Welcome to Carbon Brief’s China Briefing.
China Briefing handpicks and explains the most important climate and energy stories from China over the past fortnight. Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
China pushes back on US and EU ‘overcapacity’ complaints
‘FAIR’ COMPETITION: German chancellor Olaf Scholz and US treasury secretary Janet Yellen have visited China in the past fortnight, amid concerns regarding China’s dominance in clean-technology supply chains. Scholz commented in Shanghai that “competition must be fair” and, “in other words, that there is no dumping, that there is no overproduction, that copyrights are not infringed”, Reuters reported. Similarly, in response to a question on whether the US would place tariffs on Chinese exports, Yellen told CNBC that she “wouldn’t rule out anything at this point. We need to keep everything on the table.” Mary Lovely, senior fellow at the US-based Peterson Institute thinktank, told the Financial Times that Yellen’s visit to China seemed “like the best indicator yet that new tariffs on China will be coming, no matter who wins” the upcoming US presidential election.
WIND INVESTIGATION: Chinese premier Li Qiang told Yellen that China’s clean-technology industries “make an important contribution” to the global energy transition, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post said. Commerce minister Wang Wentao echoed this during a visit to Europe, saying that he does not understand “how the European Commission carries the banner of sustainable and green development and then takes protectionist actions”, Reuters reported. This comes as the EU opened another subsidy investigation into Chinese wind turbine companies, which will focus on windfarms in Spain, Greece, France, Romania and Bulgaria, the Financial Times said. An analysis by Reuters noted that “the supply of Chinese wind turbines for EU projects is relatively small and the European market is still dominated by domestic players”.
REACTION FROM CHINA: State news agency Xinhua reports that foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a press conference that “the notion that China’s overcapacity harms the global market is a complete fallacy”, adding “China’s leading edge in new energy is gained through strong performance and full-on market competition, not government subsidies” and “we hope relevant countries will keep an open mind, embrace fair competition”. State-run newspaper Global Times published an opinion piece by Huo Jianguo, vice chairman of the China Society for World Trade Organization Studies, saying the “rhetoric lacks logic, aimed at stymieing China’s development”. The state-run China Daily quoted Zhang Xiang, researcher at North China University of Technology, saying that the problem has been “exaggerated” and that China “should not be blamed for offering cost-effective new energy technologies”.
ANALYST REACTIONS: Nicholas Lardy, fellow at the Peterson Institute, told Reuters that he was “sceptical” about the “overcapacity” concerns, adding “if you think about it, it means every country should only produce what it consume[s] itself. That means no trade.” On Twitter, Chucheng Feng, partner at Beijing-based Hutong Research, said that China sees overcapacity arguments “as an attempt to undermine China’s ambition to be a global leader in the green transition”, meaning that they carry “more significant…implications than any previous such calls”.
China to build a ‘green financial’ system and more support for goods trade-in
‘GREEN FINANCE’: China’s central bank and six other ministries jointly issued “guiding opinions” to build a “world-leading” financial support system within five years, promoting “green and low-carbon developments”, reported Beijing News. The document calls for establishing unified standards, including “carbon accounting” methods.
EXPERT VIEWS: Luyue Tan, senior carbon analyst at LSEG, told Carbon Brief that the policy is a delayed update aimed at redesigning China’s financial policies to facilitate its “dual carbon goals”. Tan added: “This guideline connects two previously separate markets in China – green finance and carbon market – which are led by different government entities and bodies with varied focus.” The integration of the two markets will also contribute to new developments in the field, Guoqiang Qian, general manager of Chinese thinktank Sinocarbon, told Carbon Brief. He said: “The biggest problem in the Chinese carbon market is the lack of standards. The financial market could provide examples.”
TRADE-IN STANDARDS: The Chinese government announced a goal on 10 April to raise 294 environmental standards by 2025, including standards on goods trade-in and recycling, reported Xinhua. The announcement came after the release of an action plan to “promote the large-scale renewal of equipment and the trading-in of consumer goods” last month. (Read more in China Briefing from 21 March). China Daily quoted Zhao Chenxin, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission, saying China “will leverage central investment and central fiscal funds to offer financial support for [the policy]”. Zhao was also quoted by state-run newspaper People’s Daily where he said the promotion of equipment renewals and trade-in is the overarching policy in a new “1+N” policy grouping.
MORE TO COME: State news agency Xinhua reported that the premier Li Qiang approved the “energy saving and carbon reduction action plan for 2024-2025”, the details of which have yet to be publicly disclosed. The news agency said the plan recommends combining energy conservation and carbon reduction in key areas and also emphasises the promotion of equipment renewal and consumer goods trade-ins.
Mass new coal constructed in 2023 and 300m tonnes to be reserved
NEW COAL: China accounted for 95% of the world’s newly started coal power construction activity in 2023, according to Global Energy Monitor (GEM). Construction began on 70 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity in China, up four-fold since 2019, compared with less than 4GW of new coal power construction starting in the rest of the world – the lowest since 2014, the report said. In addition, the construction of coal-fired power plants globally – excluding China – declined for the second year in a row. However, coal power plant retirements were also at the lowest level since 2011, the report added. Carbon Brief published an in-depth summary of the report.
RESERVE COAL: China announced plans to establish a coal production reserve system by 2027 to guarantee “supplies of [coal] to power plants” and “stabilise thermal coal prices”, according to a joint document released by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA), Chinese economic outlet Yicai reported. Science and Technology Daily said that the document aims to achieve annual production of 300m tonnes of coal by 2030 for China’s reserves and to facilitate the role of coal as “a bottom-line guarantee in energy supply”. Industry outlet BJX News said that coal reserve production capacity could be used for “extreme” circumstances, such as “drastic uncertainties in the international energy market, extreme weather or sudden changes in the supply and demand situation”.
Spotlight
Interview: China Photovoltaic Industry Association on EU trade
Earlier this month, the European Commission launched investigations into two Chinese solar firms, saying “there are sufficient indications that both have been granted foreign subsidies that distort the [EU’s] internal market”.
Carbon Brief interviews Liu Yiyang, deputy secretary-general and spokesperson of China Photovoltaic Industry Association (CPIA), and gathers his views on the future for Chinese solar in Europe. The interview is edited for clarity and length.
CB: How important is the European market for Chinese solar firms?
Liu Yiyang: Europe is a very important solar market. According to Politico, more than 80% (about 45GW) of the newly added solar installations in Europe last year came from China. In addition, over the past year, Europe’s mainstream solar panel module prices fell from €0.3 per watt in March 2023 to €0.14/watt in April 2024. In terms of power prices, it can be said that Chinese modules have significantly reduced the cost of solar systems as well as the overall energy cost in Europe.
The European solar market and China’s solar manufacturing industry are complementary and mutually beneficial. Under the backdrop of the green energy transition, there is great potential for more solar cooperation between China and Europe.
CB: The European Commission says state subsidies may have given the Chinese solar firms an “unfair advantage” over their competitors. Do you agree? What are your thoughts on Chinese subsidies in the solar sector?
LY: In China, the central government provides no subsidies for the solar market or the solar manufacturing sector. There is a small amount of research and development funding with a modest purpose to support pilot testing and industrialisation, and technological advancement of the global solar industry. This is commonly practised across the world.
For example, in 2017, the US Department of Energy provided $46.2m in funding for 48 solar projects under its SunShot program. In August 2022, the US passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to invest more than $300bn to support renewable energy. Since then, many companies suspended their investments in Europe and instead relocated their production plans to the US. On 8 January 2024, the EU approved Germany a state aid of €902m to support a Swedish company Northvolt to establish an EV battery plant in Germany. The EU also uses subsidies to enhance its global product competitiveness.
Reuters reported that EU countries are concerned that their companies will lose out because of IRA tax credits, arguing that this violates the World Trade Organization’s principle of non-discrimination. The European Parliament explicitly stated that the IRA has been criticised for its “Buy American” style.
In summary, it is not the state subsidies in China that have given enterprises an unfair competitive edge, but rather the US through the IRA and its implementation details causes a world race for industrial policy, in breach of WTO rules.
CB: How damaging do you think the investigations will be for trade between China and the EU?
LY: We suggest that the investigation should be based on the principles of objectivity, fairness and must be supported by sufficient evidence. Groundless speculation can only harm the Sino-European trade relations and may even expand to non-solar areas.
Ungrounded countervailing investigation will also slow down the pace of Europe’s future green energy transition and even affect the realisation of the net-zero emissions target of the global energy industries.
CB: The idea of “de-risking” supply chains and “decoupling” from China has been circulating in the EU for a while now. What would it mean for global solar expansion – and efforts to tackle climate change – if decoupling succeeds?
LY: There has been plenty of talk of “de-risking” or “decoupling”. The argument is highly dubious and unclear where the so-called risks come from. China has never taken any actions, nor have we verbally sought to prevent European customers from buying Chinese solar products. The so-called risk does not make sense.
Energy, with solar as one source, is fundamental to all manufacturers. The lower the cost of energy, the greater the competitive advantage of the European manufacturing industry. China’s solar products have made a great contribution to reducing European energy costs over the past decades and we are willing to provide more help.
If “decoupling” or “derisking” is forcibly induced by external agitation, disregarding objective economic laws, the ones who stand to suffer will not only be Chinese businesses, but also European citizens and the broader European manufacturing sector. Europe has suffered from rising energy prices and inadequate energy supply for a long time. Similarly, if China and Europe cannot maintain close cooperation in the solar sector, both will face tremendous challenges in addressing climate change.
CB: In general, what do you think the future will be for the Chinese solar industry in the EU?
LY: We believe that, without unnecessary interference, the prospects for Sino-European cooperation in the solar industry are enormous. Europe can leverage its advantages in capital and technology, and China can utilise its large-scale manufacturing and industrialisation, continuously developing more efficient and more cost-effective solar products.
At the same time, as Europe has considerable experience in constructing large-scale grid with high renewable energy penetration, the two sides can cooperate on innovative power systems and virtual power plants. Sino-European cooperation in the solar industry is not only expected to benefit our two regions, but the whole world.
Watch, read, listen
CLIMATE AND FOOD PRICE: Research centre the Manchester China InstItute released a video on YouTube of Prof Tim Brook from British Columbia University, discussing how climate change affected food prices in China in the pre-industrial age.
DECARBONISATION UPDATES: David Roberts on his Volts Substack invited Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst from Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (and frequent Carbon Brief contributor), to talk about China’s recent efforts on decarbonisation.
CHINESE EV VS TESLA: The Daily podcast of the New York Times spoke to investigative reporter Mara Hvistendahl about how Elon Musk may have given Chinese EV firms the tools to “beat Tesla at its own game”.
‘STEVE JOBS’ OF CHINA: The Financial Times profiled Lei Jun, founder of Xiaomi, “an Apple copycat”. Xiaomi recently joined the EV market and launched its SU7 model, which closely resembles the Porsche Taycan, the newspaper said.
Chinese loans to African nations have declined steadily from a peak of $23bn in 2016, according to a report by the Boston University Global Development Policy Center and the African Economic Research Consortium. Around one-third of all Chinese loans between 2000 and 2022 – some $134bn – were in the energy sector, the report adds, with $26bn during this period going to fossil fuel projects. However, no new fossil fuel loans have been issued since 2019.
New science
Carbon emissions trading policy and climate injustice: A study on economic distributional impacts
Energy
A new study analysed the impact of China’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) on the distribution of “benefits and responsibilities” among the local economies of different Chinese cities. It concluded that the implementation of the ETS improves GDP, on average, but can also harm innovation and foreign investments in cities. In addition, the researchers noted that the policy has the potential to “enlarge the gap between developed and developing areas”.
Forest carbon storage and sink estimates under different management scenarios in China from 2020 to 2100
Science of the Total Environment
A new study employed three tree-growth models – the Richard, Hossfeld and Korf models – to evaluate the carbon sink potential of existing forests and afforestation in China from 2020 to 2100. The study estimated that in 2020, the carbon stored in China’s forests reached 7.62bn tonnes of carbon, equivalent to 28bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. It further suggests that by 2100, 19.59bn tonnes of carbon could be stored.
China Briefing is compiled by Wanyuan Song and Anika Patel. It is edited by Wanyuan Song and Dr Simon Evans. Please send tips and feedback to china@carbonbrief.org
The post China Briefing 18 April: Clean-tech ‘overcapacity’; New coal construction; Interview with China Photovoltaic Industry Association appeared first on Carbon Brief.
An exceptional El Niño is building. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says it has intensified to very strong levels and is likely to last at least through February 2027. If its current trajectory holds, it could become stronger than anything seen since WMO monitoring began four decades ago.
That is bad news for agriculture. El Niño – a naturally occurring weather phenomenon – can scramble rainfall patterns across the world, bringing drought to some regions and floods to others. And this time it is unfolding against the backdrop of a significantly hotter climate, with farmers already contending with unreliable growing seasons, extreme heat and less predictable rainfall because of global warming.
El Niño expected to bring next record-hot year as soon as 2027
We are seeing the consequences already. In Sri Lanka, drought linked to El Niño has dried wells and reservoirs and cut into crops and farmer incomes. Indonesia is experiencing its worst wildfire season in 11 years, with prolonged drought and extreme heat exacerbated by El Niño. And in Peru, authorities are preparing for the opposite extreme: intense rains, flooding and landslides which the national civil-defence agency says could affect around 1.2 million people.
These impacts will multiply as El Niño intensifies.
And yet, just as the risks to food production are rising, the money available to help farmers withstand them is shrinking.
10% funding decline in 2024
A forthcoming analysis from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that climate-related development finance for agrifood systems is moving in the wrong direction. In 2024, the latest year for which data is available, it fell by 10 percent compared with a 2 percent overall decline. The sectors that put food on our tables — crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries — received just 5 percent.
Yet this is precisely the moment when climate investment in agriculture needs to grow, not shrink. It can help communities adapt, build resilience and protect food security, while unlocking larger flows of public and private finance. Agriculture feeds us, supports the livelihoods of well over a billion people, and is often the first sector hit by drought, floods and extreme heat. Cutting that investment now is a false economy.
One failed harvest can plant the seed for the next crisis, forcing farmers to eat the seed they have saved for planting, sell livestock or tools, or take on debt. It can also deepen food insecurity, disrupt supply chains and drive up prices, showing up months later in supermarket aisles far away.
The Central American Dry Corridor, stretching through much of the region, shows both how exposed farmers are, and what investment can do. Based on an analysis of 41 years of satellite observations, FAO finds that some crop and pasture areas there face more than a 50 percent chance of agricultural drought over the coming months.
About half of Central America’s 1.9 million producers of maize, beans and other basic grains live in the Dry Corridor. Many grow food both for sale and for their own families. When a harvest fails, they lose both income and dinner.
El Salvador project conserves water and soil
In El Salvador, which lies within the Dry Corridor, more than 50,000 farmers have adopted practices to better withstand drought and increasingly unreliable rainfall through RECLIMA, a project financed by the Green Climate Fund and implemented by FAO in partnership with the government of El Salvador. It has substantial national co-financing, including from the country’s Environmental Investment Fund.
El Niño can intensify El Salvador’s annual mid-season dry spell, known as the canícula, turning it into a longer, harsher drought just as maize needs water most.
For María Cristina Corvera de López, a second-generation farmer in rural Nahualapa, adapting means changing how every drop of rain is captured and used. She plants trees alongside her crops to provide shade and minimise evaporation and uses simple irrigation channels and a homemade drip system to conserve water. Instead of burning stalks, leaves and husks after harvest, as generations before her did, she turns them into mulch to hold moisture in the soil.
“The effects of climate change are a constant challenge,” she says. But the new techniques have made her farm more resilient to El Niño as well. Where she once harvested about 50 bags of maize per acre, she now gets around 80, even during droughts. It’s enough to feed her family and sell the surplus.
Managing risk now cuts future costs
Together, these adaptations can mean the difference between losing a crop and getting through a dry season with enough food, seed and income to plant again. They are also the result of climate finance invested before disaster strikes.
RECLIMA shows what that kind of adaptation investment can buy. Adaptation accounted for 45 percent of climate-related development finance to agrifood systems in 2024, and multilateral development banks are directing more agricultural finance towards resilience. That shift reflects a growing recognition that adaptation is a form of risk management, not just a development cost.
We need much more of it. The same investments that help farmers withstand El Niño also enable them to adapt to a hotter, more unpredictable future. Cutting investment in the people who produce our food just as climate risks intensify does not save money. It simply pushes a much larger bill into the next harvest, the next food crisis, and the next El Niño.
The post As El Niño intensifies, we should be investing more in the world’s farmers appeared first on Climate Home News.
As El Niño intensifies, we should be investing more in the world’s farmers
An area of Amazon forest roughly the size of the US state of New Jersey has remained standing due to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership of Brazil, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
Lula beat Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 election to become president of the nation that is home to nearly 60% of the Amazon rainforest.
Forest loss surged during Bolsonaro’s far-right presidency and dropped sharply under the left-wing Lula, with Amazon deforestation likely to hit its lowest level on record this year.
Now, as another presidential election approaches, Lula is facing off against Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio Bolsonaro, whose “anti-environmental” policies are similar to his father’s.
Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests that at least 20,000 square kilometres (km2) of deforestation has been avoided since Lula took office and prioritised Amazon protection.
The analysis is based on modelling by an international research team of an alternative scenario in which Brazil’s flagship forest code legislation was not enforced – a proxy for Jair Bolsonaro’s leadership.
Experts tell Carbon Brief that this estimate is likely “conservative” and that actual deforestation under Bolsonaro could have been “much higher”.
With Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro tied in the polls, the upcoming election is expected to significantly shape the level of environmental action in the world’s fourth-largest emitter, whose emissions are largely driven by deforestation.
‘Brazil is back’
When Jair Bolsonaro was president of Brazil between 2019 and 2022, he championed the nation’s powerful agribusiness sector and oversaw an unprecedented increase in Amazon deforestation.
Bolsonaro weakened regulations, slashed federal agency budgets and empowered illegal activities in the Amazon, while attacking Indigenous and environmental groups.
This meant that the forest code – Brazil’s flagship legislation that requires landowners to preserve and restore forest on their property – was not properly enforced.
After Lula’s presidential victory in 2022, he promised to target “zero deforestation” by 2030, telling the COP27 UN climate summit that “Brazil is back”.
Lula rolled back Bolsonaro’s wave of deregulation and reinstated a deforestation “action plan”. Led by celebrated environmentalist Marina Silva, the environment ministry scaled up enforcement and policing activities in the Amazon.
As a result, annual deforestation in the Amazon has more than halved from 11,594km2 per year in 2022 to 5,731km2 in 2025.
Data from August 2025 to July 2026 – the timespan used in government records – is yet to be released, but preliminary satellite alerts put the deforestation figure at 2,874km2.
While the final figure is likely to be higher, experts still think Amazon deforestation in 2026 could hit its lowest level since records began in 1988.
New Jersey-sized forest
Compared to a scenario in which Bolsonaro won in 2022, Carbon Brief analysis suggests that at least 20,000km2 of Amazon forest remains standing today due to Lula’s leadership.
This area – roughly the size of Wales, Belize, Slovenia or the US state of New Jersey – is indicated by the grey area in the chart below.
This analysis is based on a 2023 study on the role of nature-based solutions in Brazil’s pathway to net-zero emissions. This was a refined update of a 2018 study that used the same GLOBIOM-Brazil model, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE).
It is based on a comparison of forest code implementation with a “baseline” scenario in which the code is not enforced, reflecting the kind of weak governance seen under the Bolsonaro administration. (See Carbon Brief’s 2022 article for more details of this modelling.)
Dr Aline Soterroni, a University of Oxford researcher who led the 2023 analysis, tells Carbon Brief that the reversal seen under Lula “shows how quickly deforestation can respond to political will”.
However, she stresses that the modelling of the “no forest code” scenario is “relatively conservative”, with deforestation remaining high but not rising.
Deforestation in this scenario – used here as a proxy for a Bolsonaro election win – is tempered by slower demand growth for Brazilian beef and soy, says Soterroni. She notes that the scenario also does not capture the potential for illegal forest clearing in response to weak governance.
Indeed, some experts anticipated in 2022 that a Bolsonaro victory would send deforestation rates rising to near-record levels.
Claudio Angelo, international policy coordinator at Brazil’s Climate Observatory, tells Carbon Brief that if Bolsonaro had won in 2022, “we have reason to believe [this would have resulted] in much higher rates than during his first term”.
Angelo says the “political signal” would likely have driven an “explosion of wildcat mining” and illegal deforestation in the Amazon. He also points to efforts – including by Flávio Bolsonaro – to formally dismantle the forest code in the Brazilian congress, during Jair Bolsonaro’s first term.
Soterroni notes that deforestation rates did not immediately drop following Lula’s election, as suggested by modelling of a full “forest code compliance” scenario. She says this reflects the “gradual and imperfect process” of restoring and enforcing the law.
Nevertheless, she tells Carbon Brief:
“The key message from our modelling is the contrast between these trajectories: weak environmental governance keeps deforestation substantially higher than full implementation of the forest code. That message remains relevant today.”
Election significance
With Jair Bolsonaro in prison for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election, his son Flávio Bolsonaro, a senator for Rio de Janeiro, is standing against Lula in the upcoming contest for president.
There are 13 candidates, but Flávio Bolsonaro and Lula are by far the frontrunners and are currently neck-and-neck in opinion polls.
If Lula wins, experts say he is likely to continue with the “zero deforestation by 2030” agenda that has already had a pronounced impact on forest loss.
As the chart below shows, periods when Amazon deforestation fell in recent history all occurred during Lula’s three terms as president.
In contrast, experts say Flávio Bolsonaro, a climate sceptic who has indicated he will continue his father’s political agenda and favour agribusiness and mining, will likely drive a surge in deforestation. Angelo tells Carbon Brief:
“At the risk of sounding alarmist, I’ve been saying that Lula’s re-election is the only thing standing between us and a wide destruction of the Amazon.”
A Bolsonaro win would be a “tremendous disaster”, says Dr Patricia Pinho, deputy science director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, adding:
“I don’t think we can afford four years of increasing deforestation [and] violence against Indigenous peoples.”
Dr David Lapola, an ecologist focused on Amazon research at the University of Campinas in Brazil, says he believes deforestation “would certainly rise” and Brazil’s climate and deforestation goals “would be thrown in the trash bin”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“The Bolsonaro administration in the 2019-2022 period showed that the deconstruction of environmental policies and institutes can be done very, very quickly.
“In a matter of a few months, they can destroy what has been constructed over decades of environmental policy and activism in Brazil.”
‘Greenest’ policies
Lula has the “greenest” policy proposals of Brazil’s six top-polling presidential candidates, according to analysis by the Climate Observatory.
The analysis identifies 16 “positive and detailed” environmental commitments in Lula’s proposals, including reaffirming his “zero deforestation by 2030” goal.
Flávio Bolsonaro, on the other hand, has one positive environmental commitment and seven “clearly anti-environmental” proposals.
The right-wing politician has committed to zero “illegal” deforestation by 2029. However, he has also previously led an attempt to change the forest code, opening up large tracts of previously out-of-bounds forest for legal clearance by extractive industries.
Given this, Angelo tells Carbon Brief that he is sceptical about the 2029 pledge.
“The only way you can trust him on this is to think that he is going to revoke the forest code and make all illegal deforestation legal.”
Lula is also the only major candidate to list a clear target for cutting national emissions, sticking with Brazil’s existing goal to cut emissions by 59-67% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels.
Overall, the Climate Observatory notes that climate change and environmental issues “are off the radar for most candidates”, who are instead focusing on the economy and security issues.
Pinho adds that deforestation and the Amazon have not been at the “forefront” of this election, compared to 2022.
If Bolsonaro wins, up to 95% of the Amazon would fall under the leadership of right-wing national governments – including those in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru – reported Mongabay. It noted that presidents in all these nations “explicitly favour agribusiness and mining over environmental conservation”.
If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round of Brazil’s election on 4 October, a runoff will take place on 25 October, as has happened at every presidential election since 1998.
Soy moratorium and Brazilian congress
Other factors will also play a role in future deforestation in Brazil, regardless of the next president.
One is the effective end of the Amazon soy moratorium. This is a voluntary agreement signed by companies committing to not buy soya beans grown on land in the Brazilian Amazon that was deforested after 2008.
Conservation organisation WWF’s international director general, Kirsten Schuijt, previously described it as the “most impactful voluntary supply chain policy ever implemented”.
However, major grain traders withdrew from the agreement earlier this year, effectively bringing it to an end. Pinho describes this move as a “huge destruction” of Brazil’s environmental protections.
Research shows the moratorium prevented around 18,000km2 of deforestation in its first decade of operation from 2005-16.
In contrast, a 2026 study estimated that the end of the moratorium could result in 14,000km2 of additional deforestation in the Amazon by 2036.
Alongside choosing a new president on 4 October, Brazilian voters will elect state governors and members of congress, which will also factor into future environmental impacts.
Right-leaning parties, including the far-right Liberal Party linked to the Bolsonaros, currently hold half the seats of the two chambers of congress.
This has led to conflict between lawmakers and Lula. For example, in 2025, congress bypassed Lula’s veto of several aspects of a controversial piece of legislation dubbed the “devastation bill”.
Pinho says that the potential for a right-wing congress and president would be “devastating for the environmental and climate agenda”.
Lapola notes that a Flávio Bolsonaro presidency “would consolidate the view in Brazil that environmental protection is solely a matter of political preference, and not a crucial need of all people”. He adds:
“Land pillage, destruction of precious biodiversity and scorning of Indigenous peoples simply cannot be a nation’s project in the 21st century. We have got to be smarter than that, for sure.”
related
Q&A: What change of power in Colombia could mean for world’s fossil-fuel transition
Brazil’s biodiversity pledge: Six key takeaways for nature and climate change
COP30: Could Brazil’s ‘Tropical Forest Forever’ fund help tackle climate change?
Guest post: How Caribbean states are shaping climate legislation
The post Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022
This letter is a bit more direct and longer than most of those which I write, but I hope you will be okay with that, because the times seem to call for being plain.
A few weeks ago I got a text message from an old and dear friend —let’s call her Hannah.
I have enough shared life with Hannah that, whenever we talk, the conversation always feels current and effortless, despite gaps of months or even years.
Hannah has been talking with her son — we’ll call him Neil — who is a teenager and doing well in school, but wildly worried about the state of the world, including the imminent trajectory of global warming. Hannah and I don’t text each other other very often, but on this occasion she’s reached out with something visceral:
Neil has challenged me to point him to something hopeful, if I can find it. He says so far no one is showing any will to uphold the Paris Agreement. I am checking in to see how you still manage to have real hope.*
Then, just a few days later, the United Nations Environment Programme Limiting Overshoot report landed, containing the principal finding that it is likely the global temperature will soon exceed 1.5°C.
After that news, and the real time devastation in Nepal, and in the context of the broader state of the world, I found myself having multiple conversations with friends and colleagues about the structure of hope. I want to openly share that after a few of these exchanges, I metaphorically closed the blinds, and wondered how to feel, and what to do, because there is no avoiding the dreadfulness of the news, and what it means for the suffering of people and life on Earth.
But if you are fortunate enough to have time, space and security to do so, then after the darkness, you open the shutters and once again there is light. This is the structure of my innermost resolve.
* * *
Our lives — those of us living on our magnificent earth now — have the greatest possible purpose.
There is virtually no problem that we endlessly clever and creative, human beings cannot solve, when we work together.
And we are not just intelligent and ingenious; we are inherently social, nurturing and brave; capable of the deepest enduring love.
Each of the roughly 12,000 generations of humanity so far has made life possible for those who have followed, through acts of devotion.
Babies have been held and fed. Water and food have been found and shared. Shelter has been built. For 12,000 generations we have held the hands of our children.
Every single one of us was once carried in the arms of another, unable to walk ourselves. It is our thoughtfulness, kindness and care that have seen us through as a species. Sometimes this has been in the most exigent of circumstances, when enough of our ancestors did not give in, faced incredibly difficult things, to somehow make it through.
And so it comes to this. To what we now must do. We must do as 12,000 generations of people did for us.
The struggle to keep global warming to under 1.5 degrees may be over. The battle of return—to get our planet back to safe temperatures at emergency speed and scale — is just beginning. Upon this struggle depends the future of all we care about, and that of all life on Earth. The prospects of the next 12,000 generations are conditioned by our efforts now.
Our work now is to keep the overshoot as low as we can, make it as brief as possible, and do everything within our power to alleviate other pressures on nature. It is to take care of humanity — of one another — in the face of mounting climate and ecological damage. And by these efforts, create the conditions for future flourishing. Every fraction of every degree matters.
What must now be done is hard, much tougher than should have been necessary, because of the vested interests in coal, oil and gas and deforestation, and the failures of decision makers. And while renewable energy has surged, making the case for change much simpler, on the other side of the ledger there’s the reactionary and gangsterist turn of politics and the multiplier effects of wars and mass violence, with the existential destabilisation of big tech looming over all.
There is no sugarcoating the scale of difficulty. But what is necessary remains within our collective power. We must never, for one second, say that returning our planet to flourishing is impossible — many of the obvious solutions already exist; but even where transformation relies on reforms, technologies or capabilities that might sound fanciful, or historical changes that are unprecedented, this can be no barrier to our conviction. After all, much of what we take for granted today as ordinary features of social life, would have been considered impossible by every single generation before us.
The world has not been destroyed by nuclear war; we solved the growing hole in the ozone layer; Antarctica was kept sacrosanct from exploitation. Humanity has collectively triumphed before, and can do so again.
We can find the necessary social and political will to do what is needed because these are endlessly renewable resources. The necessary financial capital exists. Apart from the fossil fuel industry, the greatest barrier we face is to mistakenly concede that what lies before us is insurmountable. It is not.
We must avoid the siren song of fatalism. Because. It. Is. Never. Too. Late.
None of which is to be insensitive to the horrors already unleashed — the deadly and grotesque harm to people, places and species that cannot be undone; or to be blind to the impacts that are coming. But where we have the power to act, we also have the responsibility — and the extraordinary privilege — to do what must be done.
Although she is wounded, our planet is still alive and beautiful beyond all of our comprehension. Hundreds of billions of creatures live and thrive still upon this earth. Nothing has happened until it has happened, and life fights for life. Every beetle, every tree, all the fish in the ocean, the smallest of the geothermal shrimps, the greatest of the whales and the mightiest of the birds — all demand life every second of their existence, so that their species too may have future generations.
No individual has to know how to solve this alone. Indeed, finding some detachment and humility is essential to concentrate on the role that each of us can play.
Hope is not merely a mindset or a story we tell ourselves. Collective power is not abstract; it is what we do, together, applying ourselves to the practical mechanics of change and contestation within society, by being part of the organisations and networks of people that are dedicated to effective strategies. It is why I am so committed to Greenpeace.
Working from without and within, there are opportunities to make rapid change within institutions, governments, businesses and communities to create the social, economic and political momentum for emissions reduction at speed and scale, reminding ourselves always of what remains possible, even if it hasn’t happened yet.
We can return the planet to safer temperatures. We can put technologies back in the service of people and life. We can return to the assumptions that seemed so obvious just one generation ago — that it is both possible, and our obligation, to build a better future for all people, and for life on Earth.
I did write back to Hannah and Neil, to say honestly to a treasured friend and her son, that yes, as a matter of faith, conviction, evidence and strategy, absolutely there is real hope. And this is a pledge not just to Neil and his generation, but to the next 12,000.
Together, we have the power. Together, we cross this bridge through the dark. To secure an Earth capable of nurturing life in all of its magnificent diversity.
We did not choose to carry this historic responsibility, but here we are. And it is so lucky that we are here.
I wouldn’t choose any other time to be here, alive on Earth, with you.
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19