可信的。但我个人不排除在某个时点，比如2024年、2025年，出现反弹或者增加。总体来看，从近几年的发展趋势，包括我们做的系统性准备，中央对“双碳”目标的决心，我们处在一个接近峰值的阶段，或者说是一个平台期。我觉得我比较认同这个判断。
[本次采访后发布的Carbon Brief分析显示，中国的二氧化碳排放量在 2024 年最后 10 个月停止上升，但总体上仍略有增长。]
Carbon Brief：您之前的研究指出，电气化是减少排放的一种方法，具有经济效益。国际能源署(IEA)最近也强调了中国在这方面的快速进步。您能谈谈中国的战略、电气化的现状以及中国可以采取哪些措施来推进电气化吗？
王灿：在我的文章中，电气化与可再生能源不是竞争关系，而是互补，相互支持。可再生能源取代化石能源，构建新的电力系统，这是我们（为实现）净零排放所希望达成的目标。在构建这种新能源、可再生能源为主导的电力系统的过程中，终端电气化是非常有帮助的。为什么呢？因为终端电气化对节能有（积极）影响，也可以调节可再生能源的不稳定供应。同时，电气化可以更好地吸纳一些储能设施，加速储能的技术进步。另外，电气化减少了对化石能源的依赖。它与可再生能源并不是非此即彼的零和博弈。可再生能源发展得越多，我们就越有信心将其用于终端消费。
Carbon Brief：您能再解释一下吗？电气化如何 “吸纳储能”？
王灿：电气化是指在终端用户（如锅炉）直接消耗能源。所以当我们谈论电气化时，我们需要看看电气化的对象是什么。电气化是指（使用电锅炉）取代燃煤和天然气锅炉用于工业供热，或使用电动汽车（EV）取代汽油车，或使用电磁炉取代天然气用于烹饪。所有这些都直接减少了化石能源的消耗。
如果所有传统的化石能源都被电力取代，我们对储能的需求就不会增长。电动汽车是锂电池在汽车领域的应用。工业用的热泵也可以配备储能。这在终端使用方面开辟了新的储能需求。储能是新能源系统建设中不可或缺的组成部分，而新能源的主要组成部分是可再生能源。正如我们上面提到的，储能是这个系统中的一个环节。
Carbon Brief：南方普遍使用电热泵，北方则以燃煤集中供暖为主，有什么办法，比如政策支持等，可以帮助北方快速转向热泵？
王灿：这个问题我也不是特别清楚，但我认为还是集中在技术难点上。因为北方的供热需求比南方更根本、更迫切。比如说，在北方，低温时的供暖是民生问题。南方热泵的需求可能通过低温锅炉生产来满足，（低温锅炉）在今天、今晚、明天都可以生产，有一定的生产灵活性。所以为南方供应热泵没有那么迫切。北方（使用煤炭进行集中供暖）可以更安全。所以热泵的安全性、技术、适用性可能有所不同。我觉得不只是政策问题，还需要技术进一步发展。
Carbon Brief：您对氢有什么看法？
王灿：我认为，就像电气化一样，它可能是未来构建碳中和技术体系的一个非常重要的技术领域。可再生能源的特点之一是，一旦供应量增加，它就会具有间歇性，因此需要储能。储能意味着它可以在没有需求时储存能源，并在供应不能满足需求时提供一些能源。（氢）既是一种更好的储能方式，也是一种开发化学储备的方式，因为它的生产方法——电解，可以利用来自太阳能和风的多余的可再生能源。
这种储能方式不同于传统的制氢方式，（传统上）氢气是化工行业的副产品，甚至是石油和化石燃料直接转化而来的。（氢能源）是一种当前的能源转化趋势和形式，而不是储能的一种形式。但在碳中和技术体系中，氢气（被认为）是一种储能形式。
可再生能源发电系统（与化石能源系统）最核心的区别是，它的边际成本非常低，几乎是零边际运行成本。所以风电、太阳能用上之后，扣除基础设施和固定资产投资的成本，风电、太阳能发电的成本几乎是零。零边际运行成本可以用来电解，你可以理解为用零成本来制氢，到时候氢气的成本就非常低了。
Carbon Brief：但是我听说目前氢气生产的成本相当高？
王灿：是的，那是因为还没有取得足够的进展。当我们仍在使用水电解来制造氢气时，风能和太阳能的成本分摊在电解水所用的电力上。它没有使用剩余的（可再生）电力进行电解，因为没有那么多的剩余电力。当我们电力系统中的风能和太阳能比例达到一定水平时，就会有更多的剩余电力。为了储存多余的电力，我们目前使用锂电池和其他（技术）来储存这些电力，而不是使用电解来制造氢气。所以我认为氢是一种新的储能形式。
同时，氢能对于终端用户来说也是一种清洁的新能源形式，它可以替代天然气、汽油，它转化成氨之后，还可以替代重型卡车甚至邮轮使用的石油，它是可以预见的清洁能源形式，也是终端能源。所以我觉得它非常关键。现在有很多问题，比如成本高，储存和运输困难，从长远来看，这些问题都需要解决。我们必须努力去解决，因为没有它，未来的体系和碳中和的道路可能会失败。所以它是一项关键的、不可或缺的技术。
此次采访由Wanyuan Song于2024年11月16日在巴库举行的COP29会议上进行。
The post Carbon Brief 采访清华大学王灿教授 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
DeBriefed 3 July 2026: US faces scorching Independence Day | Record ocean temperatures | Vietnam’s EV surge
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Heating up
NOT FREE FROM HEAT: “Dangerous, record-breaking” heat altered plans for 4 July celebrations across the US this weekend, reported the Associated Press. New York and Boston hit 100F (37.8C) on Thursday, said the newswire. CNBC reported that temperatures of up to 105F (40.5C) are forecast in central and eastern parts of the country, with “daily, monthly and all-time records possible”.
TEMPERATURES SOAR: Heat that hit western Europe last week spread east to “scorch” Germany, Hungary, Romania, Poland and others, said Bloomberg. Red warnings for extreme heat were issued in a number of nations, noted the outlet, adding that the heat “underscores how climate change is transforming summers in the world’s fastest-warming continent”. The Independent said last month was confirmed to be England’s hottest June on record.
HEAT DEATHS: June’s extreme temperatures caused more than 2,000 excess deaths in Spain and France, reported the Guardian. The countries are bracing for further heat that “could bring temperatures of 44C (111F) over the coming days”, said the newspaper. Deaths in France rose almost 30% at the heatwave “peak” on the week of 22 June, according to Le Monde. Last week’s conditions also led to around 480 excess deaths in the Netherlands, reported Reuters.
BOILING: Global ocean temperatures reached record levels for this time of year, reported NBC News, “fuelling fears of more dangerous heatwaves this summer and fanning concerns over the escalating global climate crisis”. Scientists told the Financial Times that this could lead the world towards “uncharted territory”. The newspaper said global average sea surface temperatures reached 20.96C on 21 June, exceeding June records for 2023 and 2024.
Around the world
- GOAL DROPPED: The World Bank will “abandon” its goal to devote 45% of annual lending resources to climate-related projects, reported Reuters. Carbon Brief explored what it could mean for global climate action.
- FIVE-YEAR PLAN: China plans to invest more than 20tn yuan ($2.9tn) in “key energy projects and new business models” over the next five years, according to International Energy Net.
- DRILLING: The Guardian said UK Labour politicians “urged” the likely next prime minister Andy Burnham to ignore “deluded” calls to develop the Rosebank oil field located in the Atlantic north of Scotland.
- PLASTIC TALKS: Countries and activists feared key issues could be sidelined at “critical” talks on a global treaty to curb plastic pollution in Kenya, said Climate Home News. A treaty could have “important implications” for climate change, reported Carbon Brief in 2024.
- CANADA PIPELINE: Canadian prime minister Mark Carney announced plans to build an oil pipeline to supply Asia with up to 1m barrels per day, reported the Financial Times. Earlier this week, Carney called the previous government’s climate plans “expensive” and “divisive”, said CBC News.
63
The number of UK newspaper editorials calling for more oil and gas extraction in the North Sea so far in 2026, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Latest climate research
- Including emissions from permafrost thaw raises the likelihood of the Arctic becoming a net-carbon source by more than 50% at 2C of warming | Earth System Dynamics
- Net-zero scenarios relying less on carbon dioxide removals lead to fewer residual emissions, which offers greater health improvements for “non-white and low-income groups” in particular | Nature Climate Change
- Agricultural plots of land in sub-Saharan Africa owned by women face heat impacts 2-2.5 times higher than those owned by men | Nature Sustainability
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Wind and solar were the world’s largest source of new energy in 2025, according to Carbon Brief analysis of the latest Energy Institute statistical review of world energy. Wind and solar also saw the fastest growth, up by 18% in 2025. Nevertheless, every source of energy – including coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro – also reached global all-time highs last year.
Spotlight
Vietnam’s EV surge
Carbon Brief explores the reasons behind soaring electric-vehicle sales in Vietnam.
Motorbikes are a constant fixture on streets across Vietnam. They pollute the air in cities and make crossing the road a feat of endurance.
But, increasingly, people are moving away from petrol-powered vehicles to save money and reduce air pollution.
Sales of electric motorbikes, scooters and mopeds more than doubled in Vietnam last year, according to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
This identified that Vietnam has the largest electric vehicle (EV) market in south-east Asia.
Nearly one-in-five of the two-wheeled vehicles sold last year were electric, it noted, in a nation with 102 million people and 77m motorbikes.
This is “particularly impactful” given they are the main mode of transport in Vietnam, said Lam Pham, Asia energy analyst at thinktank Ember. He told Carbon Brief:
“Electrifying road transport is essential for Vietnam to achieve its net-zero target by 2050. Road transport accounted for around 86% of transport-sector emissions in 2022.”
The nation has just 6.8m cars, but this number is also climbing, partly due to EVs, with nearly 40% of new car sales being electric.
This is “above levels seen in most European countries”, noted the IEA. (The UK’s figure is around 30%.)
EV incentives
Fuel costs surged in south-east Asian countries earlier this year after the energy crisis caused by the US-Israel war on Iran.
This “accelerated” discussions from “why use EVs” to “why keep paying more for fuel”, said Dr Tham Nguyen, a lecturer at the Ho Chi Minh City campus of Australia’s Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, who has researched Vietnamese public attitudes to EVs.
But the surge is “not driven by fuel prices alone”, noted Pham.
Increased EV sales can also be attributed to a “convergence of affordability, convenience and sustainability”, Nguyen said:
“Vietnamese consumers buy EVs because they see real value with immediate personal benefits, such as cost savings and energy security, alongside long-term environmental gains.”
Government policies have also incentivised sales through registration fee exemptions and tax cuts for EVs.
Another factor is affordable EVs sold by Chinese companies and Vinfast, a Vietnamese manufacturer. The IEA report noted that Vietnam is the only country in south-east Asia with “sizeable” domestic production of accessible EVs.
Vinfast reported a 219% year-on-year increase in orders for electric motorbikes and e-bikes in the first quarter of 2026, but the company has yet to turn a profit.
Pham noted that “growing public awareness of air pollution” has also “dramatically strengthened” public support for EVs.
Future plans
Vietnam’s major cities also have plans to get drivers to go electric or turn to public transport.
The capital city Hanoi announced that it would ban fossil-fuel-powered motorbikes from a central zone this month, but this has been postponed until 2028.
Ho Chi Minh City, the nation’s largest city with more than 9.5 million people, intends to introduce low-emission zones and swap 400,000 petrol-powered motorbikes to electric by 2028.
The city’s green transport plans focus on metro lines, electric buses and e-bikes, explained RMIT associate professor Catherine Earl. She noted that walking and cycling are currently “not popular, accessible or safe for many residents in Ho Chi Minh City’s hot and humid climate”.
Looking ahead, Pham said Vietnam could focus on “purchase subsidies, financing schemes and adequate charging or battery-swapping infrastructure, to ensure lower-income riders, including delivery and ride-hailing drivers, are not negatively affected”.
Watch, read, listen
‘JUST 1%’ OF EMISSIONS: The Guardian debunked arguments that climate actions from smaller countries are “insignificant”.
DRILLING RISKS: Mongabay reported on the possible impacts oil drilling in the Amazon could have on a “little-known reef”.
HEATING UP: The BBC Climate Question podcast discussed the weather pattern El Niño and its links to climate change.
Coming up
- 7-10 July: AI for good global summit, Geneva, Switzerland
- 7-15 July: UN high-level political forum on sustainable development, New York
- 8-10 July: Ninth meeting of the board of the fund for responding to loss and damage, Manila, Philippines
Pick of the jobs
- Green Alliance, senior partnerships officer | Salary: £42,748-£47,346. Location: London
- World Vision, environment and climate action senior adviser | Salary: Unknown. Location: Kenya
- Nature Energy, interim associate or senior editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: London or Milan
- Climate Analytics, senior communications manager – climate policy (maternity cover) | Salary €60,605-€66,880. Location: Berlin
- Carbon Exchange, researcher | Salary: Unknown. Location: Hong Kong
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 3 July 2026: US faces scorching Independence Day | Record ocean temperatures | Vietnam’s EV surge appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The World Bank has abandoned a target for 45% of the funding it gives developing countries to be “climate finance”, following months of pressure from the Trump administration in the US.
However, a concerted effort by developed- and developing-country shareholders has seen the bank hold onto its “action plan” for tackling climate change.
The multilateral development bank (MDB) – which is headquartered in Washington DC – is the single largest provider of climate finance globally, distributing $39.2bn in 2025 alone, primarily as loans.
Amid widespread aid cuts by developed countries, the World Bank and other MDBs have previously pledged to significantly scale up their climate finance over the next decade.
Despite scrapping its central target, the bank says it will continue to support the demands of its “clients”, many of which have explicitly stated their need for climate-related investment.
Here, Carbon Brief looks at the likely impact of the World Bank’s policy shift and whether it is – as one expert puts it – “mostly a symbolic victory” for the US.
- How does the World Bank support climate action?
- Why has the World Bank abandoned its climate-finance target?
- Why is the World Bank important for international climate finance?
- How will these changes affect global climate action?
How does the World Bank support climate action?
The World Bank is the oldest and largest MDB. It is tasked by its 189 member governments – the bank’s shareholders – with supporting development projects around the world.
The US is the bank’s largest shareholder, followed, in order, by Japan, China, Germany, France and the UK.
Every year, the bank provides billions of dollars – predominantly as loans – to developing countries.
(One part of the World Bank, the International Development Association – IDA – specifically distributes grants to lower-income nations, as well as lower-interest loans.)
Through its financing, the World Bank also has an important role in “mobilising” private investments in developing countries.
In recent years, the bank has increasingly focused on helping developing countries to cut emissions and adapt their economies for climate change.
The World Bank provided $164bn in what it calls financing with climate “co-benefits” between 2020 and 2025.
The largest share of this funding – roughly one-fifth – went to clean energy and electricity access projects. Smaller shares went to areas such as public transport, water supply and sustainable farming.
As the map below shows, the largest recipients of the bank’s climate funds since 2020 have been emerging economies, such as Turkey ($10.3bn), India ($9bn) and Nigeria ($6.3bn).
Among the largest World Bank projects in recent years are two extensive programmes in India, totalling nearly $3bn, supporting renewables and green hydrogen.
Others include $1.7bn for a Pakistan hydropower project, $926m for Iraq’s railways and $803m to boost “green development” in Colombia.
Despite the bank’s major role in providing climate finance to developing countries, it has faced heavy scrutiny from climate advocates.
In particular, they have noted the dominance of loans that push developing countries further into debt. The World Bank has also been criticised for a lack of transparency around how it classifies projects as “climate-related”, as well as “over-reporting” of climate finance.
Why has the World Bank abandoned its climate-finance target?
When World Bank president Ajay Banga – nominated by former US president Joe Biden – took over the institution in 2023, there were widespread calls for MDB reform.
Many of the bank’s shareholders wanted to see billions more dollars being channelled to support climate action. Later that year, Banga announced that the bank would ensure that 45% of the bank’s funding was climate finance by 2025.
This replaced an existing target of 35% for climate finance between 2021 and 2025, which had been set out in the bank’s second climate change action plan (CCAP).
The CCAP is intended to “mainstream” climate action in the bank’s work. With it in place, the World Bank’s climate finance more than doubled from $17.2bn in 2020 to $39.2bn in 2025.
As the chart below shows, this meant the World Bank exceeded its 2025 goal, with climate-related projects making up a 48% share of total funding that year.
When Biden was replaced by Donald Trump as president in 2025, the US administration turned against international cooperation, including climate finance.
However, the US did not walk away from the World Bank, where it exerts considerable power as the largest shareholder.
With the CCAP due to expire in July 2026, the US has spent months pressuring the bank and its shareholders to weaken or abandon the plan altogether.
US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent issued a statement during the 2026 World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) spring meetings in April 2026, in which he called for “jettisoning” the 45% climate-finance target. More broadly, he said:
“We welcome the coming expiration of the CCAP and…expect the bank to immediately shift its myopic focus on climate and financing volumes to one that emphasises high-quality, durable projects.”
This vision involves a push for the World Bank to finance more fossil-fuel projects, including drilling for new gas. (The bank has committed since 2019 to stop funding upstream oil and gas projects.)
The decision on whether to continue with the CCAP was negotiated behind closed doors by the board of directors – representing national shareholders. There were reports of “deep divides”.
A joint statement from 19 of the 25 directors last year affirmed the need for both a plan and a target. The US, Russia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all declined to sign up, while Japan and India abstained, according to Reuters.
There were reports of European nations championing a climate plan, bolstered by support from the developing countries that would stand to receive climate finance. The US call to drop the 45% target entirely was reportedly backed by Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Ultimately, the day before the CCAP was due to lapse, the World Bank announced what appeared to be a middle ground. It would drop both the 45% target and the 35% goal it had replaced, while also “extend[ing]” the CCAP.
UK development minister Jenny Chapman told a committee hearing in the House of Commons the next day that this marked a “compromise”. She said:
“It wasn’t clear we were going to get a CCAP at all and a bank without an action plan on climate is a problem for us – so that’s a good outcome.”
Supportive shareholders had been pushing for a one-year extension of the plan. While the World Bank did not initially define the length, Chapman confirmed on LinkedIn that the plan had, in fact, been extended “indefinitely”.
The bank said it would also engage an “independent evaluation group” to assess the CCAP, in line with a board request.
Gaia Larsen, director of climate finance at the World Resources Institute (WRI), tells Carbon Brief that this evaluation will likely be “relatively free from political ideology” and could be “focused on how to make the CCAP more effective”.
Why is the World Bank important for international climate finance?
Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries – including major World Bank shareholders in Europe and elsewhere – are obliged to provide climate finance for developing countries.
This includes a target of $300bn a year by 2035, which is expected to largely come from developed countries. One significant way these nations can contribute to this goal is via their support for MDBs, particularly the World Bank.
The World Bank has described itself as “by far the largest provider of climate finance to developing countries”. Each year, it oversees half of all climate finance from MDBs and far more than any single donor country.
Many developed countries have, therefore, enthusiastically backed the World Bank’s climate efforts, as well as a “bigger” role for MDBs in development more broadly. The bank can lend sums that far exceed the amount of new public finance that individual nations are willing to commit.
This is particularly significant, given many of these nations, including the UK, Germany and France, have announced large cuts to their aid budgets in recent years.
Carbon Brief analysis suggests that roughly a fifth of the international climate finance provided and “mobilised” by developed countries in recent years can be attributed to their World Bank contributions, as the chart below shows.
(This only accounts for the World Bank financing that can be linked to developed-country shares in the bank. Developing countries, such as China, also have significant shares, which are not included in the chart below.)
MDBs – including the World Bank – have committed to providing $120bn in climate finance to developing countries by 2030.
This was set to come from greater shareholder contributions, combined with a programme of reforms to free up capital.
If the World Bank continued to provide half of the MDB total, it would need to increase its climate finance by around 50%, from $39.2bn today to $60bn in 2030.
Therefore, experts see a “key” role for the World Bank in achieving not only the $300bn target, but also the more aspirational $1.3n target that countries agreed as part of the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG) on climate finance at COP29 in 2024. This includes the private capital it could “unlock” through its lending.
Joe Thwaites, international climate finance director at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), tells Carbon Brief that these “NCQG politics” are “quite important”. He says:
“The maths of the $300bn does not work if the MDBs pull back and so I think that’s why you’re seeing developed countries taking a stand.”
How will these changes affect global climate action?
To date, the World Bank has only released minimal details about its new climate plans. As such, experts say the impact on future climate finance remains uncertain.
Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, tells Carbon Brief:
“They have said they are going to retain all the same processes about climate-finance reporting. So, of course, there is a world in which, actually, climate finance continues to increase like it has been.”
Some of the World Bank’s internal organisations will, in fact, keep their climate-finance goals for the time being. For example, the IDA’s largely grant-based funding retains a 45% target for its current round, which will last until 2028 – the year of the next US presidential election.
However, WRI’s Larsen tells Carbon Brief that the changes, from a bank that was previously a “champion for climate action”, remain significant:
“This reality, reinforced by the elimination of the 45% goal, means that it would not be surprising to see a reduction in climate investments.”
In a statement, the World Bank said its “work on climate is and will remain firmly client driven”, noting that it supports nations undertaking their Paris Agreement climate plans.
Therefore, its climate focus may come down to whether there is demand for climate action from “client” countries receiving finance.
At an April event in discussion with the climate sceptic Bjørn Lomborg, Bessent said that global financial institutions should focus on growth, characterising climate action as an “elite belief”.
The implication from the US Treasury secretary was that recipient countries are not interested in climate action. However, as reported by Devex, a group of World Bank shareholders representing nearly 100 developing countries, wrote a letter that appeared to push back against this framing.
This “G11+” group, led by Brazil and China, said the bank “must remain firmly client-driven”, noting that countries are “following nationally determined pathways toward climate action”. NRDC’s Thwaites tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s one thing for the Europeans to talk about climate…This was the client countries [100 developing countries] saying: ‘No, we want this.’”
Recent research by the ODI thinktank found that 79% of developing-country officials polled wanted to see MDB investment in solar projects, 54% wanted hydropower and 47% wanted wind power. Only 13% wanted investment in gas-power plants.
Rishikesh Ram Bhandary, a senior development researcher at Boston University, has stressed the need for an “enhanced CCAP”, which could be supported by the bank’s new independent evaluation. Among other things, he tells Carbon Brief:
“The bank needs to make a more convincing case about how climate change is being integrated into development priorities rather than competing with them.”
Thwaites says he is hopeful that the outcome is “mostly a symbolic victory for the US”.
However, he says major shareholders from Europe and elsewhere should make it clear to the bank that it is not “the only game in town” when it comes to climate finance. He says:
“If [the World Bank] are going to cave into one shareholder, when the vast majority of the other shareholders are supportive of continuing climate action, they can take their money elsewhere.”
The post Q&A: How will the World Bank’s abandoned finance goal affect climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: How will the World Bank’s abandoned finance goal affect climate action?
Rich Wilson is CEO of the Iswe Foundation and co-founder of the Global Citizens’ Assembly.
The numbers are stark. According to the 2026 Global Report on Food Crises, 266 million people across 47 countries experienced high levels of acute food insecurity last year, nearly double the figure recorded a decade ago.
Meanwhile, disruptions to oil, gas and fertiliser flows through the Strait of Hormuz drove a 46% month-on-month spike in urea prices early this year, sending agricultural price indices up 8% and raising the spectre of a global affordability crisis.
This is not a blip. It is a new baseline. The EAT-Lancet Commission concluded that food systems now account for roughly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions and are the largest single contributor to the climate crisis. The science has been clear for years.
Now some of the solutions to the problem are becoming socially acceptable too.
-
Can giant batteries unlock Africa’s green industrial future?
Battery energy storage systems (BESS) could drive clean tech manufacturing in Africa but shortfalls in finance and data are still limiting deployment at scale
Earlier this year, people from more than 60 countries and territories, selected not by vested interest, but by lottery, spent seven weeks examining the evidence on food and climate for the latest Global Citizens’ Assembly. They heard from scientists, farmers and industry. They worked through 42 hours of structured deliberation, engaging with some difficult trade-offs.
They were not asked to endorse a predetermined conclusion. They were asked an open question: what changes, if any, should we make to how we grow, share and eat food, so that everyone has enough to nourish themselves while tackling the causes and impacts of climate change?
Phase down industrial animal farming
Their answer was unambiguous. They voted to protect forests. They voted to phase down industrial animal food production. They voted for supply chain reform and corporate accountability, explicitly rejecting the idea that the burden of change should fall on individual consumers. All 22 of their Calls to Action passed with over 85% support, a super-majority of randomly selected people from every region of the world, in agreement.
Consider what the assembly was actually being asked to decide. Industrial animal food production is the primary driver of tropical deforestation. Protecting more land as forest and ecosystem means less land available for the expansion of industrial production. That is a real trade-off, with real consequences for real livelihoods. Politicians have spent years avoiding it.
These randomly selected people looked at the evidence, deliberated across time zones and cultures, and chose the forests, with 64% in strong support and a further 20% in favour. People from livestock farming communities voted for change. Not because they were told to. Because deliberation led them there.
We estimate there have now been more than 7,000 citizen participation initiatives worldwide in the last decade. They have been organised because, as our 2025 report: People in the Lead demonstrated, people are now consistently and significantly ahead of politicians on issues ranging from climate to AI governance.
The people know best
What the research consistently shows is that ordinary people, given proper evidence and time, produce recommendations that are more effective and more aligned with public values than what emerges from elected legislatures. The gap in global governance is no longer primarily between science and the public. It is between citizens and their political leaders.
That gap matters for more than procedural reasons. When policy treats people as passive recipients rather than active participants, it leaves out the very actors whose behaviour, trust and consent the transition depends on. Institutions that speak only to other institutions, and negotiate only with state actors and industry lobbies, are missing out on the trust and energy of the people they are supposed to serve.
Governments, left to their own devices, are not moving fast enough to prove that argument wrong. At COP30 in Belém last November, countries failed to agree on a fossil fuel phaseout roadmap, and even full implementation of every submitted national climate plan still leaves the world on course for 2.3 to 2.8C of warming.
Citizens’ track at COP
But the Brazilian presidency grasped something important. Among the conference’s more significant outcomes was the formal launch of a Citizens’ Track within the UNFCCC process, a mechanism for connecting the global participation field to intergovernmental climate negotiations. Türkiye and Australia, who together hold the COP31 presidency in Antalya this November, now have the opportunity to strengthen and institutionalise what Brazil began.
In Guatemala, Indigenous women build climate resilience with old and new farming methods
The question before us is no longer whether citizens can contribute to solving these problems. Across the world, in local food networks, in community assemblies and in participatory planning processes, they already are, quietly generating more ambitious and more legitimate solutions than those emerging from formal diplomatic channels.
What is required now is the political courage to connect people to power. Not to consult citizens and file the results. Not to invite them to observe while the real decisions are made elsewhere. But to recognise the public as partners in perhaps the most consequential governance challenge of our time.
The post As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments appeared first on Climate Home News.
As food shocks spread, citizens are showing more leadership than governments
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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 Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测