Connect with us

Published

on

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》。

上微信关注《碳简报》

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.

Carbon Brief 采访清华大学王灿教授

Continue Reading

Climate Change

South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right

Published

on

After a five-year long legal battle, the Constitutional Court of South Africa has blocked Shell and local partner Impact Africa’s permit to explore for oil and gas off the country’s East Coast, in a landmark victory for local communities and civil society.

“Today’s judgment makes me feel very happy and proud that the ocean is not for profit for mining companies,” said East Coast resident and environmental campaigner Siyabonga Ndovela.

The verdict culminates a years-long process in which non-profits Sustaining the Wild Coast, Natural Justice, Greenpeace Africa, and others took legal action against Shell, Impact Africa and the South African government for failing to consult affected communities – a legal requirement in the country.

The Constitutional Court ruled that Shell and Impact Africa had not complied with resource governance law, had failed to meaningfully conduct public consultation and had failed to consider the impact on climate change, cultural rights, livelihoods and ecological harm.

The ruling references last year’s landmark advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which states that countries have a legal duty to prevent and repair damage to the climate system. The South African judges argued climate change “transcends borders” and that states’ obligations “must be understood within the broader framework of international law.”

“This case must also be understood against the backdrop of well-documented struggles by coastal communities to protect their land, marine resources and ways of life in the face of extractive activities that they believe threaten their very existence,” wrote Justice Narandran Kollapen.

Protesters march to the Constitutional Court in 2025 (Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee/GroundUp)

The Constitutional Court found that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.The ruling upholds a 2022 regional court decision against Shell and overturns a 2024 appeal that allowed the company to conduct fresh public consultations under the original exploration right. Today’s decision means the right, initially granted in 2014, must be set aside.

Celebrating the decision, Sherelee Odyar, oil and gas campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home News that the court confirmed “serious failures” in the awarding of exploration rights to Shell and Impact Africa, which “can not simply be corrected later”.

The Wild Coast is a biodiversity hotspot which has been conserved over generations by coastal communities who rely on the ocean and land. “Our land and sea are central to our livelihoods and our way of life. Over generations we have conserved them, and they have conserved us,” reads the founding statement in the case. 

A Shell spokesperson said it noted the ruling, responding that “we are committed to responsible offshore exploration, meaningful stakeholder engagement and environmental stewardship.”

The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.

“Renewed strength” for communities

The ruling adds to a series of legal challenges brought by civil society groups against oil companies and the government as South Africa has expanded oil and gas development since 2014 under Operation Phakisa, a plan aimed at “unlocking the economic potential of the oceans”.

On the West Coast, Walter Steenkamp, Chair of Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, which is involved in a separate ongoing legal action against TotalEnergies, said that “today’s court case gave me renewed strength.”

The case could also set a precedent for future oil developments, said Alessandro Mazzi, legal governance researcher at the University of Wageningen. He added that the verdict “sends a strong signal to investors that where projects affect people’s land, livelihoods and environment, meaningful consultation and genuine ecological assessment are an integral part of responsible investment”.

Janet Solomon, coordinator of advocacy group Oceans not Oil, said that the Court’s emphasis on democratic participation, culture, livelihoods and the health of future generations in handing down the verdict signals a shift in jurisprudence on environmental governance, saying that this focus “may prove to be the judgment’s most enduring legacy.”

The post South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right appeared first on Climate Home News.

South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?

Published

on

China has published a new five-year plan for coal, the latest in a slew of important policy documents for the country’s energy transition.

The 15th five-year plan for the development of the coal industry was published by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA) on 10 August, covering the period 2026-2030.

This is a key period, covering the years building up to China’s pledge to peak its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions “before 2030”.

Government-affiliated organisations had previously mooted the possibility of coal consumption peaking before 2027.

However, the new plan does not set a specific, government-endorsed year for peaking coal consumption, instead including a broader goal to peak use of the fuel in this five-year period.

It also discusses the “green and low-carbon transition” of the coal industry, coal-related methane emissions and the “clean and efficient use” of the fuel.

But, in general, the plan emphasises the importance of coal in China’s energy system and focuses on the systems underpinning its production.

Analysts tell Carbon Brief that the plan confirms a “broader trend” – driven by the conflict in the Middle East – in which coal’s role in China as a “cheap and secure” source of energy is reinforced – instead of plotting a phase-down or transition for the industry.

Nevertheless, as the deadline for peaking CO2 emissions looms, the plan does warn the sector of the need to diversify into other industries – including clean energy and chemicals – as coal consumption peaks.

Below, Carbon Brief looks closer at what the plan means for China’s use of coal over the next five years and how it relates to wider climate targets.

Article Contents

What does the plan say about peaking coal?

Five-year plans are a key tool in Chinese governance, used to guide economic and social development across the economy.

The plan for coal is the latest topic-specific document to address climate and energy matters within the 15th five-year plan period of 2026-30. It is subordinate to the overarching 15th five-year plan, which covers China’s broad socio-economic strategy.

Other topic-specific plans for the period cover climate change, developing a “new-type energy system” and renewable energy, among other topics.

The coal plan opens by stating that coal is a “foundational [source of] energy” for China:

“[Coal is] vital to the national economy, people’s livelihoods and national energy security, and plays a crucial role in providing foundational support and systemic regulation within the energy supply system.”

However, the plan also covers the 15th five-year plan period (2026-2030), the final five-year period before China is expected to have peaked its carbon emissions.

The 15th five-year plan period marks a time of “significant transformation” for the coal industry, the plan says.

Policy documents issued in April 2026 called for the “strict control” of fossil fuels and created a framework for local governments to be graded on coal use in their region.

Coal has traditionally been the largest source of energy in China and is responsible for around 80% of its emissions.

But its role is gradually being superseded by non-fossil energy, which accounted for more than half of the country’s power mix in 2025. In the first half of 2026, coal supplied less than 50% of power generation, while its share of total energy consumption fell to 51.4%, as shown below.

Coal's share of total energy consumption in China fell to 51% in 2025. The share of coal and non-fossil energy in China's total energy consumption from 2015-2025, %. Source: National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Carbon Brief analysis of China Energy Transformation Outlook 2025, Yicai analysis of NBS statistics - (alt text generated by Google Gemini)

The five-year plan for coal signals “continuity” of China’s aim of “safeguarding energy security while advancing the low-carbon transition”, says Kevin Tu, non-resident fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

Another key factor behind the plan is concerns from policymakers around energy security, exacerbated by the conflict in the Middle East.

In an article published in early August, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily noted the “severe volatility” the war has created in energy markets, adding that “China’s energy system has withstood these shocks”.

It quoted NEA head Wang Hongzhi stating in a press conference that “coal is [China’s] greatest source of confidence in ensuring a stable energy supply”.

The conflict will “reinforce coal’s role in China’s energy system”, both as a source of energy and as a feedstock for commodities, Li Shuo, China climate hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute, tells Carbon Brief.

The plan outlines a number of aims to be achieved by 2030, starting with a goal to “further strengthen” the coal industry’s “ability to be a ‘bottom-line guarantee’”.

The other targets in the plan, to be achieved by 2030, include:

  • Peaking coal consumption;
  • “Basically establishing” a modern coal-industrial system;
  • Optimising the “layout” of coal production and development;
  • Increasing the proportion of “high-quality, advanced” coal-production capacity;
  • “Clearly improving” levels of “safe, green development” and “clean, efficient use” of coal;
  • Increasing the share of coal produced by “large-scale, modernised coal mines” to 87%;
  • Developing a diversified coal-based industrial structure;
  • Improving mechanisms to ensure a “dynamic balance” between supply and demand.

The large share of China’s CO2 emissions that come from coal and China’s carbon-peaking and neutrality targets are not the main focus of the five-year plan.

“This is clearly neither a coal phase-out nor phase-down plan,” Tu tells Carbon Brief. He adds that it grants China “considerable flexibility…over the pace of the transition”.

A pledge to peak coal consumption during the five-year plan period is reiterated several times in the document. Notably, the plan says that China will “promote coal consumption successfully reaching a peak”.

This, it says, is “guided” by China’s “dual-carbon” goals for peaking and neutrality, but is also based on the premise of “guaranteeing the secure supply of energy”

However, the plan does not provide a government-endorsed target year for peaking consumption.

State-affiliated organisations, such as Xinhua, have suggested that coal consumption is “expected to peak around 2027”. Independent analysis has stated that emissions from coal consumption may have already peaked.

“The absence of a 2027 deadline is significant, but I would be careful not to over-interpret it,” Tu tells Carbon Brief.

While a 2027 peak for coal remains possible, in his view, it is dependent on factors such as “electricity-demand growth, renewable generation, industrial activity, weather conditions and coal demand from the chemical sector”.

Similarly, Li believes that it will be “market and technological progress”, rather than state directives, that determine exactly when coal consumption and emissions will peak.

“Beijing’s regulatory interventions, if any, will be limited to making sure the peaking timelines do not blow past 2030,” he says.

What does the plan say about China’s coal production?

The plan does not set a concrete target for coal production during the five-year plan period. In contrast, total coal production targets for 2015 and 2020 had been set in the 12th and 13th five-year plans.

The plan also reduces a target for “reserve production” capacity, which was first announced in 2024.

The plan reiterates that, by 2030, China should “establish a coal reserve-production capacity of 100m metric tonnes or more per year”. This was first mentioned in the 15th five-year plan for building a “new-type energy system”, published in June.

Despite China’s rapid buildout of renewable energy, reserve coal capacity is necessary, argues state news agency Xinhua. It says that, to balance the variability of renewable energy, coal will shift to “playing a supporting and regulating role to safeguard energy supply”.

Nevertheless, the new reserve goal is lower than the target of 300m tonnes of coal set when China first announced the establishment of the system in 2024.

“Overall, this five-year plan is targeted at the coal industry, not the energy transition”, says Yang Biqing, energy analyst at Ember, although the energy transition and the peaking of coal consumption form the overarching context for the plan.

Provinces in northern China will continue to provide the majority of China’s coal, according to the plan.

It reiterates a pledge from the new-type energy five-year plan that China will continue building “coal-supply security bases” in the provinces of Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Xinjiang. It says these bases will supply more than 80% of China’s coal by 2030.

This does not indicate a change in direction, as coal production is already increasingly concentrated in northern China. In 2025, 82% of China’s coal came from these four provinces.

New or expanded coal mines in these provinces – with the exception of southern Xinjiang – must have a minimum annual production capacity of 1.2m tonnes, says the plan.

This is an “important signal”, Tu tells Carbon Brief. He notes that the plans suggest that “China’s coal transition is not simply about reducing the quantity consumed”, but also about creating a “more concentrated, efficient, flexible and resilient” coal system.

The plan also calls for a more centralised approach to managing coal. It states that in 2026-2030, any new production capacity must be “included in the single ledger” – essentially meaning that it must be approved by the central government – before it can be implemented.

Yang tells Carbon Brief that this could indicate that the government is trying to prevent a potential “rush” to get new capacity approved as coal consumption starts to plateau and fall.

What does the plan say about coal’s greenhouse gas emissions?

The plan includes sections on the need to “accelerate” the low-carbon transition of the industry, as well as the “clean and efficient use” of coal.

The former section largely focuses on the production and processing of coal, while the latter addresses emissions associated with its consumption.

Suggested policies include promoting energy efficiency, water conservancy and electrification, coupled with greater use of renewable-energy sources at coal mines.

In addition to promoting a successful peaking of coal consumption, the plan also re-affirms existing policies around promoting energy efficiency and carbon-emission reduction.

It calls for “accelerate energy conservation and consumption reduction in key coal-consuming industries”, largely through methods already established by existing policies.

This includes phasing out inefficient coal-fired equipment, replacing coal-fired equipment with “clean energy” alternatives, reducing use of “dispersed coal” and promoting clean heating sources such as distributed solar heating and waste heat utilisation.

Tom Wang, executive director of People of Asia for Climate Solutions, describes the plan as “more of a coal exploration plan, rather than a coal transition plan”. He tells Carbon Brief that while several policies call for “green” or “smart” development, the plan does not address the greenhouse gas emissions underpinning each step of coal extraction, processing and combustion.

Another major focus is on utilisation of coalbed methane, a significant source of China’s methane emissions.

China will “implement work plans to increase coalbed-methane reserves and production”, the plan says, including a “rapid ramp-up” of production in deep coalbed-methane sites.

Affixed to the main five-year plan is an appendix further detailing plans for coalbed methane.

It notes that utilising coalbed methane has “multiple benefits”, such as improving safety, “increasing the supply of clean energy” and reducing emissions. [Methane is a fossil fuel.]

The government is targeting 26bn cubic metres of coalbed-methane production and 6.5bn cubic metres of mine-gas utilisation by 2030, it says.

At least 18bn cubic metres will be sourced from the Ordos Basin, a region spanning several northern provinces, according to an action plan published by the NEA.

In its coverage of the Ordos action plan, the state-run newspaper China Daily said that developing coalbed methane is a “vital strategic move to optimise [China’s] energy mix and ensure domestic gas supply”.

Reporting by Xinhua and economic news outlet Jiemian said that coalbed methane could help China become an “energy powerhouse” and “secure [its] energy self-sufficiency”, respectively.

In addition, the coal industry will “steadily advance methane-emission control” and “actively participate in the reduction of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions”, according to the appendix.

However, Sun Xiaopu, senior China counsel at the thinktank Institute For Governance and Sustainable Development, tells Carbon Brief, the plan “does not establish an absolute methane-emissions reduction target”.

She notes that the implications for emissions may only become clear as implementation frameworks for meeting the utilisation targets are released.

How does the plan tell coal companies to evolve?

Despite reaffirming the importance of coal, the plan emphasises that the overall role of the fuel in China will change. It adds that the coal industry must adapt to this changing reality.

As the coal industry “modernises”, coal companies must “strengthen management” of mine closures and exit plans. They must also plan for a “smooth transition” and “prudently handle” workforce relocation, debt resolution and ecological restoration, it says.

Companies should also be supported in expanding into industries such as “power, new energy and chemicals”, according to the plan.

A number of major coal producers, as well as at least one oil giant, have already established wings focused on “new energy”.

But the focus on the use of coal to make chemicals is one of the “most consequential parts of the plan”, says Tu.

China must promote the shift to coal being used “equally” as a fuel and a feedstock, the plan says.

The plan urges policymakers to push through “construction of strategic coal-to-oil and gas bases”

The chemicals sector is China’s fastest source of emissions growth, although it remains well behind power and other industries in terms of total emissions.

Tu notes that the plan calls on the coal-chemicals industry to decarbonise production, such as through low-carbon power, green hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.

As such, he says, the policy signal is “not to exit coal chemicals, but to make them more efficient, higher-value and potentially less carbon-intensive”.

Li echoes this, telling Carbon Brief that the sector is “likely to receive a major boost from the conflict in Iran”. He adds:

“We will probably see further capacity expansion in the sector and I doubt environmental arguments will convince Chinese authorities to take a different approach.”

The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?
Continue Reading

Climate Change

New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

Published

on

The world saw the lowest amount of new coal mine capacity brought online for at least 10 years in 2025, according to a new report, as clean energy displaces coal for electricity generation in East Asia.

A report by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) found that new coal mine capacity declined by nearly 40% from 2024, the second consecutive year new mine capacity has hit a decade low. This represents an acceleration of a steady decline that began in 2019.

The slowdown in new coal mine openings was driven by China and Australia, where new additions fell by 44% and 96%, respectively. In China, the report said this was partly due to solar and wind displacing coal for electricity generation – although coal rebounded in the first half of 2026 – and the National Energy Administration implementing new rules to curb new mine openings.

In Australia, a 96% reduction in new coal mine capacity was driven by shrinking demand from the countries that import Australian coal for electricity, like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the report said.

This trend is likely to continue, according to GEM, as the Australian state of New South Wales recently banned new coal mines on undeveloped greenfield land. South Korea has promised to stop building coal-fired power plants that cannot capture and store the emissions produced. Meanwhile, Japan is pushing for a post-Fukushima nuclear revival to displace coal.

This Australian coal community is co-designing its own green future

Globally, growth in coal demand has slowed over the last few years and the International Energy Agency expects it to plateau through to 2030 because of the growth of renewable energy, nuclear and fossil gas.

Openings down, pipeline up

But while new coal mine openings fell, the amount of global coal mine capacity proposed increased by 11%. This was almost entirely driven by a spate of projects in the eastern Indian states of Jharkhand and Odisha.

“If built,” the GEM report says, “the projects would commit India – a country with no formal coal phaseout timeline – to years of coal expansion and would put a 1.5C-aligned transition away from fossil fuels farther out of reach”.

The Indian government says it needs to increase coal production to meet growing electricity demand from economic growth and from dealing with heatwaves. It plans to open more than 20 new coal mines to meet its coal production targets.

Because of energy security concerns, India is also aiming to produce chemicals with Indian coal rather than imported gas. China is also pursuing this strategy, although the Global Energy Monitor report said that Indian coal’s high ash content means the South Asian nation will find it harder to make chemicals from coal.

    Nations agreed at COP26 five years ago to “phase down” coal power – a commitment that China and India successfully pushed to weaken from “phase out”. At COP28 in 2023, governments agreed to transition away from all fossil fuels in energy systems.

    Since then, wealthy nations have partnered with coal-producing countries like South Africa, Vietnam and Indonesia on plans to transition from coal to clean energy. But, after preliminary talks, India and these governments did not agree a JETP.

    The post New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus appeared first on Climate Home News.

    New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com