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
Clean-energy industry drives China growth in 2023
CLEANTECH BOOM: New analysis for Carbon Brief found that clean-energy sectors – spanning low-carbon power, grids, energy storage, electric vehicles (EVs) and railways – contributed 11.4tn yuan ($1.6tn) to China’s economy in 2023, accounting for “all of the growth in Chinese investment and a larger share of economic growth than any other part of the economy”. This was driven, in particular, by the “new three” industries of solar power, EVs and batteries. Investment totalled 6.3tn yuan ($890bn), growing 40% year-on-year and almost equalling all global investments in fossil fuel supply last year – or the entire economies of Switzerland or Turkey.
GDP BOOST: Clean-energy sectors accounted for 40% of the expansion of GDP in 2023, the analysis showed. Without this contribution, China’s GDP would have risen only by 3% instead of 5.2% – well below the growth target set for 2023. This makes the industry not only crucial for China’s energy transition, but also for “broader economic and industrial” development, found the analysis.
OVERCAPACITY CONCERNS: However, the analysis continued, “the spectre of overcapacity means China’s clean-energy investment growth…cannot continue indefinitely”, adding that “the manufacturing expansion has already saturated most of the global market”. In related news, Jiemian reported exports of the “new three” industries reached more than 1tn yuan ($141bn). This has seen the EU, among others, take steps to support their own clean-energy industries, reported Agence France-Presse, adding that Chinese premier Li Qiang recently held “frank” talks with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen on trade imbalances.
China relaunched voluntary carbon market
RESUMED TRADING: State-run broadcaster CCTV reported that China’s voluntary carbon-trading system, the China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) programme, resumed trading on 22 January. CCER’s relaunch “marks the completion of China’s domestic carbon-market architecture”, the broadcaster added. Beijing News described CCER as an “institutional innovation to mobilise the power of the whole society to participate in greenhouse gas emission reduction actions”.
NEW CREDITS?: Economic outlet Jiemian said that CCER project registration was suspended in 2017. It reported that “preparation on the policy end” for restarting issuance of carbon credits under the scheme is “almost complete”, pending the “state administration for market regulation (SAMR)…releas[ing] the list of recognised validation and verification institutions”. The scale of new CCER issuance is predicted to be between tens of millions to 100m tonnes per year, according to one analyst, the newspaper adds.
INCLUDED SCOPE: Finance news outlet EastMoney reported that the greenhouse gas trading under the scheme is primarily open to enterprises or institutions in four major sectors: “afforestation carbon sinks, grid-connected solar-thermal power generation, grid-connected offshore wind power generation and mangrove plantation”. It may in future allow individuals “to sell carbon emissions generated from green behaviours under the CCER scheme…as the trading mechanism matures”, according to the South China Morning Post.
Tasks, measures and timelines for ‘Beautiful China’
BEAUTIFUL CHINA: The top bodies of the Chinese government and governing Communist party – the state council and the central committee, respectively – issued the full text of new instructions on “comprehensively promoting the construction of a Beautiful China” in a 27 December official release, published by state news agency Xinhua on 11 January. The Beautiful China initiative is a “top-level development blueprint detailing specific targets for…the nation’s green and high-quality growth”, another Xinhua report explained. ClientEarth’s Dimitri De Boer wrote in China Dialogue that the initiative “ties a good environment to a sense of national pride”.
KEY GOALS: The document outlined a slew of tasks, measures and timelines within China’s overall push to peak its carbon emissions before 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2060. By 2027, “green and low-carbon development” will be “further promoted”, it said. By 2035, “green production methods and lifestyles will be widely formed”. By the middle of the century, “ecological civilisation will be comprehensively upgraded…[with] deep decarbonisation achieved in key areas”. Goals listed in the document include: the country will compile an annual national greenhouse gas inventory; “gradually shift” to “dual control” of carbon emissions; protect more than 3.15m square kilometres of land from being eligible for development projects under the national ecological “red line” policy; ensure China’s cities become “waste-free” by 2035; and see new energy vehicles (NEVs, mostly electric vehicles) comprise around 45% of new cars by 2027.
OFFICIAL COMMENT: The document was passed in a meeting chaired by Chinese president Xi Jinping, who said that “building a Beautiful China is an important goal for building a modern socialist country”, the state-run China Daily reported – giving the document more weight and signalling to officials that China’s carbon-neutrality goals remain an important target. Adding to the momentum, following its publication, Sun Jinlong and Huang Runqiu – the Communist party secretary and the minister at the ministry of ecology and environment (MEE), respectively – wrote an opinion piece in the Communist party-backed newspaper People’s Daily saying that the document “clearly defines the overall requirements, key tasks and major initiatives” guiding the Beautiful China initiative. In an interview with Xinhua, a senior official of the MEE said incentives and policy measures could “mobilise enthusiasm, initiative and creativity” to build a Beautiful China.
US and China climate envoys step down
KERRY RETIRES: US climate envoy John Kerry plans to retire from his role in the next few months, in order “to help President Biden’s [re-election] campaign”, Axios reported. In stepping back from “a major diplomatic role that was created especially for him”, the New York Times reported, Kerry casts the position into “an uncertain future”. The fact that he has chosen to do so following the retirement of Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua “[raises] concerns about what climate diplomacy will look [like]” without their cooperative personal dynamic, it added.
END OF AN ERA: Xie and Kerry “have a close personal relationship”, Climate Home News reported, adding that “Xie’s return from retirement in 2021 was widely interpreted as a response to Kerry’s appointment [to the climate envoy role]”. “If Kerry and Xie weren’t in office…there’s no way we’d be even close to where we’re at,” the Financial Times quoted Jake Schmidt, a senior director at thinktank NRDC, saying. It also reported that Kerry said he and Xie were “doing all we can to stay in very close touch; and he and I will continue to work in respective institutions [to forge collaboration on climate change]”.
NEW BLOOD: Career diplomat Liu Zhenmin – profiled in Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed newsletter – will become China’s new climate envoy, Reuters reported. The newswire added that Liu has “long experience in climate diplomacy”, participating in both the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement negotiations. Liu “was a key driver in landing the Kyoto Protocol”, Greenpeace East Asia chief China representative Yuan Ying told Carbon Brief, which is “a promising piece of experience”. However, Climate Home News quoted an anonymous analyst as saying “many experts wanted someone from the environment ministry appointed”, as “[the foreign ministry] approaches climate as a card in US-China [manoeuvring]” instead of seeing it “as a real issue that needs to be solved”.
Spotlight
Interview with Prof Zou Ji, CEO and president of the Energy Foundation China
At COP28, Carbon Brief sat down with Prof Zou Ji, CEO and president of the Energy Foundation China, to discuss China’s energy transition.
Prof Zou previously served as a deputy director-general of China’s National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation.
He was part of China’s negotiation team for the Paris Agreement and a lead author of several Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports.
Below are highlights from the wide-ranging conversation, covering China’s stance on coal, renewables, issues-based alliances and more. The full interview will be published on the Carbon Brief website soon.
China’s decisions at COP28
On signing pledges at COP: “If you look at the whole history of the COP…I do not [remember] China joining any alliances. I have never seen that…As a party, China [is only concerned with] official procedures, waiting for a legal framework of the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement.”
On why China did not join the pledge to triple renewables and double efficiency: “[Before COP28] we have not seen [it laid out] very clearly which year should be the base year [from which tripling renewables should be calculated]. Should it be 2020? Should it be 2022? This might seem to be technical but, [in] the past two years, global development of renewables, especially in China, [have been significantly boosted, and so]…the difference in targets might be very significant.”
On China’s commitment to decarbonisation: “If you look back at history, there have been very few cases that show China [first making] and then [giving up] a commitment. This is not the political culture in China.”
The future of coal
On fossil fuel phaseout: “I would like to see…[China] very quickly enlarging its renewable capacity. Only if [there is] adequate capacity and generation of renewables can this lead to a real phasing out or phasing down of fossil fuels.”
On others’ views of required coal capacity: “Even though China will reach its [2060] carbon neutrality target, it will continue to have to maintain 600 gigawatts of coal-fired power plant capacity. These are the sort of estimations [we’re working with now].” (Prof Zou disagrees with this, believing that renewables growth, better grid connectivity and increased energy storage capacity should reduce the need for such a large amount of coal capacity.)
On the need for CCUS: “In some sectors, like, for example, iron and steel, cement, chemicals and petrochemicals, we do need carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), because it is very difficult to phase out coal or carbon dioxide [completely].”
On CCUS in the power sector: “I have mixed feelings about CCUS for the power sector. I have an ideal vision that we can reach real zero emissions in these sectors through a more developed grid system, with more connectivity across provinces or regions and the use of AI technology.”
Transitioning to renewable energy
On ensuring more renewables uptake: “We have raised the share of renewable power generation from seven, eight, nine per cent to today’s 16%. This is progress, but it is not quick enough or large enough. We want to push the grid companies…to do more and do it faster.”
On the power of distributed solar: “We should also consider…creat[ing] another, totally new power system. This would be a sort of nexus of a centralised and decentralised grid system…If [the central grid] is having difficulties [increasing renewable generation], and if these are very challenging to overcome, then let’s [shift] to a lot of microgrids.”
On distributed solar growth: “Today, the share of distributed [renewables] is still lower than centralised renewables. But the incremental [distributed] renewables growth has become higher than growth of centralised renewables in the past year or two, and I would assume this will remain a trend in the future.”
Measuring energy use
On China’s electricity consumption: “For low-income level groups, although their income has not grown very much, their consumption preferences and mindsets – especially for younger generations of consumers – mean they are more willing to use electricity [than previous generations].”
On comparisons of China to the EU and US: “There is a structural [difference] compared to the [energy mix] in Europe and the US. The majority of energy use [in China] has been for industrial production, rather than for residential [use]…In China, the average power consumption per capita is around 6,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh), compared to 8,000kWh in Europe and over 12,000kWh in the US.”
On energy efficiency: “Physically, I think China has become better and better [in terms of] its efficiency, but, economically, this cannot produce as high a value-add as Europe and the US in monetary terms.”
On challenges calculating carbon intensity: “The raising of interest rates by the US Federal Reserve makes US dollars more expensive, increasing foreign exchange rates which then enlarges the monetary GDP gap making Chinese GDP [in dollar terms] fall, and carbon intensity rise.”
Watch, read, listen
FOSSIL FUEL HIGHS: Clyde Russell, Asia commodities and energy columnist at Reuters, wrote that, although China’s crude oil and coal imports “all soared to record highs in 2023”, crude oil is likely being added to inventories rather than being used, while the spike in coal is a temporary response to hydropower shortages.
ROSEWOOD DEFORESTATION: The China-Global South Project spoke to Ma Haibing, Asia policy specialist at the Environmental Investigation Agency, about illegal harvesting of rosewood by Chinese traders in the “rapidly shrinking forests” of west Africa.
GREEN SHOOTS: Yicai interviewed Zhang Xiaoqiang, executive vice-president of the China Center for International Economic Exchanges (CCIEE), on prospects for “green” development in China in 2024, the growth of renewables, cross-provincial power transmission and other topics.
ANTARCTIC RESEARCH: CCTV broadcasted a short news report on the progress of the 40th Chinese Antarctic research expedition in building China’s newest research station in Antarctica.
New science
Drought-related wildfire accounts for one-third of the forest wildfires in subtropical China
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
A new study found that “drought plays a dominant role” in wildfires in subtropical China, adding that “from 2001 to 2020, excess wildfires caused by drought accounted for approximately 31% of the total number of forest fire points during the fire season (November to May)”. As the drying trend caused by climate change intensifies, wildfires will “show different patterns due to the large differences in the sensitivity of wildfire to drought in subtropical China”, it added.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Human-caused climate change made the August 2022 heatwave in southern China 50% hotter than it would have been without global warming, according to new research. The heatwave, the researchers noted, was “extraordinary and unprecedented”, being the “longest-lasting and most intense [China has seen] since 1961”. The study also found that, although it was focused on southern China, “the main conclusions also apply to the eastern Tibetan plateau”.
Potential for CO2 storage in shale basins in China
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control
Researchers used the latest data to calculate new “potentials of [carbon dioxide (CO2)] storage in major shale gas/oil basins in China”, driven by the fact that China, as the second largest shale gas and oil producing country, possesses “large and significant” shale basins. They found that China could sequester approximately 6,194bn tonnes of CO2 in shale basins, equivalent to 620 years’ of China’s projected carbon emissions.
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 25 January: Clean energy drives growth; ‘Beautiful China’ instructions; Interview with EFC’s Prof Zou Ji appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.
We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.
Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.
A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.
But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.
Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.
So what are these standards, exactly?
The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.
In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:
- What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
- How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
- When should a project simply not go ahead?
- What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
- How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?
If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.
But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.
The biggest problem: process over outcomes
The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.
Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?
But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.
This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.
A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed
Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.
Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.
But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.
For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.
Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting
Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.
You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.
The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.
Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature
The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.
Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.
Strong standards could help turn things around by:
- stopping destruction in critical habitat,
- setting firm limits on environmental harm,
- requiring genuine recovery for nature,
- and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.
If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.
What needs to change?
The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:
- ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
- ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
- ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
- ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort
Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.
Climate Change
Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’
The small project is underway at Central Campus, with room for expansion. Its energy usage could complicate the university’s climate goals.
DURHAM, N.C.—Duke University plans to build a small data center at Central Campus, potentially the first of several similar-size projects, which has raised questions among some faculty about whether the energy- and water-intensive endeavors could derail the institution’s climate commitments.
The UN General Assembly on Wednesday adopted a “historic” resolution calling on countries to comply with their climate obligations, as outlined in a landmark advisory opinion issued last year by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Last July, in the opinion first requested by the Pacific island state of Vanuatu, the world’s top court ruled that harming the climate by increasing fossil fuel production may constitute an “international wrongful act”. This could result in affected countries claiming compensation from those responsible, the court said.
To follow up on the ICJ ruling, a dozen nations led by Vanuatu submitted a proposal to the UN’s main deliberative body to recognise the advisory opinion and identify ways of implementing it.
Several large oil-producing nations mounted a late push to weaken the text by introducing last-minute amendments, but the General Assembly rejected those and adopted the resolution with 141 countries in favour at a plenary session in New York.
The resolution urges countries to implement measures to cut carbon emissions, including by tripling renewable energy capacity, “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, and phasing out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.
It also requests the UN Secretary-General to draft a report “containing ways to advance compliance with all obligations in relation to the court’s findings” by next year’s UN General Assembly in September 2027.
Pacific islands celebrate “historic” resolution
The group of Pacific island nations, which led the diplomatic push for the resolution, as well as Latin American nations and the European Union, celebrated its adoption as a “historic” moment, while some countries noted the persistence of diverging views.
Belize’s UN representative Janine Coye-Felson said in a statement on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) that the General Assembly resolution, as well as the ICJ advisory opinion, are important because “climate change is not governed only” by the Paris Agreement, but that “climate justice requires the application of the full breath of international law”.
“When future generations look back at this moment, they will ask whether we rose to meet the defining crisis of our time with the full force of international law. Today, this General Assembly answers: yes,” she told the plenary.
-
Electrification emerges as COP31 priority
The Turkish COP31 President has called for “a truly global conversation” about shifting the global energy system from fossil fuels to electricity -
Santa Marta summit kick-starts work on key steps for fossil fuel transition
The conference offers some 60 nations help to develop roadmaps to shift their economies away from coal, oil and gas, and make international trade green
The EU said in a statement during the session that, with the adoption of the resolution, countries are moving beyond “simply recognising” the ICJ’s work and instead “actively upholding the legal integrity” of the multilateral system by seeking to implement the court’s recommendations.
Yet the bloc also warned the process that follows must not “seek to establish new mechanisms or engage in any determination of state responsibility”, referring in particular to the upcoming report by the Secretary-General. Earlier drafts of the resolution contained proposals to establish a register of climate-driven loss and damage and a dedicated compensation mechanism, but these were removed during negotiations on the text.
France’s ambassador to the UN, Jérôme Bonnafont, highlighted the resolution’s provision to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and said “science clearly establishes their role in climate change”. The recent increase in oil and gas prices, which have soared because of the war in Iran, “underscores the cost vulnerability of this dependence”, he added.
Push-back by oil-producing nations
Some oil-producing countries – among them the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia – were critical of the new resolution, arguing that it creates “quasi-binding” obligations from an advisory opinion that should be non-binding, and rejected the request for a report from the Secretary-General.
“This is a direct duplication of work that is being done at the [UN climate convention],” said Russia’s delegate. “Creating a parallel process will waste resources, will undermine the fragile consensus at the conference of the parties and will lead to the fragmentation of the climate regime.”
In an effort to weaken the resolution, a group of seven oil-producing Middle Eastern states – including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran – tabled four last-minute amendments proposing to delete certain paragraphs and softening the language on the obligations of states.
Webinar: From Santa Marta to Bonn – where next for the fossil fuel transition?
In response, Pacific island nations said these amendments sought to “reopen provisions that were [the] subject of extensive negotiation”, while the EU added that they were “difficult to reconcile with the spirit of cooperation”. They were all rejected in a series of votes.
The US, for its part, described the resolution as “highly problematic” and denied the obligation of preventing climate harm beyond its borders, as well as the assertion that climate change is an “unprecedented civilizational challenge”. The country urged others to vote against the resolution.
India, which abstained, said the text failed to address the need for climate finance flows from developed to developing countries, which is “a serious omission”. The Indian delegate pointed to the absence of the term “climate finance” in the text, which “deserves more attention in a resolution that deals with the obligations of states”.
“Turning point in accountability”, activists say
WWF’s climate chief and former COP president Manuel Pulgar-Vidal said the General Assembly’s vote was a step forward that “raises the pressure on all states to act in line with their obligations”.
Rebecca Brown, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the UN resolution shows that “multilateralism works” and with it, countries “carry the ICJ’s historic ruling forward as a roadmap for climate action and accountability”.
“By acting together, we can prevent further climate harm, in line with science and the law, by speeding up a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, protecting climate-vulnerable communities, and advancing climate justice,” she added in a statement.
Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change – a group of young people who first made the push for an advisory opinion from the ICJ – said “the world has not only reaffirmed that ruling, but committed to making it a reality”.
“This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate. Communities on the frontlines, like in the Pacific, have been waiting far too long and continue to pay too high a price for the actions of others,” he said. “The journey of this idea from classrooms in the Pacific to The Hague and the United Nations gives us continued hope that when people organise, the world can be moved to act.”
The post UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测