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
Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022
An area of Amazon forest roughly the size of the US state of New Jersey has remained standing due to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership of Brazil, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Lula beat Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 election to become president of the nation that is home to nearly 60% of the Amazon rainforest.
Forest loss surged during Bolsonaro’s far-right presidency and dropped sharply under the left-wing Lula, with Amazon deforestation likely to hit its lowest level on record this year.
Now, as another presidential election approaches, Lula is facing off against Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio Bolsonaro, whose “anti-environmental” policies are similar to his father’s.
Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests that at least 20,000 square kilometres (km2) of deforestation has been avoided since Lula took office and prioritised Amazon protection.
The analysis is based on modelling by an international research team of an alternative scenario in which Brazil’s flagship forest code legislation was not enforced – a proxy for Jair Bolsonaro’s leadership.
Experts tell Carbon Brief that this estimate is likely “conservative” and that actual deforestation under Bolsonaro could have been “much higher”.
With Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro tied in the polls, the upcoming election is expected to significantly shape the level of environmental action in the world’s fourth-largest emitter, whose emissions are largely driven by deforestation.
‘Brazil is back’
When Jair Bolsonaro was president of Brazil between 2019 and 2022, he championed the nation’s powerful agribusiness sector and oversaw an unprecedented increase in Amazon deforestation.
Bolsonaro weakened regulations, slashed federal agency budgets and empowered illegal activities in the Amazon, while attacking Indigenous and environmental groups.
This meant that the forest code – Brazil’s flagship legislation that requires landowners to preserve and restore forest on their property – was not properly enforced.
After Lula’s presidential victory in 2022, he promised to target “zero deforestation” by 2030, telling the COP27 UN climate summit that “Brazil is back”.
Lula rolled back Bolsonaro’s wave of deregulation and reinstated a deforestation “action plan”. Led by celebrated environmentalist Marina Silva, the environment ministry scaled up enforcement and policing activities in the Amazon.
As a result, annual deforestation in the Amazon has more than halved from 11,594km2 per year in 2022 to 5,731km2 in 2025.
Data from August 2025 to July 2026 – the timespan used in government records – is yet to be released, but preliminary satellite alerts put the deforestation figure at 2,874km2.
While the final figure is likely to be higher, experts still think Amazon deforestation in 2026 could hit its lowest level since records began in 1988.
New Jersey-sized forest
Compared to a scenario in which Bolsonaro won in 2022, Carbon Brief analysis suggests that at least 20,000km2 of Amazon forest remains standing today due to Lula’s leadership.
This area – roughly the size of Wales, Belize, Slovenia or the US state of New Jersey – is indicated by the grey area in the chart below.

This analysis is based on a 2023 study on the role of nature-based solutions in Brazil’s pathway to net-zero emissions. This was a refined update of a 2018 study that used the same GLOBIOM-Brazil model, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE).
It is based on a comparison of forest code implementation with a “baseline” scenario in which the code is not enforced, reflecting the kind of weak governance seen under the Bolsonaro administration. (See Carbon Brief’s 2022 article for more details of this modelling.)
Dr Aline Soterroni, a University of Oxford researcher who led the 2023 analysis, tells Carbon Brief that the reversal seen under Lula “shows how quickly deforestation can respond to political will”.
However, she stresses that the modelling of the “no forest code” scenario is “relatively conservative”, with deforestation remaining high but not rising.
Deforestation in this scenario – used here as a proxy for a Bolsonaro election win – is tempered by slower demand growth for Brazilian beef and soy, says Soterroni. She notes that the scenario also does not capture the potential for illegal forest clearing in response to weak governance.
Indeed, some experts anticipated in 2022 that a Bolsonaro victory would send deforestation rates rising to near-record levels.
Claudio Angelo, international policy coordinator at Brazil’s Climate Observatory, tells Carbon Brief that if Bolsonaro had won in 2022, “we have reason to believe [this would have resulted] in much higher rates than during his first term”.
Angelo says the “political signal” would likely have driven an “explosion of wildcat mining” and illegal deforestation in the Amazon. He also points to efforts – including by Flávio Bolsonaro – to formally dismantle the forest code in the Brazilian congress, during Jair Bolsonaro’s first term.
Soterroni notes that deforestation rates did not immediately drop following Lula’s election, as suggested by modelling of a full “forest code compliance” scenario. She says this reflects the “gradual and imperfect process” of restoring and enforcing the law.
Nevertheless, she tells Carbon Brief:
“The key message from our modelling is the contrast between these trajectories: weak environmental governance keeps deforestation substantially higher than full implementation of the forest code. That message remains relevant today.”
Election significance
With Jair Bolsonaro in prison for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election, his son Flávio Bolsonaro, a senator for Rio de Janeiro, is standing against Lula in the upcoming contest for president.
There are 13 candidates, but Flávio Bolsonaro and Lula are by far the frontrunners and are currently neck-and-neck in opinion polls.
If Lula wins, experts say he is likely to continue with the “zero deforestation by 2030” agenda that has already had a pronounced impact on forest loss.
As the chart below shows, periods when Amazon deforestation fell in recent history all occurred during Lula’s three terms as president.

In contrast, experts say Flávio Bolsonaro, a climate sceptic who has indicated he will continue his father’s political agenda and favour agribusiness and mining, will likely drive a surge in deforestation. Angelo tells Carbon Brief:
“At the risk of sounding alarmist, I’ve been saying that Lula’s re-election is the only thing standing between us and a wide destruction of the Amazon.”
A Bolsonaro win would be a “tremendous disaster”, says Dr Patricia Pinho, deputy science director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, adding:
“I don’t think we can afford four years of increasing deforestation [and] violence against Indigenous peoples.”
Dr David Lapola, an ecologist focused on Amazon research at the University of Campinas in Brazil, says he believes deforestation “would certainly rise” and Brazil’s climate and deforestation goals “would be thrown in the trash bin”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“The Bolsonaro administration in the 2019-2022 period showed that the deconstruction of environmental policies and institutes can be done very, very quickly.
“In a matter of a few months, they can destroy what has been constructed over decades of environmental policy and activism in Brazil.”
‘Greenest’ policies
Lula has the “greenest” policy proposals of Brazil’s six top-polling presidential candidates, according to analysis by the Climate Observatory.
The analysis identifies 16 “positive and detailed” environmental commitments in Lula’s proposals, including reaffirming his “zero deforestation by 2030” goal.
Flávio Bolsonaro, on the other hand, has one positive environmental commitment and seven “clearly anti-environmental” proposals.
The right-wing politician has committed to zero “illegal” deforestation by 2029. However, he has also previously led an attempt to change the forest code, opening up large tracts of previously out-of-bounds forest for legal clearance by extractive industries.
Given this, Angelo tells Carbon Brief that he is sceptical about the 2029 pledge.
“The only way you can trust him on this is to think that he is going to revoke the forest code and make all illegal deforestation legal.”

Lula is also the only major candidate to list a clear target for cutting national emissions, sticking with Brazil’s existing goal to cut emissions by 59-67% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels.
Overall, the Climate Observatory notes that climate change and environmental issues “are off the radar for most candidates”, who are instead focusing on the economy and security issues.
Pinho adds that deforestation and the Amazon have not been at the “forefront” of this election, compared to 2022.
If Bolsonaro wins, up to 95% of the Amazon would fall under the leadership of right-wing national governments – including those in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru – reported Mongabay. It noted that presidents in all these nations “explicitly favour agribusiness and mining over environmental conservation”.
If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round of Brazil’s election on 4 October, a runoff will take place on 25 October, as has happened at every presidential election since 1998.
Soy moratorium and Brazilian congress
Other factors will also play a role in future deforestation in Brazil, regardless of the next president.
One is the effective end of the Amazon soy moratorium. This is a voluntary agreement signed by companies committing to not buy soya beans grown on land in the Brazilian Amazon that was deforested after 2008.
Conservation organisation WWF’s international director general, Kirsten Schuijt, previously described it as the “most impactful voluntary supply chain policy ever implemented”.
However, major grain traders withdrew from the agreement earlier this year, effectively bringing it to an end. Pinho describes this move as a “huge destruction” of Brazil’s environmental protections.
Research shows the moratorium prevented around 18,000km2 of deforestation in its first decade of operation from 2005-16.
In contrast, a 2026 study estimated that the end of the moratorium could result in 14,000km2 of additional deforestation in the Amazon by 2036.
Alongside choosing a new president on 4 October, Brazilian voters will elect state governors and members of congress, which will also factor into future environmental impacts.
Right-leaning parties, including the far-right Liberal Party linked to the Bolsonaros, currently hold half the seats of the two chambers of congress.
This has led to conflict between lawmakers and Lula. For example, in 2025, congress bypassed Lula’s veto of several aspects of a controversial piece of legislation dubbed the “devastation bill”.
Pinho says that the potential for a right-wing congress and president would be “devastating for the environmental and climate agenda”.
Lapola notes that a Flávio Bolsonaro presidency “would consolidate the view in Brazil that environmental protection is solely a matter of political preference, and not a crucial need of all people”. He adds:
“Land pillage, destruction of precious biodiversity and scorning of Indigenous peoples simply cannot be a nation’s project in the 21st century. We have got to be smarter than that, for sure.”
related
Q&A: What change of power in Colombia could mean for world’s fossil-fuel transition
Brazil’s biodiversity pledge: Six key takeaways for nature and climate change
COP30: Could Brazil’s ‘Tropical Forest Forever’ fund help tackle climate change?
Guest post: How Caribbean states are shaping climate legislation
The post Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022
Climate Change
Alive on Earth, with you

This letter is a bit more direct and longer than most of those which I write, but I hope you will be okay with that, because the times seem to call for being plain.
A few weeks ago I got a text message from an old and dear friend —let’s call her Hannah.
I have enough shared life with Hannah that, whenever we talk, the conversation always feels current and effortless, despite gaps of months or even years.
Hannah has been talking with her son — we’ll call him Neil — who is a teenager and doing well in school, but wildly worried about the state of the world, including the imminent trajectory of global warming. Hannah and I don’t text each other other very often, but on this occasion she’s reached out with something visceral:
Neil has challenged me to point him to something hopeful, if I can find it. He says so far no one is showing any will to uphold the Paris Agreement. I am checking in to see how you still manage to have real hope.*
Then, just a few days later, the United Nations Environment Programme Limiting Overshoot report landed, containing the principal finding that it is likely the global temperature will soon exceed 1.5°C.
After that news, and the real time devastation in Nepal, and in the context of the broader state of the world, I found myself having multiple conversations with friends and colleagues about the structure of hope. I want to openly share that after a few of these exchanges, I metaphorically closed the blinds, and wondered how to feel, and what to do, because there is no avoiding the dreadfulness of the news, and what it means for the suffering of people and life on Earth.
But if you are fortunate enough to have time, space and security to do so, then after the darkness, you open the shutters and once again there is light. This is the structure of my innermost resolve.
* * *
Our lives — those of us living on our magnificent earth now — have the greatest possible purpose.
There is virtually no problem that we endlessly clever and creative, human beings cannot solve, when we work together.
And we are not just intelligent and ingenious; we are inherently social, nurturing and brave; capable of the deepest enduring love.
Each of the roughly 12,000 generations of humanity so far has made life possible for those who have followed, through acts of devotion.
Babies have been held and fed. Water and food have been found and shared. Shelter has been built. For 12,000 generations we have held the hands of our children.
Every single one of us was once carried in the arms of another, unable to walk ourselves. It is our thoughtfulness, kindness and care that have seen us through as a species. Sometimes this has been in the most exigent of circumstances, when enough of our ancestors did not give in, faced incredibly difficult things, to somehow make it through.
And so it comes to this. To what we now must do. We must do as 12,000 generations of people did for us.
The struggle to keep global warming to under 1.5 degrees may be over. The battle of return—to get our planet back to safe temperatures at emergency speed and scale — is just beginning. Upon this struggle depends the future of all we care about, and that of all life on Earth. The prospects of the next 12,000 generations are conditioned by our efforts now.
Our work now is to keep the overshoot as low as we can, make it as brief as possible, and do everything within our power to alleviate other pressures on nature. It is to take care of humanity — of one another — in the face of mounting climate and ecological damage. And by these efforts, create the conditions for future flourishing. Every fraction of every degree matters.
What must now be done is hard, much tougher than should have been necessary, because of the vested interests in coal, oil and gas and deforestation, and the failures of decision makers. And while renewable energy has surged, making the case for change much simpler, on the other side of the ledger there’s the reactionary and gangsterist turn of politics and the multiplier effects of wars and mass violence, with the existential destabilisation of big tech looming over all.
There is no sugarcoating the scale of difficulty. But what is necessary remains within our collective power. We must never, for one second, say that returning our planet to flourishing is impossible — many of the obvious solutions already exist; but even where transformation relies on reforms, technologies or capabilities that might sound fanciful, or historical changes that are unprecedented, this can be no barrier to our conviction. After all, much of what we take for granted today as ordinary features of social life, would have been considered impossible by every single generation before us.
The world has not been destroyed by nuclear war; we solved the growing hole in the ozone layer; Antarctica was kept sacrosanct from exploitation. Humanity has collectively triumphed before, and can do so again.
We can find the necessary social and political will to do what is needed because these are endlessly renewable resources. The necessary financial capital exists. Apart from the fossil fuel industry, the greatest barrier we face is to mistakenly concede that what lies before us is insurmountable. It is not.
We must avoid the siren song of fatalism. Because. It. Is. Never. Too. Late.
None of which is to be insensitive to the horrors already unleashed — the deadly and grotesque harm to people, places and species that cannot be undone; or to be blind to the impacts that are coming. But where we have the power to act, we also have the responsibility — and the extraordinary privilege — to do what must be done.
Although she is wounded, our planet is still alive and beautiful beyond all of our comprehension. Hundreds of billions of creatures live and thrive still upon this earth. Nothing has happened until it has happened, and life fights for life. Every beetle, every tree, all the fish in the ocean, the smallest of the geothermal shrimps, the greatest of the whales and the mightiest of the birds — all demand life every second of their existence, so that their species too may have future generations.
No individual has to know how to solve this alone. Indeed, finding some detachment and humility is essential to concentrate on the role that each of us can play.
Hope is not merely a mindset or a story we tell ourselves. Collective power is not abstract; it is what we do, together, applying ourselves to the practical mechanics of change and contestation within society, by being part of the organisations and networks of people that are dedicated to effective strategies. It is why I am so committed to Greenpeace.
Working from without and within, there are opportunities to make rapid change within institutions, governments, businesses and communities to create the social, economic and political momentum for emissions reduction at speed and scale, reminding ourselves always of what remains possible, even if it hasn’t happened yet.
We can return the planet to safer temperatures. We can put technologies back in the service of people and life. We can return to the assumptions that seemed so obvious just one generation ago — that it is both possible, and our obligation, to build a better future for all people, and for life on Earth.
I did write back to Hannah and Neil, to say honestly to a treasured friend and her son, that yes, as a matter of faith, conviction, evidence and strategy, absolutely there is real hope. And this is a pledge not just to Neil and his generation, but to the next 12,000.
Together, we have the power. Together, we cross this bridge through the dark. To secure an Earth capable of nurturing life in all of its magnificent diversity.
We did not choose to carry this historic responsibility, but here we are. And it is so lucky that we are here.
I wouldn’t choose any other time to be here, alive on Earth, with you.

Climate Change
‘Concerning’ low sea ice persists as Antarctic hits third-lowest winter peak
Antarctic sea ice has recorded its third-smallest winter peak extent since satellite records began 48 years ago, new data reveals.
Provisional data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that Antarctic sea ice hit its annual winter peak on 14 September, with an extent of 17.59m square kilometres (km2).
The organisation notes that the data is still preliminary, adding that “large fluctuations in extent are typical of Antarctic sea ice near the seasonal maximum”.
One expert tells Carbon Brief that it is “concerning to see these low values persisting”, but says that scientists need more time to determine whether this represents a “structural shift” in Antarctic sea ice extent.
Meanwhile, at the Earth’s other pole, Arctic sea ice reached its annual minimum on 12 September, ranking as the joint-10th lowest in the satellite record.
The NSIDC notes that the last 20 years have seen the lowest 20 Arctic sea ice extents in the satellite record.
Antarctic peak
Dr Lettie Roach, a polar climate scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, tells Carbon Brief that this year’s Antarctic sea ice maximum was “well below average for the season”. She warns that, “after several decades of stable or increasing winter Antarctic sea ice conditions, it is concerning to see these low values persisting”.
She adds:
“Compared with the Arctic, it’s less clear how recent changes in Antarctic sea ice are attributable to human-caused warming vs natural variability. We need more years of observations to better understand whether this is truly a structural shift.”
Dr Clare Eayrs, a postdoctoral researcher at the Korea Polar Research Institute (KOPRI), tells Carbon Brief that, since recording a “near-average February minimum” extent, Antarctic sea ice has “returned to unusually low winter coverage”.
She notes that Antarctic sea ice extent in July and August this year were the fifth and fourth lowest on record, respectively, adding that “all five of the lowest July extents have occurred since 2022 and all four of the lowest August extents since 2023”.
The chart below shows Antarctic sea ice extent in 2025 (dark blue) and 2026 (red) so far. For comparison, the chart shows decadal averages (dotted lines) as well as 2023 (mid blue), the year of the smallest winter sea-ice maximum on record.

Eayrs tells Carbon Brief that the regional pattern of Antarctic sea ice cover “changed substantially during the growth season”.
For example, she says that “in April, the Bellingshausen Sea remained almost entirely ice-free, while the neighbouring Amundsen Sea had more ice than usual”.
However, by late August, changes in atmospheric pressure and wind meant that “the Bellingshausen deficit had largely recovered, while ice was unusually scarce in the Amundsen Sea and across much of East Antarctica”.

Arctic minimum
Meanwhile, the Arctic recorded its minimum summer sea ice extent on 12 September. At 4.60m km2, this year ties with 2025, 2010 and 2008 as the 10th-lowest sea ice extent on record.
The chart below shows Arctic sea ice extent in 2025 (dark blue) and 2026 (red) so far. For comparison, the chart shows decadal averages (dotted lines) as well as 2012 (mid blue), the year of the smallest summer sea-ice minimum on record.

Roach tells Carbon Brief that although this minimum is not “record setting”, it is still “lower than any sea ice minimum before 2007”. She adds:
“Human-caused climate change has reduced Arctic sea ice cover and thickness, so the region is fundamentally different compared to a few decades ago.”
Scientists have been tracking Arctic sea ice thickness using a reanalysis produced called the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) since 1979.
In March 2026, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) terminated a global dataset of air pressure that scientists relied upon to produce PIOMAS, forcing both datasets to stop publishing updates.
The PIOMAS website says it will take “considerable effort and time” to find alternative data to use in their reanalysis. It adds that “we don’t yet have a good sense if that’s possible with available funds and if so, when we will be able to resume production of a new PIOMAS timeseries”.
Roach also notes that August saw record-breaking heat sweep across much of the world, explaining that high temperatures “extended into Arctic coastal regions, close to regions with substantial sea ice loss – particularly the Barents-Kara and East Siberian seas”.
Dr Zack Labe, a scientist at Climate Central, tells Carbon Brief that the absence of a new record does not mean that ice cover is becoming more “resilient”. He says:
“Local weather patterns across the Arctic play a really important role in year-to-year sea-ice extent, even as the long-term trend is clearly downward.”
Labe tells Carbon Brief that weather in the Arctic this summer was “influenced mainly by lower pressure toward the central Arctic, which brought cloudier and cooler conditions that limited surface melt and delayed the start of the melt season”.
He explains that this “was most obvious across parts of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where the melt season didn’t really kick off until after early July, which was more than two weeks later than normal”.
In contrast, he says, the Atlantic side of the Arctic “had a much more extreme summer”, with sea ice in the Barents Sea recording its “earliest melt-out on record”.
This was partly due to “unusually warm air and ocean temperatures”, Labe says. He notes, for example, that parts of western Siberia saw unusually persistent temperatures more than 5C above the 1981-2010 average for much of the summer, which extended out over the Kara Sea and contributed to substantial ice melt in this area”.

Labe tells Carbon Brief that, going forward, scientists need “more data and observations of other sea-ice metrics, like ice thickness, which may give us better insight into the overall condition of the ice pack, especially during years like 2026 when it is very fragmented”.
(In March 2026, Arctic sea ice reached its peak extent for this winter, clocking in as the joint-smallest in a satellite record going back almost half a century.)
Related
Guest post: Climate change has caused one-fifth of Pine Island glacier retreat
‘Very alarming’ winter sees Arctic sea ice hit record-low for second year running
Q&A: How Trump is threatening climate science in Earth’s polar regions
Limiting warming to 2C is ‘crucial’ to protect pristine Antarctic Peninsula
The post ‘Concerning’ low sea ice persists as Antarctic hits third-lowest winter peak appeared first on Carbon Brief.
‘Concerning’ low sea ice persists as Antarctic hits third-lowest winter peak
-
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 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
-
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 Energy11 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
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19




