World leaders gathered in Paris this week to pledge to make 2024 the “pivotal year” for improving access to clean cooking.
At an International Energy Agency (IEA) summit attended on Tuesday by heads of state and ministers from 27 countries, a total of $2.2bn was pledged to boost uptake of clean cooking technologies.
The summit focused on improving access to clean cooking in sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly four out of five people still rely on open fires to prepare food.
Ensuring global access to clean cooking by 2030 could save 2.5 million people – mostly women and children – from premature deaths associated with breathing fire smoke, the IEA says. It could also save 1.5bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e), around the same as a year of global shipping and aviation emissions.
But while the case for achieving universal clean cooking is clear, questions remain over how finance should be leveraged and what kind of solutions should be pursued.
The conference featured speeches from a number of fossil-fuel executives, who argued that cookstoves using liquified petroleum gas (LPG) offer the quickest and “cleanest” solution for boosting cooking access.
This drew criticism from African commentators, who noted that fossil-fuel representatives actually outnumbered African women, who made up just 17% of the people at the summit.
The role that carbon offsets should play in helping to distribute clean cookstoves in Africa was also much touted by heads of state and industry representatives.
Academic research has found that the “carbon credits” issued by cookstove projects in the past have been “largely worthless”. But advocates told the conference that new guidelines could enable the development of “high integrity” credits for projects in Africa.
Carbon Brief attended the summit at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris and spoke to experts about what the new global pledge could mean for climate, energy, nature and gender goals.
- How could clean cooking aid climate, nature and gender goals?
- What are the solutions on offer for clean cooking in Africa?
- How will improved access to clean cooking be financed?
How could clean cooking aid climate, nature and gender goals?
Around 2.3 billion people – close to a third of the global population – lack access to clean cooking facilities, relying instead on wood, kerosene or coal as their primary cooking fuel.
The number of people without access to clean cooking is declining in Asia and Latin America. But in sub-Saharan Africa, continued population growth means the number of people without clean cooking access is still increasing.
Household air pollution, mostly from the inhalation of cooking smoke, is linked to around 3.7 million premature deaths each year, the IEA says. In Africa, women and children, who spend the most time at home, account for 60% of early deaths related to smoke inhalation and indoor air pollution.
Ensuring global access to clean cooking by 2030 is a key component of goal seven of the Sustainable Development Goals.
According to IEA projections, meeting this target could save 2.5 million people – mostly women and children – from premature deaths associated with breathing fire smoke.
In sub-Saharan Africa, many women and children are burdened with collecting firewood for hours each day in order to prepare a meal. The IEA projects that universal access to clean cooking could save the average household nearly 1.5 hours a day, which would likely, in turn, increase female participation in schooling and employment.
In addition to this, the IEA estimates that universal access to clean cooking – achieved in the way their scenario suggests – could save a total of 1.5bntCO2e from a combination of reduced combustion emissions and avoided deforestation for firewood.
At the summit in Paris on 14 May, heads of state and high-level private-industry figures repeatedly emphasised the clear benefits of improving clean cooking access in Africa – with many admitting they had neglected the issue for too long.
In his opening remarks to the summit, Akinwumi Adesina, a former Nigerian agricultural minister who is now president of the African Development Bank Group, spoke candidly of his experiences growing up in a low-income neighbourhood without access to clean cooking.
“I don’t wear glasses just because I went to university,” he told the summit, explaining that, as a child, he spent years standing over fire smoke, which likely damaged his vision.
He told the story of a female friend that died in a kerosene accident after fetching the fuel for use in cooking. Her family could not afford to buy a gas stove.
“How can we let these things happen?” he asked the conference.
Many speakers emphasised that, compared to other parts of the energy sector, such as heavy industry, improving access to clean cooking is “solvable”, as the technology needed is already available at a relatively low cost.
The IEA estimates that $4bn will need to be leveraged annually until 2030 in order to achieve universal clean cooking access. By comparison, total clean energy technology investment will need to reach $4tn per year by 2030 to meet net-zero, IEA says.
The clean cooking summit itself raised $2.2bn for clean cooking, the IEA said. IEA executive director Dr Fatih Birol promised that his agency would track where each penny was spent and reveal the results in a year.
Despite the new financial pledges and renewed focus, some lamented the lack of inclusion of African women at the conference.
Writing for African Arguments, the Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate noted that the number of fossil-fuel executives outnumbered African women, who made up just 17% of the people in attendance.
One male session chair even cracked a joke about the lack of women speaking at the summit, telling the audience that the IEA should be pleased that clean cooking will no longer be viewed as “just a women’s issue”.
Later on at the summit, Graça Machel, a former Tanzanian education minister and deputy chair of the Elders, a group of global leaders started by former South African president Nelson Mandela, appealed for African women to be directly involved in high-level decision making on clean cooking. She told the conference:
“We need to build the capacity of women themselves so they aren’t just recipients. African women – we want to be investors, entrepreneurs, managers and customers. Any policy has to have the face of women, taking into account the magnitude [of our presence]. In our countries, we are millions. Clean cooking is about African women.”
What are the solutions on offer for clean cooking in Africa?
More than 238 million people in sub-Saharan Africa live in informal housing, making the distribution of clean cooking technologies challenging.
Traditional “unclean” cooking involves a pot perched on top of a simple fire burning wood or waste products, or a kerosene dispenser.
According to the IEA, the main options for clean cooking include:
- Improved biomass stoves: An enclosed stove that burns solid fuel, but keeps heat from escaping and improves combustion, thereby reducing polluting smoke.
- E-cooking or electric stoves: Primarily hot plates, induction stovetops, rice cookers or electric pressure cookers that are plugged into an electricity source, which can come from renewable power.
- LPG stoves: A fossil-fuel burner that uses a mixture of propane and butane distributed in large pressurised cylinders.
- Biodigesters: A large vessel where organic matter (animal manure, agriculture residues or food waste) is decomposed into biogas. This biogas is then used in a burner-type stove.
- Ethanol: A simple burner that attaches to a small canister containing alcohol fuel made from crops, such as corn or sugar, that has been fermented and distilled.
- Gas stoves: A burner that uses fossil-fuel gas typically delivered to customers via distribution pipelines.
The IEA infographic below demonstrates how each of these methods work.
At the summit, fossil-fuel executives from companies such as TotalEnergies, Shell, Eni, Indian Oil and Equinor were keen to stress the role that LPG cookstoves should play in providing clean cooking access in Africa.
Patrick Pouyanné, chairman of the board and chief executive officer at TotalEnergies – one of the fossil fuel companies behind the controversial East African oil pipeline project – told the summit that his company will invest more than $400m in the development of LPG for cooking by 2030.
Eirik Wærness, senior vice president and chief economist at Equinor – a key funder of the controversial Rosebank oil field in UK waters – boasted that his company already supplies 10% of India’s LPG. He told the conference:
“We should not let the best – which is renewable energy – stand in the way of the good [LPG]. We will do all that we can to provide LPG – and also LNG [liquified natural gas] – as a viable, clean fuel.”
The IEA’s scenario for achieving universal clean cooking access sees a key role of LPG cookstoves. It notes that, in the last decade, 70% of people who gained “clean” cooking access globally did so through LPG.
In its scenario, LPG remains the “primary solution to deliver clean cooking access”, representing nearly half of new household access in 2030.
Below, an IEA graphic breaks down the numbers of households gaining access to different types of clean cooking in 2022 (left) and how its scenario expects households to gain access from 2023-2030.
At the sidelines of the summit, Carbon Brief spoke to Dr Donnee Alexander, chief science officer for the Clean Cooking Alliance, a UN-backed NGO which helped to coordinate the summit.
Asked about whether a focus on LPG cookstoves over renewable-energy methods could risk locking African nations into further fossil-fuel dependency, she responded:
“I think Africa should be able to transition however they so desire. Because they have no energy. For me to say, ‘you need to transition in a certain way’, when a woman is cooking over an open fire and dying prematurely because she’s experiencing smoke inhalation every day of her life, who am I to say that she should not be transitioning to a much cleaner option compared to the baseline?”
But several African commentators reject the idea that fossil fuels are the key solution to Africa’s clean cooking crisis.
In her commentary on the summit, Nakate says:
“Natural gas is not clean…burning LPG or methane at home emits nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and benzene, all [of] which can potentially trigger respiratory complications, including childhood asthma…Instead of trying to make gas affordable, the summit should seek to unlock investments that establish and scale ambitious and people-centred energy programmes. This is the most reasonable way to deliver decentralised energy to communities on the continent.”
Her thoughts are echoed by Mohamed Adow, founder and director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank in Kenya.
In a statement, he said there is “no evidence” that gas is the solution to providing clean cooking access in Africa, adding:
“What we need is a woman-centred approach that puts their needs first, not those of a greedy private sector looking to make profits. Rather than subsidies for private companies, that money would be better used investing in high efficiency, low-cost electric cookers for Africans.”
While most of the speakers at the summit focused on LPG, there was some recognition that renewable energy could be a way forward for providing clean cooking.
Stanlake Samkange, assistant executive director at the World Food Programme, said that his organisation had traditionally focused on supplying cleaner fuel stoves, but that “2024 is a departure”. He added:
“We are not just focusing on fuel efficient stoves but clean cooking…We are looking at electronic stoves and e-cooking. In Madagascar, we are looking to link that to solar panels.”
How will improved access to clean cooking be financed?
The IEA estimates that $4bn will need to be leveraged annually until 2030 in order to achieve universal clean cooking access.
The clean cooking summit raised $2.2bn from public and private sources. This included new pledges from the EU, France, Denmark, the US, the UK and firms, including fossil-fuel companies.
It follows on from a high-level clean cooking event at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, where the African Development Bank pledged to allocate a separate $2bn for clean cooking over the next decade.
At the Paris summit, Birol pledged that the IEA will closely monitor where the finance is spent and reveal the results in a year.
Throughout the conference, heads of state, ministers and company CEOs made it clear that they saw clean cookstove carbon-offset projects as key for leveraging finance and distributing new technologies in Africa.
Offsetting involves developed nations or companies paying for projects that distribute clean cookstoves, allowing them to then claim they have reduced their own emissions by paying to cut carbon in another country. (For a full breakdown, see Carbon Brief’s carbon offsets explainer.)
Stephanie Mbombo, presidential special envoy for the new climate economy for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said that her president saw carbon offsets as the “key driver” for access to clean cooking, telling the summit:
“[With] carbon credits, we will save the world, but we will also save ourselves.”
The CEOs of clean cookstove carbon-offset companies were invited to speak alongside senior political figures and made bold claims about how they could play a pivotal role.
“With carbon credits, it’s solved, it’s done,” said Peter Scott, the CEO of the cookstove company BURN Manufacturing.
This sentiment was echoed in the declaration issued from the summit.
It said that participants “acknowledge the significant role that carbon credits and climate finance have already played in scaling clean cooking efforts, recognising the potential for further expansion of this support”.
But academic research has found that clean cookstove carbon-offset projects are “largely worthless” in emissions reductions terms.
A study in the journal Nature Sustainability found that nine in 10 of the 96m cookstove credits certified by leading carbon registries do not avoid the emissions they claim.
What is more, investigations by journalists, including at Climate Home News, have uncovered serious faults with clean cookstove projects, such as faulty stoves being distributed without communities being given access to repairs or replacements.
Gilles Dufrasne, policy lead at Carbon Market Watch, a watchdog of carbon offsets, told Carbon Brief that cookstove projects have “perhaps” been the least successful at achieving emissions reductions out of all types of carbon-offset projects. He added:
“This is a case of projects that very likely have significant positive impacts for sustainable development, and likely also positive climate impacts, but where the quantification of these impacts is extremely shaky. Most projects issue many more credits than they should, and that’s a problem if countries use it to meet their nationally determined contributions – as this [clean cooking summit declaration] suggests they could.”
Acknowledging the need for more “high integrity” cookstove credits, the conference saw the Clean Cooking Alliance launch new “principles for responsible carbon finance in clean cooking”.
Alexander told Carbon Brief the goal of the principles was to “address the challenges in the carbon market to ensure that we have both higher integrity but also higher demand”.
She said that the new principles could bring about tangible ways of improving the outcomes of cookstove carbon-offsets projects:
“We’re saying let’s measure reduction in fuel use [from distributing clean cookstoves], utilising standard methodologies. Or let’s have digital monitoring and verification so we know exactly when the stove is used. Things like that start to bring more integrity into the system.”
Dufrasne added to Carbon Brief that, with current projects offering little guarantee that promised emissions reductions will be achieved, there is a risk that the sale of more carbon credits to developed nations will lead to these countries reducing their emissions by less than if they had invested in alternative climate measures:
“Getting countries and companies to pledge finance to a fund, which then finances cookstove projects – with or without credits – is likely to be a better way.”
The post Clean cooking: What new global pledge means for climate, nature and gender goals appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Clean cooking: What new global pledge means for climate, nature and gender goals
Irene Vélez Torres is Colombia’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, and Mark Watts is Executive Director of C40 Cities.
The science is unequivocal. The world must transition away from fossil fuels. What remains uncertain is whether our institutions, economies and political systems are prepared to deliver the transformation required at the necessary speed and scale.
For too long, this transition has been framed as a technological substitution challenge. Replace fossil fuels with renewables and the problem is solved. But this view overlooks a deeper reality. Fossil fuels are embedded in economic systems shaped by extraction, inequality, and dependence. Moving beyond them requires structural transformation, not only of energy systems, but of the way economies are organised and governed.
This is both a global and a territorial challenge. And it is precisely at the intersection of national leadership and urban action where the transition becomes real.
Today, the energy system accounts for more than three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions, while fossil fuel expansion continues despite clear scientific warnings. This contradiction reflects entrenched financial and institutional incentives that continue to favour short-term extraction over long-term stability.
Recent global crises have exposed the consequences. Volatility in fossil fuel markets has translated into rising energy costs, fiscal pressure and growing inequality. A system that depends on geopolitical instability cannot guarantee reliable or affordable energy for people. Nor can it sustain resilient economies.
-
Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition
After last year’s COP30 disappointment, governments will seek a renewed push to phase out fossil fuels at the first global summit on the theme in Colombia -
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
As climate diplomacy resumes in Berlin, ministers say the Iran war-driven fuel crisis is exposing the risks of fossil dependence
This is why Colombia has argued consistently in international spaces that the transition away from fossil fuels is not only an environmental necessity, but a matter of justice. It requires moving beyond an extractive model toward economies that protect life, redistribute opportunity and recognise the value of territories and communities.
In Colombia, the challenge is immediate. Fossil fuels represent a significant share of exports and public revenues, and entire regions depend on these industries. Addressing this reality demands deliberate strategies to overcome economic dependence, manage fiscal constraints, and enable productive re-conversion without reproducing new forms of extractivism.
But this transformation will not be delivered by national governments alone. Cities are not just implementers of policy. They are strategic actors in reshaping demand, accelerating innovation, and demonstrating that a different model is already possible.
Cities turn climate goals into real-life improvements
Urban areas account for the majority of global energy use and emissions. Yet they are also where the benefits of the transition are most immediate and visible. From expanding clean public transport to reducing air pollution, from improving energy efficiency in buildings to scaling decentralised renewable systems, cities are turning long-term climate goals into tangible improvements in people’s lives.
Across the C40 network, cities are already reducing emissions while strengthening economic resilience. These experiences show that transitioning away from fossil fuels lowers costs, improves public health and creates jobs. They also demonstrate something equally important: that climate action, when designed around people, can rebuild trust in public institutions.
Solar surge kept fossil electricity flat in 2025 as China and India made ‘historic’ shift
The Mayor of London has delivered the world’s largest clean air zone. Melbourne has enabled new wind farms that now supply 100% of municipal operations. In Curitiba, solar investments are cutting public energy bills by 30% while creating inclusive jobs.
Johannesburg’s US$140-million green bond, oversubscribed by 150%, has mobilised strong investment into clean energy and efficiency projects. And in Colombia, Bogotá established a low-emission zone (ZUMA) in a vulnerable neighborhood, improving air quality and public health for nearly 40,000 people.
These actions are part of a shared global effort to halve fossil fuel use in C40 cities by 2030, a goal that is not only achievable but already in motion. Crucially, it also contributes to the global target of tripling renewable energy capacity by the end of the decade, set by nearly 195 countries at COP28.
This is what makes cities indispensable to a just transition. They operate closest to citizens, where energy systems intersect with daily life. They are uniquely positioned to ensure that the transition is not only fast, but fair.
Structural barriers to national and urban action
At the same time, cities cannot act in isolation. Their ability to lead depends on national frameworks that align policy, regulation and investment, as well as on an international system that enables rather than constrains transformation.
And this is where the global dimension becomes critical. Many countries in the Global South face structural barriers, including high borrowing costs, debt burdens and legal frameworks that limit policy space. Reforming the international financial architecture, expanding access to affordable finance, and addressing constraints are essential to unlocking both national and urban climate action.
Recognising this, Colombia and the Netherlands are convening the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta. This is not a space for abstract commitments. It is a platform for implementation, designed to bring together those ready to move from ambition to action.
To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”
Crucially, the conference places cities and subnational governments at the heart of this effort. Alongside national governments, civil society, workers, Indigenous peoples and the private sector, cities will help identify concrete enabling pathways to advance a just, orderly and equitable transition.
These pathways are not theoretical. They focus on three interconnected priorities: transforming energy supply and demand, overcoming economic dependence, and strengthening international cooperation. What cities bring to this agenda is the capacity to operationalise these priorities, translating them into policies that reshape infrastructure, mobility, housing and local economies.
Energy transition means redefining development
The objective is clear. To build a coalition of countries and cities willing to move forward, not by negotiating new principles, but by implementing them. A coalition that reflects a shared understanding that the transition must be grounded in equity, democratic participation and real delivery.
What is at stake goes beyond energy. It is about redefining development in a way that is compatible with climate stability and social justice.
The costs of delay are already evident. Continued investment in fossil fuel expansion deepens climate risk, economic vulnerability and inequality. By contrast, accelerating the transition opens pathways for more resilient, inclusive and sustainable economies.
Cities are already showing what this future looks like. National governments can scale it. International cooperation can enable it.
From Santa Marta, the message is clear. The end of the fossil fuel era is not only necessary. It is already underway. The task now is to ensure that it is just, that it is coordinated, and that it is irreversible.
The post Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action appeared first on Climate Home News.
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Although the department’s overall budget will increase in 2027, the amounts dedicated to environmental management, research and renewable energy infrastructure face significant hits.
Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee have challenged the Department of Energy’s proposal that would divert funds from solar and wind while keeping fossil fuel plants online past their retirement dates.
Cuts to Renewable Energy Research in Energy Department’s Budget Irk Senate Democrats
Climate Change
Cropped 22 April 2026: Global food ‘catastrophe’ | BECCS emissions | UK solar farm controversy
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
Food ‘catastrophe’
FAO WARNING: On Monday, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that a prolonged closure of the strait of Hormuz could lead to a “global food catastrophe”, reported Al Jazeera. With 20-45% of the world’s key agrifood inputs dependent on the sea passage, the outlet explained, poorer countries would be the “most exposed”, with delays in accessing fertilisers “quickly translating into lower output”. A Financial Times essay detailed how the Gulf region has come to “sit at the centre of modern agriculture” over the past two decades”.
-
Sign up to Carbon Brief’s free “Cropped” email newsletter. A fortnightly digest of food, land and nature news and views. Sent to your inbox every other Wednesday.
‘PERFECT STORM’: The FAO also warned countries to “not limit shipments” of energy and fertilisers, warning that such restrictions have led to food price spikes in the past, wrote Bloomberg. The UN body asked countries to “closely ponder” biofuel mandates, given the choice between high oil prices and curtailing global food supplies. In a statement, FAO chief economist Dr Maximo Torero warned of a “perfect storm”, if the world is also affected by a strong El Niño.
COUNTRIES RESPOND: Sri Lanka, already “burdened with old fertiliser debts”, has promised to provide fertiliser subsidies to farmers, reported Sri Lanka’s Sunday Times. In India, “fear of a fertiliser shortage is particularly heightened”, wrote Scroll.in. In Australia – where 60% of urea comes from the Persian Gulf – the war could herald a fertiliser “manufacturing comeback”, reported ABC News. Reuters looked at how China is “clamping down on fertiliser exports to protect its domestic market”.
Study: Wood vs gas burning
BASHING BECCS: A new study found that “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is unlikely to generate negative emissions within 150 years”. The paper added that BECCS is likely to “produce higher emissions for decades than using natural gas without carbon capture” and to “increase electricity costs by ~3.5-fold”. The Guardian covered the research, stating that its findings “cast doubt” on government plans to offer subsidies for carbon capture attached to wood-burning power, such as the UK’s Drax power station.
INTERPRET WITH CAUTION: Prof Joana Portugal Pereira, an assistant professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, told Carbon Brief that the study is “clearly framed and the modelling approach is transparent”. However, she said the results are “very sensitive to the assumptions made” and advised “caution” in drawing conclusions from the analysis. For example, she noted that the study “focuses on BECCS supplied from existing forests”, which is likely to “emphasise higher emissions outcomes”.
MISLEADING HEADLINE: Dr Isabela Butnar, a lecturer in environmental policy at University College London, praised parts of the methodology and agreed that “forest-based BECCS for electricity is a no-go”. However, she argued that the title of the paper – “Decades of increased emissions from forest-fuelled BECCS” – might be “a bit misleading”. The title should specify that the analysis only applies to BECCS for electricity production, she said.
News and views
- TOO HOT TO FARM: A major new joint report by the FAO and the World Meteorological Organization estimated that extreme heat “currently threatens” the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people, with agricultural workers on the “frontlines…absorbing the greatest impacts”. Farmers in much of south Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and central and South America could find it “simply too hot to work” for up to 250 days a year, the report cautioned.
- PALM READING: Demand for palm oil has “surged as the war in Iran drives countries to build up stockpiles” and “boost” biofuel programmes in response to higher crude oil prices, reported Nikkei Asia. While Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil exports have risen to their “highest level in months”, longer-term supply could be “threatened” by rising fertiliser prices and “high temperatures caused by climate change”, added the outlet.
- RED LIST: Emperor penguins and the Antarctic fur seal “have joined the list of wildlife endangered by global warming”, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List, reported the New York Times. Conversely, “iconic” blue-and-yellow macaws have returned to Rio de Janeiro after a 200-year absence, following an ambitious “refaunation” programme, wrote the Guardian.
- CATTLE CLASS: A new Unearthed investigation found that a major US biofuels producer supplied the UK with “sustainable aviation fuel” derived from “beef fat linked to illegal Amazon deforestation”. Darling Ingredients – the producer’s parent company – denied sourcing tallow from slaughterhouses sourcing cattle from illegal farms in the Amazon. It told the outlet it was “in the process” of requiring suppliers to prove their products were “deforestation-free”.
- FUND OPEN: On 10 April, Ecuador issued its “first call” for grants to protect 1.8m hectares of the Ecuadorian Amazon using the $460m Amazon Biocorridor Fund, reported EFE Verde. The trust fund is linked to what is considered the “largest debt-for-land nature swap”, added the outlet. [For more on debt-for-nature swaps, see Carbon Brief’s 2024 explainer.]
- SUPER EL NIÑO: Scientists expect a strong El Niño event to develop by early autumn, driving up global temperatures, according to Carbon Brief’s latest state of the climate update. The analysis said that if a super El Niño develops this year, it is likely that 2027 will top the charts as the hottest year on record. It added that “the latest climate models give a central estimate of 2.2C warming by September – a scenario which would put the world firmly in ‘super’ El Niño territory”.
Spotlight
Oxford solar farm under fire
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks what the UK’s Botley West solar farm development would mean for farmland and biodiversity in the area.
Planning permission for one of Europe’s largest solar farms has been delayed, after the UK government asked for more time to consider the proposal from the developer.
Oxfordshire’s Botley West solar farm has been under consultation since 2022.
If approved, the site – located 80km north-west of London – will deliver 840m watts (MW) to the UK power grid.
However, the development faces vehement opposition – most notably from the Stop Botley West campaign group, which has said the “vast” solar farm will have “unprecedented” visual impact, drive the loss of “arable farmland” and will “disregard Oxford’s green belt”.
Politicians frequently use solar farms to score points with their supporters, with some MPs describing the developments as hazards for rural communities and food supply.
Farmland loss
Most of the land earmarked for the solar farm belongs to the Blenheim estate – a 12,000-acre expanse surrounding the UNESCO world heritage site of Blenheim Palace.
Dr Jonathan Scurlock – the former chief climate adviser at the National Farmers’ Union, which represents farmers in England and Wales – told Carbon Brief that the estate rents out much of its land to tenant farmers. However, he added, it is “not terribly good quality farmland”.
The UK government has a ranking system for agricultural land that is being considered for large-scale development projects, where five indicates “very poor quality” and one indicates “excellent quality”. Developers are generally encouraged to build on lower-quality land, leaving the high-quality land for farming.
According to the Botley West website, 62% of the land surveyed for the proposed solar farm is agricultural grade 3b – defined as “moderate-quality agricultural land”. The remainder is mostly 3a, defined as “good-quality agricultural land”.
Many opponents of Botley West argue that the farm will take away vital farmland. However, Scurlock said:
“Solar is perceived as very challenging to land use and yet the evidence nationally really doesn’t support that…Solar farms do not really represent lots of agricultural land capacity”.
(A 2025 Carbon Brief factcheck found that golf courses currently take up six times as much land in the UK as solar farms.)
The developers plan for the solar panels to remain on-site for about 40 years, after which the fields will be returned to use for agriculture.
Biodiversity gain
The proposed solar farm has also promised to improve local biodiversity.
New development projects in the UK must deliver a “biodiversity net gain” (BNG) under a 2024 regulation.
Developers must arrange for the “biodiversity value” of the land to be assessed, considering factors including the size, quality, location and type of each habitat. They must then ensure that the final project increases this value by at least 10%.
If the Botley West project is approved, the developers will aim for 70% BNG.
Prof Alona Armstrong, an energy researcher from Lancaster University, told Carbon Brief that around two-thirds of solar farms in the UK are built on “ex-arable lands”.
She explained that biodiversity outcomes on solar farms depend on where the farms are located and how they are designed and managed. Much agricultural land is “intensively managed”, with the use of chemicals and farming machinery. In contrast, there is less chemical and machinery use on solar farms, potentially benefiting biodiversity.
Armstrong added that solar farms are often lined with hedges, which are “really good for biodiversity”, acting as refuges for a wide range of plant and animal species.
The latest BNG statement for Botley West filed with the government featured a “habitat and hedgerows creation and enhancement plan”.
The plan included creating 26.5km of new species-rich hedgerow, enhancing 25km of existing hedgerows and developing a range of grassland types within the solar arrays to be managed for conservation.
Watch, read, listen
EARTH ANGELS: From protecting Nigeria’s rare bats to pushing higher climate targets in South Korea, Mongabay profiled the six women who won this year’s Goldman Prize.
CHERRY (BLOSSOM) PICKING: The Guardian reported on the hunt to find a researcher to continue Japan’s 1,200-year record of cherry-blossom blooming dates.
‘SOYA REPUBLICS’: A Phenomenal World essay argued that global grain traders in South America’s soya supply chains “sowed the seeds of anti-democratic politics”.
ZACH IS BACK: Actor-comedian Zach Galifianakis debuted a new Netflix series, called “This is a gardening show”, meant to be an “oddball celebration of the food we eat”.
New science
- Preventing the loss of intact biomes, ecosystems and species is the “most critical strategy” to achieve the “nature positive” future outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework | Frontiers in Science
- Climate change will lead to “increased pest damage” in North American forests, as “temperature-boosted pest performance” and “climate-induced stress”, such as drought, make trees more susceptible to pests | Nature Ecology and Evolution
- There are 160m “small wetlands” in “non-forested” parts of the world, which together contribute to 24% of total wetland methane emissions | Nature Climate Change
In the diary
- 22-24 April: Eighth meeting of the board for the loss and damage fund | Livingstone, Zambia
- 24 April: Launch of the 2026 global report on food crises | London
- 24-29 April: First conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels | Santa Marta, Colombia
- 5-7 May: Workshop on invasive alien species for Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America and the Caribbean | Panama City
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyerand Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org
The post Cropped 22 April 2026: Global food ‘catastrophe’ | BECCS emissions | UK solar farm controversy appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Cropped 22 April 2026: Global food ‘catastrophe’ | BECCS emissions | UK solar farm controversy
-
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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits