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.
At 12.33pm on Monday 28 April, most of Spain and Portugal were plunged into chaos by a blackout.
While the initial trigger remains uncertain, the nationwide blackouts took place after around 15 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity – equivalent to 60% of Spain’s power demand at the time – dropped off the system within the space of five seconds.
The blackouts left millions of people without power, with trains, traffic lights, ATMs, phone connections and internet access failing across the Iberian peninsula.
By Tuesday morning, almost all electricity supplies across Spain and Portugal had been restored, but questions about the root cause remained.
Many media outlets were quick to – despite very little available data or information – blame renewables, net-zero or the energy transition for the blackout, even if only by association, by highlighting the key role solar power plays in the region’s electricity mix.
Below, Carbon Brief examines what is known about the Spanish and Portuguese power cuts, the role of renewables and how the media has responded.
What happened and what was the impact?
The near-total power outage in the Iberian Peninsula on Monday affected millions of people.
Spain and Portugal experienced the most extensive blackouts, but Andorra also reported outages, as did the Basque region of France. According to Reuters, the blackout was the biggest in Europe’s history.
In a conference call with reporters, Spanish grid operator Red Eléctrica set out the order of events.
Shortly after 12.30pm, the grid suffered an “event” akin to loss of power generation, according to a summary of the call posted by Bloomberg’s energy and commodities columnist Javier Blas on LinkedIn. While the grid almost immediately self-stabilised and recovered, about 1.5 seconds later a second “event” hit, he wrote.
Around 3.5 seconds later, the interconnector between the Spanish region of Catalonia and south-west France was disconnected due to grid instability. Immediately after this, there was a “massive” loss of power on the system, Blas said.
This caused the power grid to “cascade down into collapse”, causing the “unexplained disappearance” of 60% of Spain’s generation, according to Politico.
It quoted Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, who told a press conference late on Monday that the causes were not yet known:
“This has never happened before. And what caused it is something that the experts have not yet established – but they will.”
The figure below shows the sudden loss of 15GW of generating capacity from the Spanish grid at 12.33pm on Monday. In addition, a further 5GW disconnected from the Portuguese grid.
The Guardian noted in its coverage that “while the system weathered the first event, it could not cope with the second”.
A separate piece from the publication added that “barely a corner of the peninsula, which has a joint population of almost 60 million people, escaped the blackout”.
El País reported that “the power cut…paralysed the normal functioning of infrastructures, telecommunications, roads, train stations, airports, stores and buildings. Hospitals have not been impacted as they are using generators.”
According to Spanish newswire EFE, “hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets, forced to walk long distances home due to paralysed metro and commuter train services, without mobile apps as telecommunications networks also faltered”.
It added that between 30,000 and 35,000 passengers had to be evacuated from stranded trains.
The New York Times reported that Portuguese banks and schools closed, while ATMs stopped working across the country and Spain. People “crammed into stores to buy food and other essentials as clerks used pen and paper to record cash-only transactions”, it added.
Spain’s interior ministry declared a national emergency, according to Reuters, deploying 30,000 police to keep order.
Both Spain and Portugal convened emergency cabinet meetings, with Spain’s King Felipe VI chairing a national security council meeting on Tuesday to discuss an investigation into the power outage, Sky News reported.
By 10pm on Monday, 421 out of Spain’s 680 substations were back online, meaning that 43% of expected power demand was being met, reported the Guardian.
By Tuesday morning, more than 99% of the total electricity supply had been recovered, according to Politico, quoting Red Eléctrica.
In Portugal, power had been restored to every substation on the country’s grid by 11.30pm on Monday. In a statement released on Tuesday, Portuguese grid operator REN said the grid had been “fully stabilised”.
What caused the power cuts?
In the wake of the power cuts, politicians, industry professionals, media outlets, armchair experts and the wider public scrambled to make sense of what had just happened.
Spanish prime minister Sánchez said on the afternoon of the blackout that the government did not have “conclusive information” on its cause, adding that it “[did] not rule out any hypothesis”, Spanish newspaper Diario Sur reported.
Nevertheless, some early theories were quickly rejected by officials.
Red Eléctrica, “preliminarily ruled out that the blackout was due to a cyberattack, human error or a meteorological or atmospheric phenomenon”, El País reported the day after the event.
Politico noted that “people in the street in Spain and some local politicians” had speculated about a cyberattack.
However, it quoted Eduardo Prieto, Red Eléctrica’s head of system operation services, saying that while the conclusions were preliminary, the operator had “been able to conclude that there has not been any type of intrusion in the electrical network control systems that could have caused the incident”.
The Majorca Daily Bulletin reported that Spain’s High Court said it would open an investigation into whether the event was the result of a cyberattack.
Initial reporting by news agencies blamed the power cuts on a “rare atmospheric phenomenon”, citing the Portuguese grid operator REN, according to the Guardian. The newspaper added that REN later said this statement had been incorrectly attributed to it.
The phenomenon in question was described as an “induced atmospheric vibration”.
Prof Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian, an electrical engineer at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, explained in the Conversation that this was “not a commonly used term”.
Nevertheless, he said the phenomenon being described was familiar, referring to “wavelike movements” in the atmosphere caused by sudden changes in temperature or pressure.
In general terms, Reuters explained that power cuts are often linked to extreme weather, but that the “weather at the time of Monday’s collapse was fair”. It added that faults at power stations, power distribution lines or substations can also trigger outages.
Another theory was that a divergence of electrical frequency from 50 cycles per second (Hz), the European standard, could have caused parts of the system to shut down in order to protect equipment, France 24 explained.
Some analysts noted that “oscillations” in grid frequency shortly before the events in Spain and Portugal could be related to the power cuts. Tobias Burke, policy manager at Energy UK, explained this theory in his Substack:
“The fact these frequency oscillations mirrored those in Latvia…at the other extreme of the Europe-spanning ENTSO-E network, might suggest complex inter-area oscillations across markets could be the culprit.”
This phenomenon can be seen in a chart shared by Prof Lion Hirth, an energy researcher at Hertie School, on LinkedIn.
With many details still unknown, much of the media speculation has focused on the role that renewable energy could have played in the blackouts. (See: Did renewable energy play a role in the cut?)
Many of the experts cited in the media emphasised the complexity of determining the cause of the outages. Eamonn Lannoye, managing director at the Electric Power Research Institute Europe, was quoted by the Associated Press stating:
“There’s a variety of things that usually happen at the same time and it’s very difficult for any event to say ‘this was the root cause’.”
Nevertheless, there are several efforts now underway to determine what the causes were.
Portugal’s prime minister, Luís Montenegro, announced on Tuesday that the government would set up an independent technical commission to investigate the blackouts, while stressing that the problem had originated in Spain, according to Euractiv.
Finally, EU energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen has indicated that the EU will open a “thorough investigation” into the reasons behind the power cuts, BBC News noted.
Did renewable energy play a role in the blackouts?
As commentators began to look into the cause of the blackout, many pointed to the high share of renewables in Spain’s electricity mix.
On 16 April, Spain’s grid had run entirely on renewable sources for a full day for the first time ever, with wind accounting for 46% of total output, solar 27%, hydroelectric 23% and solar thermal and others meeting the rest, according to PV Magazine.
Spain is targeting 81% renewable power by 2030 and 100% by 2050.
At the time of the blackout on Monday, solar accounted for 59% of the country’s electricity supplies, wind nearly 12%, nuclear 11% and gas around 5%, reported the Independent.
The initial “event” is thought to have originated in the south-western region of Extremadura, noted Politico, “which is home to the country’s most powerful nuclear power plant, some of its largest hydroelectric dams and numerous solar farms.”
On Tuesday, Red Eléctrica’s head of system operation services Eduardo Prieta said that it was “very possible that the affected generation [in the initial ‘events’] could be solar”.
This sparked further speculation about how grids that are highly reliant on variable renewables can be managed so as to ensure security of supply.
Political groups such as the far-right VOX – which has historically pushed back against climate action such as the expansion of renewables – also pointed to the blackout as evidence of “the importance of a balanced energy mix”.
However, others rejected this suggestion, with EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen telling Bloomberg that the blackout could not be pinned on a “specific source of energy”:
“As far as we know, there was nothing unusual about the sources of energy supplying electricity to the system yesterday. So the causes of the blackout cannot be reduced to a specific source of energy, for instance renewables.”
Others have sought to highlight that, while it was possible solar power was involved in the initial frequency event, this does not mean that it was ultimately the cause of the blackout.
Writing on LinkedIn, chief technology officer of Arenko, a renewable energy software company, Roger Hollies, noted:
“The initial trip may well have been a solar plant, but trips happen all the time across all asset types. Networks should be designed to withstand multiple loss of generators. 15GW is not one power station, this is the equivalent of 10 large gas or nuclear power stations or 75 solar parks.”
Others pointed to what they said was insufficient nuclear power on the grid – a notion that prime minister Sánchez rejected, according to El País.
Speaking on Tuesday, he said that those arguing the blackouts showed a need for more nuclear power were “either lying or showing ignorance”, according to the newspaper. It said he highlighted that nuclear plants were yet to fully recover from the event.
One key aspect of the transition away from electricity systems built around thermal power stations burning coal, gas or uranium is a loss of “inertia”, the Financial Times highlighted.
Thermal power plants generate electricity using large spinning turbines, which rotate at the same 50 cycles per second (Hz) speed as the electrical grid oscillates. The weight of these “large lump[s] of spinning metal” gives them “inertia”, which counteracts changes in frequency on the rest of the grid.
When faults cause a rise or fall in grid frequency, this inertia helps lower the rate of change of frequency, giving system operators more time to respond, noted Adam Bell, director of policy at Stonehaven, in a post on LinkedIn.
Solar does not include a spinning generator, and therefore, critics pointed to the lack of inertia on the grid due to the high levels of the technology as a cause of the blackout.
As Bell pointed out, this ignores the inertia provided by nuclear, hydro and solar thermal on the grid at the time of the blackout, alongside the Spanish grid operator having built “synchronous condensers” to help boost inertia and grid stability.
Bell added:
“A lack of inertia was therefore not the main driver for the blackout. Indeed, post the frequency event, no fossil generation remained online – but wind, solar and hydro did.”
While the ultimate cause of the blackouts remains to be seen, they have highlighted the need for an increased focus on grid stability, particularly as the economy is electrified.
A selection of comments from experts published in Review Energy emphasises the need for further resilience to be built into the grid as it transitions away from fossil fuels.
How has the media responded to the power cut?
As the crisis was still unfolding and its cause remained unknown, several climate-sceptic right-leaning UK publications clamoured to draw a link between the blackouts and the nations’ reliance on renewable energy.
It comes as right-leaning titles have stepped up their campaigning against climate policy over the past year.
On Tuesday, the Daily Telegraph carried a frontpage story headlined: “Net-zero blamed for blackout chaos.”
But the article contradicted its own headline by concluding: “What exactly happened remains unclear for now. And the real answer is likely to involve several factors, not just one.”
None of the experts quoted in the piece blamed “net-zero” for the incident.
The Daily Telegraph also carried an editorial seeking to argue renewable energy was the cause of the blackouts, which claimed that “over-reliance on renewables means a less resilient grid”.
The Daily Express had an editorial (not online) claiming that the blackout shows “relying on renewables is dim”.
Additionally, the Standard carried a comment by notorious climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark breathlessly blaming the blackout on “unreliable” renewables, with a fear-monguering warning that the “same could happen in the UK”.
The Daily Mail published a comment by Rupert Darwall, a climate-sceptic author who is part of the CO2 Coalition – an organisation seeking to promote “the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives” – which claimed that the blackout showed “energy security is being sacrificed at the altar of green dogma”.
Climate-sceptic libertarian publication Spiked had a piece by its deputy editor Fraser Myers titled: “Spain’s blackouts are a disaster made by net-zero.” The article claimed that “our elites’ embrace of green ideology has divorced them from reality”.
In Spanish media, Jordi Sevilla, the former president of Red Eléctrica, wrote in the financial publication Cinco Días that, while it is not known what caused the blackout, it is clear that the country’s grid “requires investments to adapt to the technical reality of the new generation mix”. He continued:
“In Spain, in the last decade, there has been a revolution in electricity generation to the point that renewable technologies ([solar] photovoltaic and wind, above all) now occupy the majority of the energy mix. This has had very positive impacts on CO2 emissions, lower electricity prices and increased national autonomy.
“But there is a technical problem: photovoltaic and wind power are not synchronous energies, whereas our transmission and distribution networks are designed to operate only with a minimum voltage in the energy they transport. Therefore, to operate with current technology, the electrical system must maintain synchronous backup power, which can be hydroelectric, gas or nuclear, to be used when photovoltaic and wind power are insufficient, either due to their intermittent nature (there may be no sun or wind) or due to the lack of synchronisation required by the generators to operate.”
For Bloomberg, opinion columnist Javier Blas said that “Spain’s blackout shouldn’t trigger a retreat from renewables”, but shows that “an upgraded grid is urgently needed for the energy transition”. He added:
“The world didn’t walk away from fossil-fuel and nuclear power stations because New York suffered a massive blackout in 1977. And it shouldn’t walk away from solar and wind because Spain and Portugal lost power for a few hours.
“But we should learn that grid design, policy and risk mapping aren’t yet up to the task of handling too much power from renewable sources.”
The post Q&A: What we do – and do not – know about the blackout in Spain and Portugal appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What we do – and do not – know about the blackout in Spain and Portugal
The co-organizers of the meeting sharing four sentences about their work with Pope Francis, with CCL’s Danny Richter taking a picture in the background.
Reflecting on the legacy of Laudato Si
By Danny Richter
After sharing a joke over lunch, Paul and I clinked glasses. I am, rather improbably, referring to Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry who coined the term “Anthropocene” to refer to the geologic period of time in which humans have had a substantial impact on our environment. Even more improbably, we were sitting next to each other inside Vatican City, two of 86 invited participants in the first ever joint meeting between the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Though none of us knew it then, the contents of these proceedings, stretched over five days, would go on to form the substance of “Laudato Si,” Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment published in 2015. With the recent passing of Pope Francis, it seemed appropriate to reflect on my experience at that meeting in the Vatican, and the legacy that Laudato Si has had since.
When I say “improbable,” I’m really referring to my own presence there. It was the spring of 2014, and I had graduated with my Ph.D. in Oceanography the year before. I was the Legislative and Science Director for Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a position I’d started just over a year before. At the time, CCL had about 3,000 members, and our largest D.C. conference to date had attracted perhaps 400 people.
I managed an invitation as an “observer” to this meeting because I asked one of my grad school professors, Dr. Ram Ramanathan, if I could come. It turned out that he was one of the organizers of the conference. When I asked, I had been envisioning the meeting would be something like the rather large scientific conferences I had attended in the past, where individuals would give presentations on their work as part of a themed session, and there would be time to take questions and mingle, and then everyone moved on to the next talk. After the conference, perhaps the proceedings would be published, but that would be about it.
Instead, only 86 people were invited to this conference — 43 speakers, 28 observers, and 15 members of the Pontifical Academies. The list was quite distinguished, including four Nobel laureates, assuming you don’t count all the IPCC authors who shared a portion of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Nothing in my time in academia or in D.C. would have distinguished me sufficiently to attend on my merits alone.
But there I was. As I mentioned, none of us knew that the series of 20-minute talks we listened to and the discussions that followed during 11-hour days would eventually become Laudato Si. As I reviewed the blogs I wrote for CCL at the time, I was struck by the uncertainty of where this was all heading, as well as my own skepticism that any lasting or meaningful result would come of this. Yet, the first time I read Laudato Si, it was immediately obvious that those talks had greatly informed the writing of the document. For many of the talks, it was 1 to 1 — what was said by the invited speakers ended up directly in the encyclical.
To understand its impact, it’s essential to consider the context in which this encyclical was released. It was published in May of 2015. Barack Obama was president, John Boehner was Speaker of the House, and America was already six years removed from the last (unsuccessful) major efforts to arrive at comprehensive climate legislation. On Sept. 17 of that year, Rep. Chris Gibson of New York and 10 of his Republican colleagues submitted what we informally called “the Gibson Resolution” that did indeed say that climate change is real, humans have had an impact, and Congress should act to address this. CCL was a heavy supporter of this effort, and it felt like a big deal.
A week later, Pope Francis addressed the U.S. Congress at the invitation of Speaker Boehner, highlighting messages of stewardship from his groundbreaking encyclical “Laudato Si” earlier that year. CCL took an active part in handing out a copy of Laudato Si to every congressional office ahead of that talk, delivering 540 copies to the Hill. Speaker Boehner wore a green tie, and the next day he announced he was stepping down as Speaker of the House. In 2015, bipartisan action on climate was actually more difficult to believe in than it is now. The contrast is especially sharp when contrasting the modesty of the Gibson Resolution with the Conservative Climate Caucus standing at 69 members, the climate provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) having passed with robust margins in 2021, and 21 House Republicans signing a letter to their own leadership calling to protect the clean energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The Paris Climate Agreement would be signed later that year. It has become the bedrock agreement for globally coordinated efforts to address climate change. The UN Millennium Development goals would be renamed “Sustainable Development Goals” at the end of 2015, a fact that was previewed for us in the Vatican in 2014. The caliber of people in the room during these discussions was such that it’s not a stretch at all to imagine such a renaming was entangled with the writing and publication of the encyclical. Achim Steiner, the UNEP Executive Director and under-secretary-general of UN, was a speaker in attendance.
Laudato Si is rather unclear on the topic of a carbon price, but my reading of it is that a carbon tax can pass muster, but a cap-and-trade system is suspect, based on the brief skepticism expressed towards carbon credits. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement of support for the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act in 2019, which remains on their website. While the U.S. still doesn’t have a carbon price, every other developed economy in the world does have one. The International Maritime Organization just last week voted to place a price on global shipping. Especially since the EU CBAM went into place, adoption of carbon pricing (and border adjustments) around the world is accelerating.
As you might expect, Laudato Si places a strong emphasis on the burden climate change, and the underlying processes driving it, places on the poor. President Biden’s presidency and legislative record are marked by his commitment to environmental justice, most notably the Justice 40 principle that manifested in the way he structured his administration and in the Inflation Reduction Act. Of course, President Biden was only the second Catholic president in U.S. history. Yet, the language of the encyclical and the language of the environmental justice movement in the U.S. strike me as oddly orthogonal. There is less overlap than I’d expect.
Within the Church, progress feels like a slow burn. Curricula have been developed and outreach has been pursued by Catholic organizations such as the Catholic Climate Covenant, whose former Executive Director, Dan Misleh, was a fellow observer with me at the Vatican meeting. However, these have taken a very long time to catch on, and implementation in the U.S. has been patchy. Very anecdotally, as an American Catholic who is in the pews most Sundays, I’ve probably heard a priest mention Laudato Si in a sermon fewer times in the last 10 years than there have been years setting a new temperature record. Last year was the first year to exceed 1.5 degrees C.
What does this all amount to? Within the Church, Laudato Si continues to be a living document that, at least to me, seems to be exerting more influence over time. Globally, Laudato Si was perhaps wind in the sails of the global consciousness ahead of the Paris Climate Agreement, which continues to be a foundational accord to which all subsequent meetings refer back to in global climate negotiations. The commitments it has inspired fall short of its own ambition, but it does continue to inspire ambition. In the United States, Laudato Si perhaps played a significant role in shifting the zeitgeist away from climate denial, and toward hope. Though its major theme is the impact of poor stewardship on the poor, that has not broken through in the United States, at least not in a way that rhymes with the language of the encyclical.
These, at least, are the reflections of someone who was there at the beginning. My friend Paul is no longer with us, having passed in 2021. Walter Munk, the researcher who figured out how the tides worked in time to advise the Allies ahead of the D-Day invasion was also at our table for that lunch has also passed. So too, now, has Pope Francis.
He met us on the last day of the Conference. We waited for 30 minutes for him to arrive, in the Roman sun a stone’s throw from St. Peter’s Basilica. I reflected at the time about how interesting it was to observe what people who had steered the world’s consciousness do when they have 30 minutes to kill. Turns out, they do what other people do. They make idle chit chat, crack jokes, complain, and turn tourist. Underlining the uncertainty of what these five days of effort would yield, the organizers of the conference got to speak to Pope Francis, and they were allowed four sentences. Though such limited interaction fueled my doubts at the time, in light of what has happened since, it’s pretty clear that Pope Francis was always on our side. He wanted that conference to be a success, and he wanted Laudato Si to be a meaningful document that pushed the world toward action. I cannot speak to whether its impact had the effect he hoped it would, but to me at least, it seems as if it has played a positive role in moving the world away from denial, toward action, and toward considering the direct connection between people and the environment, and especially the poor.
Connect with CCL’s Catholic Action Team on CCL Community.
The post Reflecting on the legacy of Laudato Si appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.
The “vast majority” of the UK government’s plans to prepare for climate hazards have made virtually no progress over the past two years, according to the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
In that time, the world has experienced the hottest year on record, while England has seen its wettest ever 18-month stretch between 2022 and 2024.
(Climate adaptation – outside of some issues such as defence – is mostly a devolved matter, with separate plans in place from the administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.)
The previous government introduced a new adaptation strategy for England in 2023, covering plans for rising temperatures and more extreme weather in the country.
However, in its latest analysis of the government’s progress, the CCC states that the current approach to adaptation in England is “not working” and requires “urgent strengthening”.
The government is failing to make “good” progress in adapting to climate change on any of the 46 outcomes measured by the committee, ranging from better healthcare during heatwaves to preparing financial institutions for climate risk.
The report marks the latest in a series of appraisals by the CCC that have repeatedly identified large gaps in the nation’s adaptation efforts.
This time, with a relatively new Labour government that has said it will act on adaptation, the committee says its report “must serve as the turning point”.
But the CCC also says it is “seriously concerned” that the government will cut funding for adaptation, ultimately leading to much higher future costs as temperatures continue to rise.
- Climate adaptation is ‘vital’
- What progress has been made?
- What does the CCC recommend?
- How prepared are different sectors for climate change?
Climate adaptation is ‘vital’
There is “unequivocal evidence” that climate change is already making extreme weather in the UK “more likely and more extreme”, the CCC says.
The report lays out major risks facing the country, noting that the number of properties at risk from flooding is set to increase from 6.3m today to 8m by 2050. Roads and railways at risk from flooding could increase from a third of the total length to half over the same timeframe.
At least 59% of top-quality farmland is already at risk from flooding, the report says, adding that this could also increase over the coming decades.
Meanwhile, annual heat-related deaths could increase “several times over” to pass 10,000 in an average year by 2050, the CCC says.
It also cites an Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) report from 2024 that concludes the UK’s GDP could be around 3% lower by 2074, even under the Paris Agreement’s “below 2C” goal. It says this could increase to 5% in a “below 3C” scenario, according to the OBR.
High-quality climate adaptation is therefore “vital to ensure that these risks are managed most efficiently and at least cost”, according to the committee. Otherwise, government policy could “lock in” risks or even make them worse.
The CCC reports on adaptation progress in England every two years, as required under the 2008 Climate Change Act. These reports have consistently highlighted adaptation as an issue that has been “underfunded and ignored” by successive governments.
There have been a few major developments since the committee’s last report.
Notably, the previous Conservative government launched its third national adaptation programme (NAP3), which is the cornerstone of the nation’s adaptation policy, in summer 2023. (NAP3 covers adaptation policy in England, as well as non-devolved issues that affect the whole UK, such as defence.)
In a highly critical initial appraisal of the programme, the CCC concluded that it fell “far short of what is needed” and “must be strengthened”. NAP3 has also faced an ultimately unsuccessful legal challenge from activists, arguing that it breached people’s human rights.
Another big development since the committee’s last report is Labour winning the general election in 2024. The CCC acknowledges that the new government “inherited a NAP that fell short of the task”, but says it finds “little evidence of a change of course”.
What progress has been made?
The report looks at both the “policies and plans” underpinning climate adaptation, as well as the actual “delivery and implementation” of those plans. It states:
“Whilst there is some evidence of policies and plans improving [since 2023], it is clear that NAP3 has been ineffective in driving the critical shift towards effective delivery of adaptation.”
The CCC assesses the planning and delivery of 46 outcomes from adaptation policy across five overarching themes. It scores them using roughly the same monitoring framework used in its last report in 2023.
It notes that 11 policies and plans have improved over the past two years, including a new adaptation strategy from the Ministry of Justice and a green finance strategy.
Over the same period, it says four have gotten worse, among them investment in flood protection projects, as “plans no longer align with their stated objectives”.
The lack of significant improvement between 2023 and 2025, based on the CCC’s scoring system, can be seen in the chart below.
As for the government actually delivering on its plans, the CCC says the “vast majority of our outcomes have received the same score as in 2023, most at low levels”.
The small number of improvements mainly relate to the latest round of implementation of the “adaptation reporting power”, which allows the government to ask infrastructure providers to disclose how they deal with climate risks.
The chart below, which compares the scores given to different adaptation outcomes between 2023 and 2025, demonstrates the lack of progress in the intervening years.
The CCC concludes that none of the outcomes could be classified as making “good” progress, in terms of delivery. Only four of them saw improvements over this period.
It highlights the water supply as an area where there has been backsliding over the past two years, noting that “continued slow rate of leakage reduction is now clearly inconsistent with meeting the sector’s targets”.
The CCC also points out that “tracking progress on adaptation remains challenging due to limited national-scale, up-to-date and relevant data”.
While there has been an improvement since 2023, nine of the 46 assessed outcomes for England still lacked enough evidence to assess progress, the report says.
These include important areas such as the impact of climate change on food supplies and the vulnerability of telecommunications and information and communication technology (ICT) assets.
In addition, ahead of NAP3, the CCC recommended – as part of its 2023 progress report – a list of 89 actions to close what it viewed as “policy gaps in government’s adaptation planning”.
It suggested that these could be dealt with either in NAP3 itself, or as part of other policy programmes.
However, only four of these recommendations have been achieved, with a further 14 seeing “partial progress”.
The report highlights food security, community preparedness and buildings as some of the areas where the government did not follow through on its recommendations.
What does the CCC recommend?
The CCC’s report echoes previous advice that, despite some improvements in NAP3 on previous efforts, the nation’s climate adaptation strategy needs an overhaul:
“The UK’s current approach to adaptation policy making is not working. Adaptation is not the cross-government priority that it needs to be, which is holding back delivery.”
NAP3 covers a five-year period from 2023 to 2028. With the latest report coming at a halfway point in this cycle, the committee says it “must serve as the turning point” for the government on climate adaptation.
As part of the “urgent strengthening” suggested in the report, the committee sets out key areas that it says should be improved.
“Adaptation” can mean different things in different contexts. The CCC stresses the need for a set of “specific and measurable sectoral targets” that can be used to guide progress, with clarity on how to monitor them and who is responsible.
The government has signalled its intention to strengthen adaptation objectives. The committee says that such objectives “must” be developed as a priority, no later than the end of 2025.
The CCC report highlights the “data gaps” that need to be closed, with “monitoring and evaluation…still not treated with sufficient urgency”. It says the government should direct relevant agencies to collect data on climate risks and the delivery of adaptation measures.
Adaptation is a topic that affects every area of government, from healthcare to education. Yet the CCC highlights that there is not enough coordination of activities between departments and says this should be improved.
In order to carry out adaptation policies, the CCC also stresses that the government “needs to ensure sufficient funding is available” as it undertakes its spending review. Baroness Brown, chair of the CCC’s adaptation committee, told journalists in a press briefing:
“We are seriously concerned that resilience and climate adaptation may be cut in the spending review. [The] government needs to recognise that this is not a future problem, this is today’s problem…I know the government is under a lot of pressure to make cuts, but this isn’t the easy one.”
Given the cost of future climate risk, the committee stresses that ignoring adaptation would not, ultimately, save money. In fact, acting early would “minimise the overall costs of tackling climate change”, it explains.
In the press briefing, CCC chief executive Emma Pinchbeck emphasised the “real need” for the government to think about the future when implementing key policies, such as home-building programmes and other major infrastructure developments.
“If you think about potential waste in terms of investment into the NHS, if we then have to retrofit hospitals to make them cooler,” she said, as an example.
How prepared are different sectors for climate change?
The CCC progress report looks at specific outcomes broken down across five broad sectors.
Within these, it highlights key problems and makes specific recommendations for each area.
Land, nature and food
The CCC highlights various “foundational” strategies covering farming and land that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is expected to publish in the coming months, including the land-use framework and the food strategy.
Delays in publishing such documents have “hampered” adaptation progress. However, the report highlights them as opportunities to set out clear objectives and responsibilities for the sector.
As it stands, important issues such as boosting climate-resilient farming and protecting food supply chains are rated “insufficient” for both government planning and implementation.
The CCC highlights the relatively new “environmental land management schemes” (Elms), which constitute England’s successor to the EU’s farm payments policy.
The report says these schemes lack guidance for climate adaptation, adding that the government should provide “certainty” about how much farmers will be paid for such measures.
As for the fishing industry, the report has downgraded its climate-adaptation plans, noting that they “no longer look credible”. It says the government’s marine strategy, published earlier this year, “does not include any specific or targeted adaptation actions”.
Infrastructure
According to the CCC, when the government publishes its 10-year infrastructure strategy, it should set out “clear resilience standards” for new infrastructure projects.
It also notes that major funding packages – for new roads and electricity networks, for example – should include incentives to fund climate adaptation.
Two out of the three adaptation policies that are scored as “good” are in the infrastructure sector, namely the plans for maintaining reliability in the road and rail networks.
Despite this, actual progress in improving transport resilience is largely “stagnant”, the committee says. It highlights increased flooding on railways and an increased number of roads deemed “susceptible” to flooding.
This is also the sector that has seen the most improvement in terms of delivery and implementation. The water, energy, telecommunications and transport sectors are all described as improving the identification and management of “interdependencies”.
This refers to better evidence of links between different sectors, which is being unveiled via adaptation reporting power. Notably, none of the sectors that have seen improvements are rated as “good”, indicating they still have work to do in this area.
Built environment and communities
Flooding is highlighted as the key risk facing many communities around England.
While the Environment Agency-led flood defence programme has been successful, “its budget in real terms is shrinking as risks are escalating, meaning delivery is falling short of targets and the condition of flood defence assets is declining”, according to the CCC.
The government’s investment programme needs “long-term” targets for cutting the risk posed by floods and coastal erosion, supported by sufficient funds, the report concludes.
It also recommends a “long-term cross-sector plan to manage future heat risk and drive joined-up action”.
The CCC is currently unable to track many of the important measures around heat risk, such as how many buildings are overheating, due to a lack of data.
Overall, none of the efforts to implement better protections for homes and communities have seen any positive change since 2023, despite this being a record period of heat and flooding.
Health and wellbeing
The CCC notes that there are only “limited” policies and plans in place to protect population health and healthcare delivery in the face of escalating climate hazards.
Extreme heat is the main risk identified in this context. As it stands, there are long-term, increasing trends of heat-associated deaths and overheating in hospital settings, the committee says.
In this context, the report recommends that the government develop an “improved climate and public health adaptation plan” that builds on the existing adverse weather and health plan.
Also, as part of the government’s decade-long plan to improve the NHS, the CCC says any upgrades must “make it more resilient to climate extremes today and in the future”.
Economy
The committee says that while businesses can take action to protect their own affairs from climate change, “barriers remain” and adaptation finance “remains nascent”.
It therefore highlights an important role for the government in removing these barriers, providing high-quality information and “correcting market failures”.
The report recommends setting up a portal for adaptation-related data that can be accessed by companies.
It also says the government should ensure that the UK’s sustainable disclosure requirements incorporate “adaptation-related disclosure”, to better prepare the private sector for climate risks.
The CCC also points out that an adaptation finance “deliverables and action plan”, promised for 2024, has not been produced. Among other things, this plan should lay out ways to “mobilise” private investment into adaptation projects, it adds.
The post CCC: England’s approach to climate adaptation is ‘not working’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
CCC: England’s approach to climate adaptation is ‘not working’
Major Decline in Bug Splatter on Vehicles Raises Fears Over Disappearing UK Insects: Study
Mark Carney’s Climate Strategy: Balancing Carbon Policy, Trade, and Energy Security
5 Ways Cities Can Become More Resilient to Climate Change: Study
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months 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 Change11 months 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 Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban