Published

2 years ago

February 22, 2024

Alice Rush

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s China Briefing.

Carbon Brief handpicks and explains the most important climate and energy stories from China over the past fortnight. Subscribe for free here.

Key developments

China needs record drop in CO2 emissions to meet 2025 target

RECORD FALL NEEDED: New analysis for Carbon Brief revealed that China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased by 12% between 2020 and 2023, due to a “highly energy- and carbon-intensive response” to the economic slowdown during the Covid-19 pandemic. Total energy consumption grew 5.7% in 2023, “the first time since at least 2005 that energy demand has grown faster than GDP”, while CO2 emissions grew “at an average of 3.8% per year in 2021-23, up from 0.9% a year in 2016-20”, despite slowing economic growth. As a result, China’s carbon intensity – its emissions per unit of GDP – “has only fallen 5% in the 14th five-year plan period”, and CO2 emissions “would need to fall by 4-6% by 2025” to meet the carbon intensity target of 18% set in the 14th five-year plan.

OFF-TARGET: China is also “at risk” of failing to meet other key climate goals. Despite pledges to “strictly limit” coal demand growth and “strictly control” new coal power capacity, both “coal consumption and new coal power projects” accelerated “sharply” from 2020 to 2023. The share of China’s energy demand met by non-fossil sources “has increased by 1.8 percentage points from 2020 to 2023, against a target of 4.1 points by 2025”. The analysis concluded that government pressure to hit these targets – many of which are included in China’s most recent international climate pledge – means it is “more likely that China’s CO2 emissions will peak before 2025”.

OFFICIAL STATS: The head of the national energy administration (NEA), Zhang Jianhua, recently wrote in an article posted on the NEA’s official WeChat account that China’s annual growth of energy consumption between 2021 and 2023 was 1.8 times higher than annual energy consumption growth from 2016 to 2020 – and equalled the total annual energy consumption of the UK. He added that “solid growth” is expected for the foreseeable future, which will make it “more difficult to coordinate energy security guarantees and the low-carbon transformation”.

China plans ‘comprehensive green transformation’

‘GREEN TRANSFORMATION’: State news agency Xinhua reported that President Xi Jinping hosted a meeting of the central commission for deepening reform (CCDR, see below), during which policymakers passed the “opinions on promoting comprehensive green transformation of socioeconomic development”. The full text of the opinions has not yet been released. Xi also stated at the meeting that achieving this transformation “is the foundational policy to resolve problems around resources, the environment and ecology”, the outlet said. An Anhui News editorial republished by the state-run China Daily shortly after the meeting said that China should “incorporate the concept of green development into all aspects of economic and social development”.

POLITICAL HEAVYWEIGHT: The meeting of the CCDR, on the first day after the lunar new year holiday, underscores the importance of the legislation included. The CCDR, which was formed in 2013 and subsequently chaired by Xi, is the “primary mechanism for top-level policymaking and advancing reform and opening-up”, according to the state-supporting Global Times. The thinktank MERICS described it as a “supra-ministry used to accelerate priority reforms of the Xi leadership” that is the foremost of the existing leading small groups. According to MERICS, “policies passed by the CCDR are regarded as taking immediate effect [by ministries]”.

Climate policy momentum to pick up in 2024?

2024 GOALS: In the latter half of 2023, a “number of important environmental and energy policies have either set tighter and more specific targets or called out the need for faster progress towards existing goals”, a new paper by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) said. The reemergence of language to “cut carbon emissions, reduce pollution, expand green development and pursue economic growth” suggests that “these priorities have risen” for 2024, it added.

TURF WAR: While top-level directives favour bolder action on environmental policy, the picture is “complicated” by “bureaucratic fragmentation”, the report said. This is illustrated by the delays in operationalising China’s carbon markets due to frictions between the ministry of environment and ecology (MEE) and the national development and reform commission (NDRC) and national energy administration (NEA), in addition to “a sharp policy dispute” between the NEA and the MEE on transitioning from a policy of “dual control” of energy to dual control of carbon, it added.

LOCAL POLITICS: Meanwhile, despite the signals coming from central leadership, local governments may not be incentivised to similarly prioritise environmental protection, the OIES said. Instead, local officials may be “keen to boost investment in large infrastructure projects to support economic activity and maintain tax revenues, which can work against environmental goals”.

Reducing ‘dependency’ on China ‘could add 20%’ to transition costs

PRICE WAR: It could cost $6tn – an “additional 20% of the original energy transition bill” – to reduce “critical dependencies on China” for clean technology products, reported Quartz, citing new analysis from consultancy Wood Mackenzie. Industry players are “openly talking about” convincing consumers to pay more for non-Chinese minerals needed for powering electric vehicles, it added. In response to western countries seeking “greater diversity in supply amid a glut of Chinese imports” of clean-energy technologies, the vice-president of the world’s top solar panel manufacturer, Longi Green Energy Technology, warned that restrictions on Chinese companies would slow decarbonisation of European and US economies, in an interview given to the Financial Times. Dennis She stated that solar panels produced in the US without Chinese involvement would cost “double” and that EU protectionism would “kill most of the jobs [in] the [solar industry] downstream”.

SPLITS IN EUROPE: Meanwhile, another Financial Times article reported that a new Chinese solar panel factory being built in Ohio, US, by Longi is facing pushback by local residents suspicious of China’s “involvement”. The Financial Times – in an article carried on the frontpage of its international edition – also quoted senior US treasury officials as saying that “the US and its allies will take action if China tries to ease its industrial overcapacity problem by dumping goods on international markets”, with particular concerns around clean-energy sectors. EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra warned of the bloc’s “problematic” dependence on China for clean-energy technology, reported Euractiv. European clients have asked battery suppliers in China to “to start producing in Europe as soon as possible”, according to Yicai, due to a new EU regulation “imposing significant obligations on battery manufacturers, importers and distributors”. Meanwhile, “splits” among EU countries are emerging on China, with France and Germany at odds on “everything” from solar energy and electric vehicles to trade deals and supply chains, reported the South China Morning Post. France is typically in favour of restricting Chinese imports of clean-energy technology, the outlet added, while Germany “strongly opposes such measures”. The UK’s Trade Remedies Authority announced that it is ready to “follow” Brussels on the issue of launching an investigation into Chinese electric vehicles, which have “flooded” the global market, reported the Guardian.

Spotlight

The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Pan Jiahua

At COP28 in Dubai, Carbon Brief’s Anika Patel spoke with Prof Pan Jiahua, vice-chair of the national expert panel on climate change of China, about his ideas for how to move to a zero-carbon future.

China’s national expert committee on climate change, of which Prof Pan is vice-chair, is an advisory body under the national leaders group on climate change, energy-saving and emissions reduction.

He is also a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and director of its Research Center for Sustainable Development, as well as director of Beijing University of Technology’s Institute of Eco-Civilization Studies.

Below are highlights from the wide-ranging conversation, which covered coal phaseout, the usefulness of a global “loss-and-damage fund”, and prospects for distributed solar and power market reform in China. The full interview can be found on the Carbon Brief website.

New modes of thinking about climate

On the philosophy of ‘ecological civilisation’: “Human beings, for their own benefit – they ignored the benefit of nature. The welfare of nature. We expose nature, we deplete our natural resources…[Under ecological civilisation] the basic idea [is] that [if we can achieve] harmony with nature [and] harmony among our nations, then we can go long into the future.”

On the success of UN climate summits: “COP is the only thing that [has lasted] over 30 years…We have different views, different arguments, different interests but, all in all, we’ve come a long way…We agreed the Paris targets – in 1990 nobody would believe that [was possible].”

On the COP28 summit

On the ‘loss-and-damage fund’: “Losses and damages should be compensated, but not in a way that we divert our energy and resources for [the sake of] compensation. We should use all our energy, resources, spirits – everything – for the zero-carbon transition.”

On the ‘climate paradox’: “If you divert the limited resources for compensating losses and damages, then the zero-carbon transition would be delayed. And if you delay such a transition, there will be more and more losses and damages. I call this the climate paradox.”

On tripling renewable energy: “Tripling renewable energy is not enough. Why are we only tripling? Why not more and more, the more the better. Because look at China – [we] doubled and doubled and doubled [our renewable energy] all the time. This year we doubled installed capacity over the last year. Why shouldn’t we do more than just tripling?”

On western suspicion: “Why did China suddenly become number one in zero-carbon renewables? It’s simply because the United States and Europe used anti-dumping subsidies and section 301 investigations in 2010. Then the Chinese competitive products, solar panels, were not able to go to the world market, so we thought we should…install everything inside of China and immediately China became number one in the world. Now you see the United States and Europe again say ‘no, it’s [a question of] supply chain security’. Right? This is really self-conflicting. On one hand they say ‘climate security’, on the other they say their ‘own security’.”

Investing in renewable energy

On replacing energy infrastructure: “Renewables would not require a huge amount of investment in infrastructure. Fossil fuels, coal electricity generation – the investment is very capital intensive…right? Waste of money.”

On subsidies and industrial policy: “Like a plant – in the very beginning when it’s a seed then you need to take care of it. But when it grows and becomes mature, then it can stand on its own and be competitive.”

Accelerating the energy transition through ‘prosumerism’

On an alternative to a centralised electricity grid: “I use the term ‘prosumerism’. Production, consumption and storage all in one, right? You do not require a very capital intensive power grid…And also, this is consumer sovereignty – when you have your own system, you have a say and then…you are not totally reliant on the power grid.”

On the future of fossil fuels: “Fossil fuels are fossils. They are a thing of the past.”

On phasing out fossil fuels: “We want to have everything competitive enough to phase out fossil fuels, through the market process. Not command and control.”

On abating fossil fuels: “I think that abated fossil fuels is a false statement. Because abated is not compatible, they have no competitiveness. When you abate it, it is more expensive. You think the consumers are silly? They will simply vote for competitive[ly priced] electricity.”

On the challenges of power market reform: “Only the monopoly people will [call for] ‘reform’, and through reform they gain more power, they gain more monopoly. The prosumerism system will destroy such monopolies.”

On the urgency of ‘global boiling’: “Global warming is not global warming, it’s global boiling…Renewables are good for welfare, for wellbeing, for growing the economy, for a better environment. It’s for everybody and for the future. Fossil fuels are not for the future.”

Watch, read, listen

‘GREENING’ ASEAN: A new paper by the Grantham Research Institute found that China plays a positive role in the “development of supply chains for renewable energy technology” in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region.

CAPACITY VS GENERATION: Our World In Data deputy editor Hannah Ritchie wrote in her Sustainability by Numbers newsletter that, although China is building more coal-fired power plants, their “capacity factor…has been dropping over the last 15 years”.

ESG: The Environment China podcast discussed research on corporate climate disclosures in China, with authors Erica Downs, Ned Downie and Lou Yushan.

UN SPEECH: State broadcaster CCTV published a recording of Chinese UN permanent representative Zhang Jun’s speech that, to improve climate resilience and food security, the world must avoid “unilateral sanctions, decoupling and technological blockades”.

New science

Exploring phase-out path of China’s coal power plants with its dynamic impact on electricity balance

Energy Policy

New research into the impact of phasing out coal-fired power plants in China on electricity shortages identified the potential for electricity shortfalls of 6-12 terawatt-hours (TWh) per month before 2027 “if China phases out coal plants at their 30-years technical lifespan”. Instead, it said, under an accelerated phase-out pathway, China could “decrease its electricity consumption per GDP by at least 5%” through greater energy efficiency to avoid electricity shortages, or follow a flexible phase-out pathway to both reduce CO2 emissions and “significantly reduce the electricity shortage risk”.

Optimal carbon emission reduction path of the building sector: Evidence from China

Science of The Total Environment

Modelling of China’s building sector found that “in a business-as-usual scenario, building carbon emissions will peak at 6,393m tonnes of CO2 in 2041, missing the 2030 carbon peaking target”. Decarbonisation technologies will make the 2030 carbon peaking target “attainable, though at a considerably high cost”, the researchers said, with emissions “forecasted to peak in 2030 at 5,139m tons of CO2” in an “optimal” scenario.

China Briefing is compiled by Anika Patel and edited by Wanyuan Song and Simon Evans. Please send tips and feedback to china@carbonbrief.org

The post China Briefing 22 February: Interview with Chinese govt climate advisor; missing emissions targets; the cost of excluding China appeared first on Carbon Brief.

China Briefing 22 February: Interview with Chinese govt climate advisor; missing emissions targets; the cost of excluding China

Climate Change

Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut

Published

20 hours ago

May 15, 2026

Alice Rush

The UK is no longer the top contributor to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), after the government announced that it only intends to honour half of its most recent pledge.

Amid wider cuts to its climate aid for developing countries, the UK informed the GCF in May that it will reduce its commitment for the 2024-27 period to £815m ($1.1bn).

In doing so, the Labour government is drastically cutting a Conservative pledge of £1.62bn ($2.16bn), hailed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government as “the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change”.

This “record” pledge also meant the UK became the top GCF funder, after the Trump administration withdrew $4bn in pledged US funds in 2025.

Now, the UK follows the US in becoming the second major donor to cancel substantial funding, leaving aid experts concerned that other developed countries will follow suit.

As the chart below shows, the UK’s total past and promised contributions to the GCF have now dropped below those of Germany, France and Japan.

GCF pledges by top 10 donors. Dark bars indicate pledges from the initial resource mobilisation in 2014 and the first replenishment round in 2019, while light blue bars indicate pledges from the second replenishment round in 2023. Source: NRDC GCF pledge tracker.

The GCF is the largest dedicated UN climate fund and is seen as a vital way of raising grant-based climate finance for developing countries. It oversees more than $20bn worth of funding across 354 projects and programmes.

Developed countries, such as the UK, are obliged under the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance. One of the main ways to do this is through specialised climate funds, such as the GCF.

However, despite countries committing to increase their climate finance over time, progress in scaling up GCF contributions between funding rounds has been gradual.

With its now-revoked £1.62bn pledge in 2023, the UK was among the donors that had increased its GCF pledging compared with the previous 2019 funding round.

The latest reduction means the UK will now provide around 45% less funding than it did during the 2019 round. This is the biggest reduction between rounds by any major donor, apart from the US.

In an email to the GCF board, reported by the Financial Times, the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte said the UK’s actions were “expected to have a material impact on the delivery” of the fund’s projects.

According to the newspaper, Duarte noted that the move came as the UK cuts its overall aid budget in order to “invest more in addressing growing security threats”.

In March, the UK government announced plans to spend “around £6bn” of its aid budget on climate projects in developing countries over the next three years.

Carbon Brief analysis suggests that this spending amounts to roughly halving the UK’s annual climate finance, when accounting changes and inflation are factored in.

The post Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut

Climate Change

Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace

Published

21 hours ago

May 15, 2026

Alice Rush

SYDNEY, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — Ahead of tonight’s Federal Budget, the following statement can be attributed to David Ritter, CEO of Greenpeace Australia Pacific:

“As the Albanese government hands down the budget, it has an obligation to both look after households today, and to set Australians up for a flourishing future.

“The government has an opportunity to give Aussies a fair shake of the sauce bottle by taxing gas corporations fairly, accelerating the clean, affordable renewable solutions we already have, backing its own nature law reforms with appropriate funding and by protecting our oceans, forests and climate from polluting gas projects.

“The massive swell for fairly taxing gas corporations shows the public mood has permanently shifted; most Australians rightly do not accept that gas corporations like Woodside and Santos should make obscene war profits, while everyday people face soaring bills, and natural wonders like Scott Reef are threatened by reckless gas drilling projects.

“The global energy shock has exposed the dangers of our dependence on coal, oil and gas, and made clear that our future security and prosperity is in clean, affordable and homegrown wind and solar power.

“This must be a budget to benefit Australians, not gas corporations.”

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s 2026 Federal Budget expectations can be found here.

–ENDS–

Notes:

Greenpeace has spokespeople available for interview before and after the budget announcement, including experts who can speak on Australia’s climate and emissions, the gas tax, Woodside’s Browse project, Labor’s new nature law, and our renewable future.

Media contact:

Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbenard@greenpeace.org

Federal Budget must give Aussies a ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’: Greenpeace

Climate Change

‘A new low’: Greenpeace responds to Woodside’s flawed emissions reduction and renewables modelling

Published

21 hours ago

May 15, 2026

Alice Rush

PERTH, Tuesday 12 May 2026 — In response to Woodside’s Browse economic modelling released yesterday, the following comments can be attributed to WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Geoff Bice:

“Greenpeace has analysed Woodside’s report on the polluting Browse gas project against independent modelling of WA’s energy system and emissions, and found glaring holes in the case made for the project.

“Woodside has reached a new low by modelling WA’s emissions reduction and energy transition pathway based on wildly expensive and risky decarbonisation options simply to justify its reckless Browse development at Scott Reef, initially rejected by the WA Environmental Protection Authority on environmental grounds.

“The WA Government cannot allow climate policy to be directed by climate vandals like Woodside. The clearest way to get WA’s emissions down is by setting clear emission reduction targets, which Greenpeace continues to call for.”

Key points from Greenpeace’s analysis of Woodside’s modelling follow:

Gas is the most expensive form of available electricity generation, according to the CSIRO; IEEFA also found that Browse gas would be about four times higher than the current average production cost of domestic gas in WA.
Direct air capture (DAC): The model assumes WA will be able to capture 6.9Mt of CO₂/year by 2050. Worldwide, the current total volumes captured are 0.01 Mt CO₂/year. DAC is currently priced at a minimum of $USD-400/tonne with many estimates ranging higher. Even reduced to $200/tonne, the cost per year of the volumes modelled becomes a staggering $1.38 billion, or $34.5 billion by 2050.
Carbon dumping, or carbon capture and storage (CCS): The model requires 40 times the amount of sequestration that occurred last year at WA’s only CCS operation on Barrow Island (32.4Mt compared to 1.3Mt). Barrow Island CCS has consistently failed to meet requirements and last year alone cost $344m (at 265 AU$/tCO₂). At those prices the Woodside modelling results in a cost per year by 2050 to be $8.6 billion.
Woodside’s Pluto gas facility has been supplying less than 4% to the WA market, far short of the 15% required under the WA domestic gas reservation policy.
Woodside includes $1.6 billion payable via the Offshore Petroleum Levy. The Levy was implemented to offset offshore decommissioning costs to the taxpayer but is set to expire in 2030 — 3 years before the Browse field is proposed to come online.