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.
This summer has seen Europe suffer through a series of record-breaking heatwaves.
Amid widespread media coverage of the number of deaths and the influence of climate change, the UK’s Daily Telegraph reported on new research with the incorrect headline: “Heatwaves caused by fall in pollution.”
The article was shared on social media by Richard Tice – deputy leader of the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform UK party – along with a number of prominent rightwing commentators.
Tice claimed that “net stupid zero is contributing to rising temperatures, not helping”, adding that “we have been gaslit and lied to”.
GB News followed up with its own article, incorrectly headlined: “Britain’s scorching heatwaves caused by falling pollution levels, researchers find.”
Scientists tell Carbon Brief that the framing of heatwaves being “caused” by declining air pollution is “wrong”.
While a drop in pollution has reduced the cooling impact it has had in the past, the scientists say, Europe’s summer heatwaves are primarily becoming more extreme “as a result of greenhouse-gas-induced warming”.
Another scientist adds that “any attempt” to link this research to net-zero policies is “simply wrong”.
Fast warming
The extensive reporting around Europe’s heatwaves in recent months has often mentioned that Europe is the world’s fastest-warming continent.
The new study in question aims to unpack why Europe’s summer temperatures are rising more quickly than other regions of the northern hemisphere’s mid and high latitudes.
The research – published in Geophysical Research Letters – explores the role of air pollution and, specifically, how it affects circulation patterns in the atmosphere.
(The study focuses on long-term trends in European summers and does not include the very recent heatwaves.)
Human-caused emissions of aerosols – tiny, light‑scattering particles produced mainly by burning fossil fuels – have long acted to “mask” global warming. This is largely because they absorb or reflect incoming sunlight and influence the formation and brightness of clouds.
To understand how the climate of Europe – or any region – is changing, scientists need to take into account a whole range of factors, says Prof Bjørn Samset, a research professor at Norway’s Center for International Climate Research (CICERO), who was not involved in the work.
This includes “greenhouse gases, aerosols, land-use change, natural variability and how they all interact”, he says, adding:
“The effects of air pollution on circulation, which is the topic here, has long been difficult to pin down.”
As European countries improved their air quality through the second half of the 20th century, the cooling effect of aerosols has gradually been removed.
This can boost heatwaves in two ways – directly, by letting more sunlight reach the land surface and, indirectly, by influencing the jet stream.
Using hundreds of simulations from nine climate models, the new study finds that a decline in aerosols is resulting in more frequent “quasi-stationary Rossby waves”.
Rossby waves are huge meanders in the jet stream. Occasionally, they become slow-moving – or “quasi-stationary” – which allows weather systems to get stuck over one region, leading to prolonged heatwaves.
These circulation changes have contributed to Europe’s rapidly warming summers.
However, while Europe’s heatwaves are being influenced by declining aerosols, it is “wrong” to say they are being “caused” by them, says Prof Erich Fischer, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich.
Fischer, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief:
“Heatwaves are caused by high-pressure systems and are now much more frequent and intense because they are happening in a climate that is much warmer than 100 years ago as a result of greenhouse-gas-induced warming.
“The paper shows that the greenhouse-gas-induced summer warming had been temporarily masked by air-polluting aerosols. The full extent for European summers only becomes visible now as the air-polluting aerosols have declined.”
Samset adds:
“Air pollution never causes or removes global warming, it only temporarily moderates it.”
Study lead author Dr Pedro Roldán‐Gómez, an associate researcher at the Barcelona Supercomputer Centre, is quoted in the Daily Telegraph saying that “most” of the “excess warming” in Europe, beyond that of comparable regions in the northern hemisphere, can be linked to declining aerosols.
But, earlier in the article, the newspaper interprets this as, simply, “most of the extra heat experienced in Britain and Europe” is down to air pollution.
GB News uses a similar phrasing, reporting that “much of the additional warming across Britain and western Europe since the 1980s is linked to the sharp decline in airborne particles known as aerosols”.
This is “misleading”, says Fischer, while Roldan-Gomez tells Carbon Brief that this is a “tricky point”, which “could lead to wrong interpretations if not properly explained”. He adds:
“The contribution of greenhouse gases is, in any case, the most important factor.”
Cleaner air
The Daily Telegraph’s article was seized upon by Reform’s Richard Tice to claim that “cleaner air” was causing higher temperatures, rather than CO2.
This continued his position – refuted by long-established climate science – that CO2 does not drive global warming.
Tice also claimed in his post that net-zero policies are “contributing to rising temperatures”. Tice appears to be linking declining air pollution to a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Samset points out that net-zero became a goal “decades later” than the cumulative efforts to reduce air pollution since the 1980s and that it is “simply wrong” to link it to the study.
“The scientific community will keep working to understand how greenhouse gas warming and air pollution interact,” he says, but “nothing we do will change the fact that the consequences of global warming are due to human-induced CO2 emissions”.
Fischer adds:
“Let us not forget that cleaning up air-polluting aerosols is highly desirable. According to the World Health Organisation, 7 million people still die prematurely every year due to air pollution.”
Clean air legislation
Finally, the Daily Telegraph article and the study itself both attribute Europe’s declining air pollution from the 1980s onwards to the Montreal Protocol.
This is a “glaring error”, Samset says, and it is “surprising that it wasn’t picked up” in the peer-review process for the study. He explains:
“The Montreal Protocol did not deal with air pollution. It dealt with ozone-depleting gases and has been an extremely successful multi-national effort against environmental damage. “
Clean air legislation was already in place in many European countries by the time the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, says Samset.
In response, Roldán‐Gómez says that while the protocol did not target aerosols specifically, it “boosted the clean air policies”.
The post Factcheck: No, Europe’s heatwaves are not being ‘caused’ by declining air pollution appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: No, Europe’s heatwaves are not being ‘caused’ by declining air pollution
Empowering women through greater access to finance could “strengthen” households’ resilience to “climate shocks”, according to a new study.
Published in Climate Risk Management, it analyses the impact of financial access on “women-headed households” in sub-Saharan Africa.
The study finds that where women had formal financial access – such as through owning a bank account – households were more able to withstand short-term shocks.
It adds that “climate shocks”, such as extreme weather events and the impacts of climate change, can cause economic crises, which destabilise communities and households.
However, the authors say that in order to protect households from long-term climate vulnerabilities – including “droughts, floods and sea-level rise” – financial access would need to be paired with wider efforts to tackle gender inequality.
They add that the findings could have important implications for policy in sub-Saharan Africa, where many countries and households are vulnerable to climate disasters.
Financial inclusion
The study highlights that entrenched gender disparities mean many women still have unequal access to financial services in sub-Saharan Africa
For example, women are still less likely to have their own bank accounts and instead are often dependent on male relatives for access to finance.
The number of women with access to an account in the region had risen to 52% as of 2024, according to data from World Bank Group.
However, as shown in the chart below, the gap between men and women has also increased, rising from just under 5 percentage points in 2011 to 12 in 2024.
Using survey data from Afrobarometer, the new study analyses 25,511 women-headed households across 37 sub-Saharan countries.
The authors use the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) framework to measure “financial inclusion”. This looks at factors such as having a bank account, owning a mobile phone and having internet access.
Francis Anaisie, a co-author on the study, tells Carbon Brief the researchers were motivated by the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs). Anaisie, an economist at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, says the study specifically looked at SDGs five and 13, on gender equality and addressing climate issues. He adds:
“Financial inclusion is one of the key policy tools for empowering women or for empowerment. But as to whether this actually translates into better climate outcomes for women is not known or is limited; this study seeks to address that gap.”
The study finds households with higher levels of financial access for women had higher levels of women’s empowerment, when this is defined as the ability to make choices and have control over economic and social outcomes.
This was checked by cross-comparing financial access against different measures of women’s empowerment, such as financial security, voting rights and connection to communities.
In particular, the study found that “financially included” women had greater political and economic empowerment, such as financial security and voting rights. On some measures of social empowerment, however, the link was weaker – financial access alone was not enough to erase cultural and social barriers to gender equality.
Women and climate change
It has been well documented that women are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than men.
Environmental shocks affect women disproportionately due to a range of factors. These include income disparities, higher rates of displacement and unequal access to land.
Financial inequality and barriers to economic resources, such as needing internet access to make digital payments, play a key role in climate vulnerability, says Tracy Kajumba. She is director for the Least Developed Countries initiative for Effective Adaptation and Resilience (LIFE-AR) interim secretariat at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Kajumba, who was not involved in the study, explains to Carbon Brief:
“Women are on the front line doing farming, planting, harvesting and these things that are all impacted [by climate change]. If they don’t have the income to invest either in drought-resistant crops or water-saving technologies, it becomes difficult for households to adapt.”
Calculating climate resilience
The new study measures the impact of financial inclusion on women’s empowerment and, in turn, on climate resilience.
It evaluates a household’s ability to withstand and recover from “shocks and stressors” by using a UN Food and Agriculture Organization metric for “resilience index measurement and analysis” (RIMA).
For example, questionnaires are used to gather information about households in certain areas. The data is then used, together with key indicators, to quantify a household’s resilience to food insecurity, climate variability and economic crisis, amongst other risks.
The 25,511 households surveyed across sub-Saharan Africa were found to be relatively resilient overall and had a high capacity to bounce back from climate shocks. However, they had much lower ability to adapt, in order to build protective capacity in advance of extreme events.
In addition, the study finds that women’s financial empowerment had a positive impact on a household’s ability to “absorb” a climate shock, suggesting that financial access is critical for responding to climate change.
Increased empowerment through financial access enables women to make decisions about planting crops, to access credit in emergencies and to buy or sell food at a better price, the study notes.
For example, it says increased financial access and women’s empowerment help households to deal with the immediate consequences of an extreme weather event, such as a drought. This could be through building community mutual-support networks and by enabling access to savings, to keep the household running.
Anaisie says the study shows women’s empowerment has a significant impact on climate resilience. He tells Carbon Brief:
“If we include women in the financial system, in the case of any climate issue they can save, they can be independent, they can rely on investment to absorb these shocks. This empowerment will help them to be more resilient to climate shocks…We can make progress because SDG goals are all about inclusiveness. It’s all about inclusive growth.”
However, the study notes that financial access does not necessarily create long-term change, which would make the household less vulnerable to extreme weather in the first place.
The authors suggest that lasting structural and cultural change is important for bringing about long-term resilience. They say that policies to address gender inequalities would help bring this about.
They say such policies could include gender-sensitive agricultural credit schemes, subsidised climate insurance for women farmers in drought-prone regions, joint land-titling programmes and quotas for women in local climate-adaptation committees.
Such policies would have helped women impacted by recent severe floods in Ghana to protect their savings, Anaisie explains. He tells Carbon Brief:
“Women are engaged in economic activities, especially informal activities. They have resources and money, but when the flood came in, many women lost that. If they had access to insurance, this flood wouldn’t have cost them that much.
“So, if the government comes out with financial initiatives, training, civic education and gender-focused initiatives, leadership training, women will be empowered and this will translate into their resilience with regards to climate change.”
Addressing climate vulnerability in sub-Saharan Africa
The study could have policy implications for sub-Saharan Africa, a region particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The region faces increasingly extreme weather, heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods, as well as food scarcity and threats to crops.
The study suggests that policies to address structural and cultural barriers to women’s financial autonomy could be a key way to build climate resilience across the region.
However, it recognises that even where financial access is expanded, gender norms and cultural constraints continue to shape women’s social empowerment. This, in turn, affects their ability to adapt to climate change in the long term.
Ultimately, addressing structural inequalities is needed to minimise climate vulnerability, says Kajumba. She adds that supporting adaptation with financial access can allow households to absorb shocks without falling into poverty – and to rebuild after climate impacts.
Kajumba says that supporting adaptation with women’s financial access can allow households to absorb shocks without falling into poverty – and to rebuild after climate impacts. She adds:
“When they are supported [with] microloans, savings and all that, you will see change in income, change in households, change in health and education for the children as well.”
However, Kajumba notes that structural inequalities still “amplify” women’s vulnerability to climate impacts and make it harder for them to exercise agency and leadership. She adds:
“The tools that are being used are not always favourable for women…When we look at women in leadership and participation, you cannot lead or you cannot participate unless you have some level of income.”
The post Access to finance ‘strengthens climate resilience’ among sub-Saharan women appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Access to finance ‘strengthens climate resilience’ among sub-Saharan women
As 2026 passes its halfway point, the world is watching one of the most rapidly intensifying El Niño events in the modern record take shape in the tropical Pacific.
The developing El Niño is boosting expectations for global temperatures, both this year and next.
El Niño is the warm phase of a recurring climate pattern in the tropical Pacific that releases heat from the ocean into the atmosphere, temporarily raising global temperatures and reshaping rainfall and extreme weather around the world.
Carbon Brief’s “state of the climate” report in April gave 2026 a 19% chance of setting a new global temperature record.
That chance now stands at 35% – a near-doubling in four months – with virtually all of the change driven by ever-stronger El Niño forecasts.
The key findings from the first half of 2026 include:
- The first six months of 2026 were the third-warmest start to a year on record – around 1.4C above pre-industrial levels – behind only 2024 and 2025.
- While the first few months of the year came in as the fourth or fifth warmest, both May and June were the second-warmest ever recorded as El Niño conditions took hold.
- El Niño conditions arrived in April and reached the threshold for a “strong” event by June, when the Niño3.4 index reached 1.6C. Of the 667 model runs Carbon Brief examined, 91% project a peak later this year that is above the strongest El Niño in history.
- The chance that 2026 beats 2024 as the warmest year on record has risen to 35%. Carbon Brief’s central estimate remains that 2026 will be the second-warmest year, at around 1.51C above pre-industrial levels.
- Whether 2026 sets a record will depend on the dataset: the odds range from around two-in-three in NASA and Berkeley Earth data to around two-in-10 in ERA5 and one-in-10 in the JRA-3Q reanalyses.
- June 2026 was western Europe’s hottest June on record, amid a heatwave that set hundreds of individual records. Nearly 9% of the world’s surface saw record June warmth.
- The developing El Niño will have its largest impact on 2027, which Carbon Brief projects to be around 1.7C above pre-industrial levels – this would comfortably set a new record for the warmest year.
- Arctic sea ice has spent 39 days of 2026 so far at, or below, record daily lows following its joint-lowest winter maximum in the satellite era.
Third-warmest start to a year
Carbon Brief analyses records from six different groups that report global surface temperatures: NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, Hadley/UEA HadCRUT5, Berkeley Earth, Copernicus/ECMWF ERA5 and the JMA JRA-3Q reanalysis.
The first half of 2026 was the third warmest on record in every one of the six datasets, behind only 2024 and 2025. The figure below shows annual temperatures since 1970, along with the 2026 year-to-date average (January-June) for each group.
January 2026 was only the fourth- or fifth-warmest January on record, as lingering weak La Niña conditions suppressed temperatures. Since then, each month has climbed the rankings.
La Niña is the cool phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It typically brings wetter conditions to Australia, Indonesia and equatorial South America and drier conditions to the southern US.
March was second-to-fourth warmest across datasets, April the third and both May and June were the second warmest ever recorded, behind only the corresponding months of 2024.
The chart below shows how June 2026 (thick red line) came in around 0.08C below the June record set in 2024 in the average of the six datasets.
Meanwhile, Copernicus reported that global sea surface temperatures over the ice-free oceans set a new June record.
A record-breaking El Niño
ENSO is the largest source of year-to-year variability in global temperatures.
The most common way to assess the strength of an El Niño or La Niña event is by looking at the sea surface temperature anomaly in the “Niño3.4” region of the tropical Pacific.
El Niño and its sister La Niña occur when temperatures in the tropical Pacific are more than 0.5C (El Niño) or less than 0.5C (La Niña) below normal, where normal is defined by removing the effects of long-term climate change.
The thresholds for defining the strength of an El Niño or La Niña are above/below 1C for “moderate” events, 1.5C for “strong” events and 2C for “very strong” (or “super”) events.
After two years dominated by La Niña conditions, the tropical Pacific flipped decisively in April when the Niño3.4 index crossed the 0.5C El Niño threshold. It subsequently reached 1C in May and hit 1.6C in June, marking one of the fastest onsets in the observational record.
In the first few weeks of July, the index shot above 2C, significantly outpacing the speed at which any prior El Niño events developed.
Forecast models expect even more to come.
An analysis by Carbon Brief of the median of 667 model runs from 14 different modelling groups suggests that sea surface temperatures in theNiño3.4 region could peak at 3.59C between July and December.
More than 91% of runs predict the strongest El Niño event in the modern record. The previous record was set during the event of 2015-16, when temperatures peaked around 2.75C.
This is shown in the chart below, which features a histogram of the likelihood of different possible 2026 El Niño peaks across all the models on the top. The forest plot beneath shows the best estimate and range of outcomes predicted by each individual model.
The median forecast in every one of the 14 models suggests a peak that exceeds the 2C “super” El Niño threshold, with most models peaking in November or December.
Some caution here is warranted, however. Raw model Niño3.4 anomalies are measured against a fixed climatology. Because the entire tropical ocean has warmed due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, the models tend to overstate event strength relative to the historical record.
A cleaner comparison uses the relative Niño3.4 index (RONI), which subtracts the average tropical ocean warming.
This relative measure suggests the median forecast peak for El Niño in the latter half of 2026 is 3.1C. The prior record stands at a lower 2.69C, set in 1982-83.
Nevertheless, 77% of model runs still show a new record event occurring. This is shown in the chart below.
In summary, on both indexes, the central expectation is now for the strongest El Niño in the observational record.
Model forecasts made in the spring and early summer have historically shown some bias toward overpredicting event strength. However, forecasts made after the spring are considerably more reliable.
Widespread record warmth and a massive European heatwave
The map below shows the temperature anomaly for the first half of 2026 in the ERA5 dataset, relative to a 1981-2010 baseline period.
It shows how the largest warm anomalies were found across the Arctic – particularly north of Scandinavia and Svalbard – as well as western Europe, the western US, northern Mexico, central Asia, western China, eastern Russia and the Antarctic Peninsula region.
The developing El Niño is clearly visible as a tongue of warm anomalies stretching along the equatorial eastern Pacific. Only a few regions – central Canada, Alaska and parts of the Southern Ocean – saw temperatures below the 1981-2010 average.
Where 2026 ranks against history is even more striking. The map below shows where the period of January-June 2026 ranked among all 87 years in the ERA5 record, which stretches from 1940 to 2026. Grid cells marked in red saw temperatures in the first half of the year that were in the top-five warmest years.
More than 30% of the global surface had a top-five warmest start to the year and 7.1% saw its warmest on record, including much of western Europe, the eastern equatorial Pacific and the seas around Japan.
Not a single grid cell had a top-five coolest start to the year. In June alone, 8.9% of the world’s surface saw record warmth for the month. This is illustrated in the map below, where grid cells marked in red saw temperatures that were in the top-five warmest years and grid cells in blue in the top-five coolest.
The standout regional temperature event was a heatwave that struck Europe in late June.
Western Europe had its hottest June on record, recording an average temperature of 3.05C above the 1991-2020 average and beating the record set only a year earlier, according to Copernicus. A heat dome over 22-30 June broke 10 all-time national heat records and around 400 long-record station records.
France set a new June national record of 44.3C, while the UK broke its June record on three consecutive days, reaching 37.3C. The humid heat drove a death toll estimated in the thousands.
A separate heat dome also brought record June temperatures to parts of North America in late June.
On track to be second warmest, but a real chance at first
Carbon Brief’s updated projection for 2026 as a whole combines the observed January-June temperatures with the latest El Niño forecast. It uses a statistical model trained on the historical relationship between the first half of the year, ENSO conditions and annual temperatures observed over 1950-2025, excluding major volcanic eruption years.
Carbon Brief estimates that 2026 will be around 1.51C above pre-industrial levels, with a 90% range of 1.45C to 1.57C, shown by the yellow dot in the chart below.
This is up from 1.47C in the projection set out in April – and is notably more certain now that half the year has passed.
This central estimate would make 2026 the second-warmest year on record, just below 2024 (1.52C) and ahead of 2023 (1.43C) and 2025 (1.41C).
Carbon Brief’s modelling puts the chance that 2026 beats 2024 as the warmest year on record at 35%, using the average of the six different surface temperature records assessed. It puts the chance that 2026 comes in above 1.5C at around 63%.
If it does, 2026 would be the second calendar year – after 2024 – where warming averaged above 1.5C, in a further sign that the world is rapidly approaching the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit.
A single year above 1.5C does not by itself constitute a breach of the goal, which refers to the longer term average temperature of the planet. This is defined as the midpoint of a 20-year period by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
These likelihood of a record have been climbing rapidly throughout 2026.
Global temperatures so far throughout the year have run well below the record-setting levels of 2024 – around 0.13C cooler over the first six months.
On their own, temperatures observed so far in 2026 would make a new annual record unlikely.
However, rerunning the projection using only the data available at the end of each month since March – including both the year-to-date observations and the El Niño forecast issued that month – shows a shifting picture.
Using March data, 2026 had just a 7% chance of setting a new record. That rose to 16% in April, 24% in May, 27% in June and 35% using the latest data in mid-July.
This is shown in the chart below.
Notably, this rise has little to do with observed temperatures. The year-to-date anomaly has actually drifted slightly down, from 1.41C after March to 1.39C after June.
Observed temperatures and fewer remaining months of the year contributed only around four percentage points of the 28-point rise in the likelihood; the remaining ~84% of the change comes from successive upward revisions to the El Niño forecast for late 2026.
However, whether 2026 ends up becoming the warmest year on record may end up depending on which dataset is used.
Running the same projection gives odds of a 2026 record of around two-in-three for Berkeley Earth (66%) and NASA GISTEMP (65%), but only 35% for HadCRUT5, 24% for NOAA and just 13% and 9% for the ERA5 and JRA-3Q reanalyses, respectively.
This is shown below.
The divergence between projections mostly reflects how exceptional each dataset’s 2024 was.
The reanalysis approaches recorded a particularly warm 2024, leaving 2026 more ground to make up. GISTEMP and Berkeley, on the other hand, project 2026 modestly above their 2024 values.
A repeat of the situation in 2015 where different groups disagreed on record rankings is a real possibility. Headlines in January 2027 may hinge on choices of dataset.
2027 likely to be the warmest year in human history
The biggest climate story of the developing super El Niño may not be 2026 at all.
Global temperatures typically lag in the tropical Pacific by around three months. So, an El Niño event peaking in November and December 2026 will have its largest warming influence on 2027.
We saw this same pattern occur in 1997-98, 2015-16 and 2023-24 – where the year in which the El Niño developed was warm, but the following year was record-smashing.
Carbon Brief has extended its projection into 2027 by using the historical relationship between year-over-year temperature changes and ENSO conditions in the preceding autumn.
This yields a best estimate for 2027 of around 1.71C above pre-industrial levels, with a 90% range of 1.49C to 1.93C. This is shown by a yellow square on the chart below.
That would give 2027 a 92% chance of setting a new global temperature record and a 94% chance of exceeding 1.5C.
Taking 2026 and 2027 together, there is a 93% chance that at least one of the two years sets a new record.
The 2027 estimate is more uncertain than the 2026 one. As with 2026, there are uncertainties in the projection due to unknowns around exactly how strong the El Niño peak proves to be and how quickly it decays.
However, even the low end of the 2027 range would put it among the warmest years on record and the central estimate of 1.71C would exceed 2024 by nearly 0.2C.
If these projections bear out, the 2020s will have delivered new global temperature records in 2023, 2024 and 2027 – and potentially 2026 too – with a number of individual years well above the 1.5C threshold.
The long-term warming trend, driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, has increased from around 0.18C per decade in the early 2000s to around 0.27C per decade today. El Niño and La Niña play a big role in determining which years along that rising path stand out as records.
Arctic sea ice at record lows
Arctic sea ice has spent much of 2026 in record-low territory.
Following the joint-lowest winter maximum in the satellite record in mid-March, daily extent has set or tied record lows for the date on 39 days so far this year, including extended spells in mid-to-late March and in early-to-mid June.
The most recent record-low days were in early July.
The chart below shows how Arctic sea ice in 2026 (dark red line) has been below the historical range (shaded red).
It also shows how Antarctic sea ice (dark blue), meanwhile, has remained below the 1979-2010 range for almost all of 2026 to date.
As of mid-July, Arctic extent is a bit below the 1979-2010 historical range for the date, though it remains around 0.6m square kilometres (km2) larger than the record low for the date set during 2020’s exceptional summer melt season.
The trajectory over the coming two months will determine whether 2026 challenges 2012’s record September minimum. Early-summer conditions are a poor predictor of the September minimum, which depends heavily on summer weather.
Antarctic sea ice, meanwhile, is currently around 300,000km2 below the historical envelope, but has stayed well clear of the record lows set in 2023 and has not set any new daily records yet this year.
Q&A: Europe’s May and June heatwave deaths – and how they were counted
Guest post: France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths
Guest post: Climate change has caused one-fifth of Pine Island glacier retreat
Media reaction: How climate change intensified Europe’s record-breaking June heat
The post State of the climate: Rapidly developing El Niño raises chance of record-warm 2026 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
State of the climate: Rapidly developing El Niño raises chance of record-warm 2026
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change12 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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测