China’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are investing in low-carbon sources and helping push the country’s energy transition towards a “critical turning point” where coal power starts to decline, a new report finds.
The report, by thinktank Ember, finds that, in the decade to 2020, central government-controlled power companies (central SOEs) had increased their wind and solar capacity nearly five-fold, surpassing 200 gigawatts (GW).
By 2022 – the most recent data available in the report – central SOEs accounted for about 40% of China’s installed solar capacity and 70% of its wind capacity.
Together with local government-controlled energy firms (local SOEs), these companies have made a “significant contribution” to shrinking coal’s share of China’s electricity mix, which has dropped from more than 70% in 2000 to less than 60% in 2023.
Moreover, coal is contributing less to meeting China’s rising electricity demand, the report says. From 1991-2000, 85% of the incremental electricity demand was met by coal, while in 2011-2020 this figure dropped to only 47%.
The report adds that, if current trends continue, coal power in China “will being to decline in absolute terms”, a turning point that could trigger a reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the country’s electricity sector – and its emissions overall.
While SOEs’ diversification strategies have reduced their reliance on coal, however, the report says that these entities remain closely bound up in the “coal-electricity ecosystem”.
As such, the turning point away from coal power could trigger “potential tensions and conflicts” – particularly in coal-reliant regions of the country – that will need to be addressed in order for China’s energy transition to continue.
The transition journey of SOEs
SOEs are organisations set up to carry out commercial activities on behalf of the government.
They play a “crucial role” in China’s economy, particularly in key sectors, such as energy. According to the World Bank, SOEs accounted for 23-28% of China’s GDP in 2017.The leading nine power-sector SOEs are dubbed as “five bigs and four smalls” (五大四小). Collectively, these firms control more than half of China’s electricity generation capacity, as shown in the figure below.
Power-sector SOEs are particularly dominant in terms of the “coal power market (煤电市场)”, Ember notes, with private capital only accounting for a 5% share.
This gives power-sector SOEs a key role in China’s energy transition.
In addition, as a hybrid of corporate organisation and government ministry, SOEs’ development plans closely follow the central government’s overall blueprint.
Their governing body, the state-owned assets supervision and administration commission (SASAC), issued a “guiding opinion” mandate for SOE’s energy transition in 2021, after president Xi Jinping declared the “dual carbon” goal in 2020.
(The “dual carbon” goal is to peak emissions before 2030 and become “carbon neutral” before 2060. Read Carbon Brief’s China country profile for more detail.)
The mandate says that in order to “lay a solid foundation for achieving carbon peak” by 2030, SOEs should “incorporate over 50% of renewable energy in their generation capacity mix by 2025”.
Another recent report, by thinktank Climate Energy Finance (CEF), finds that the “five big” SOEs have poured tens of billions of yuan (billions of dollars) into the buildout of renewable energy, since this document was issued.
With capital expenditure being aligned with energy diversification goals, CEF says all “five bigs” already met the SASAC target in 2023.
Ember’s study on central SOEs finds their wind and solar capacity increased nearly five-folds since 2011, surpassing 200GW in 2020, roughly equivalent to the total installed capacity of Germany.
In 2022, central SOEs accounted for about 40% of China’s solar capacity and 70% of the wind capacity, adds Ember, leading China to approach “a critical turning point in its transition towards a clean electricity future”.
The Ember report says if current trends in energy transition continue, coal power will “begin to decline in absolute terms” – a similar conclusion to recent Carbon Brief analysis.
Pushing down coal’s share
Coal’s share of China’s electricity generation is declining. As shown in the figure below, coal’s share (black) dropped from nearly 80% in 2000 to about 60% in 2023.
(It fell further still, to a record-low 53% in May 2024, according to Carbon Brief analysis.)
Meanwhile, the combined share of wind (dark green) and solar (light green) grew from about 4% in 2015 to almost 16% in 2023, says Ember.
In addition, the role of coal in meeting the growing electricity demand is diminishing, as shown in the figure below.
Ember finds about 85% of the incremental electricity demand from 1991-2000 was met by coal (black), falling to 76% in the decade to 2010 and only 47% in the decade to 2020.
The contribution of renewable energy (green), including wind, solar, hydro, bioenergy and other sources, steadily increased over the same time period.
In 2023, China’s demand for electricity grew 6.7% compared to the previous year – higher than the average annual demand growth of about 6% between 2013 and 2022.
Ember says that, although hydropower decreased by about 59 terawatt hours (TWh) in 2023, wind and solar met 46% of the increased demand, followed by bioenergy and nuclear.
“If hydro had remained at 2022 levels, non-fossil fuel generation would have met more than half of the demand increase in 2023, further pushing coal power out of the generation mix,” adds the report.
(Carbon Brief’s previous analysis shows the decline of hydropower was due to a series of droughts in 2022/23.)
Muyi Yang, author of the Ember report, tells Carbon Brief that the surge in low-carbon energy means an “absolute decline” in coal power is “very likely to soon begin”.
Yang also thinks “the recent announcement of the ‘coal power low-carbon retrofitting action plan’ signifies that China has started to prepare for the new era of coal generation”.
The action plan, released by China’s top planner National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), is allocated to a number of SOEs, including the “five bigs”.
However, the Shuang Tan newsletter says the action plan is designed “to test the selected technologies at a few carefully chosen [SOE] coal power units”. Moreover, since the action plan did not set a “performance target”, it is “unlikely to drive industry-wide transformation”, adds the newsletter.
‘Crossing the river by touching the stones’
Despite the progress to date in diversifying China’s electricity supply – and the business models of the country’s power sector SOEs – major challenges lie ahead, Ember says.
A number of central SOEs also have major interests in other parts of the coal ecosystem.
Central SOE China Shenhua, for example, spent 8bn yuan (about $1bn) on coal mining development and exploration, and only 824m yuan (about $113m) in hydropower in the first half of 2023, according to a report by CEF.
Nevertheless, Shenhua parent company CHN Energy’s overall portfolio still complies with SASAC’s general energy diversification goal, CEF says. This is largely due to another subsidiary – Longyuan Power – being one of the largest wind power companies in China.
The Ember report explains:
“This [coal-electricity] ecosystem is characterised by extensive cross-industry and cross-ownership linkages encompassing coal production and supply, logistics, the coal chemical industry, power generation and the manufacturing of related equipment and facilities. Consequently, an absolute decline in coal generation will inevitably impact other interconnected and interdependent segments of this system, with far-reaching ramifications, particularly within the broader socio-economic assemblages that have evolved around it.”
“Reduced coal generation presents substantial challenges”, says Yang, “economic restructuring, including switching to ‘green industry’, will require comprehensive support”.
The challenges are more significant in major coal-producing provinces, such as Shanxi. In 2022, coal and its related industry contributed 80% of tax revenues and provided 55% local jobs for the province, according to Chinese financial media outlet Caixin.
Ember says that this illustrates why diversification of power-sector SOEs is, on its own, insufficient. It explains:
“Diversification strategy by large generation SOEs is useful, as it weakens the incumbent utilities’ commitment to the existing coal-dominated power system, making deeper transition…possible. However, its effectiveness begins to wane when considering its inability to adequately address the tensions and conflicts that may arise from the absolute decline in coal power and the wider impacts associated with it.”
The report continues by suggesting that coal-dependent regions will also need to develop tailored diversification strategies to address the “unique challenges” they face. It says:
“By diversifying the economic base of these areas, a smoother transition can be facilitated, mitigating the adverse effects on local communities and workers who have long relied on the coal-electricity sectors.”
Yet challenges remain, Ember says, because clean-energy industries may not bring benefits to the same regions that have long relied on coal.
Yang says “the key issue here is not about the magnitude of the benefits [of renewable energy], but their distribution”. He adds:
“Many modelling studies have confirmed that the clean energy transition is beneficial and can create growth and jobs, more than sufficient to offset reduced economic activities from conventional fossil fuel supply chains.
“By leveraging their substantial resources and infrastructure, SOEs can lead the development and integration of renewable energy projects, enhance grid stability, and ensure a reliable energy supply.”
Finally, the report suggests that China takes the path of “gradualism and experimentation” to navigate the challenges inherent in the transition away from coal. It says:
“Often likened to ‘crossing the river by touching the stones’, these approaches are widely recognised as pivotal to China’s economic success. They allow for careful testing and adjustment of strategies and policies, facilitating the adaptation of broader policy directives into pragmatic, localised actions tailored to specific circumstances. Additionally, they help promote consensus-building among a diverse range of stakeholders by incorporating iterative improvements based on practical experience and feedback.”
The post ‘Critical turning point’ for coal poses risks for China’s state power firms, says report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
‘Critical turning point’ for coal poses risks for China’s state power firms, says report
Britain’s new prime minister announced in his first week that he will cut the cost of public transport and electricity, making lower-emission technologies like bus travel, electric vehicles and heat pumps more affordable for voters. But some of the funding for those policies will come from the budget for international climate finance, the government has said, raising concerns about fairness.
Former Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham took over from Keir Starmer as Labour Party leader and prime minister on Monday, appointing climate advocates Ed Miliband as foreign and development minister and Miatta Fahnbulleh as climate and energy minister.
On Tuesday, Burnham said his government would cut the value added tax (VAT) households and some small businesses pay on their electricity bills from 5% to zero from October 1, saving households £45 ($60) a year.
On Wednesday, he said the maximum fare bus companies in England can charge for a single journey will be reduced from £3 ($4) to £2 ($2.67) from January 1, 2027. The government said the subsidies to achieve this would be mostly funded by switching money set aside for overseas climate finance projects from grants to loans. It did not give further information in its announcement, while the UK’s transport minister told Sky News the plan is still being worked out.
-
Tropical forest protection fund at risk after UK stalls on pledge
The Brazil-led TFFF was launched at COP30 as an innovative financial model to keep rainforests standing, but is still short on startup cash -
UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security
After promising £1.6 billion to the UN’s flagship climate fund in 2023, the UK government has now said it will only hand over half as much -
EU, UK lead push for electrification as “powerful weapon” against fossil fuels
A group of dozens of countries seeks to build momentum for a COP31 pledge to electrify 35% of global energy use by 2035 as an alternative to fossil fuels
The floated changes to the climate finance budget were immediately criticised by groups working on climate justice for developing countries, including Bond, the UK network for NGOs, which described the decision as “disappointing”.
“Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer and pitches marginalised communities in the UK against marginalised communities in lower-income and climate-vulnerable countries,” BOND CEO Romilly Greenhill said in a statement. “Climate finance must not worsen the debt burden of countries that are already suffering the worst – and most costly – impacts of a climate crisis they did not cause.”
Hunt for money
Burnham promoted both policies as measures to combat the rising cost of living and “give people breathing space”, with climate campaigners and industry groups noting they are also likely to reduce the UK’s climate-heating emissions by encouraging bus travel and the use of electric vehicles and heating.
But thorny questions remain over how the policies will be paid for. The government said Tuesday’s VAT cut for electricity would be funded by scrapping the previous government’s digital ID programme, but Darren Jones, a former minister involved with that policy, said it had been “unfunded” – a statement that dominated media coverage.
A day later, the government said the new bus fare cap would cost £454 million ($606m). Transport minister Heidi Alexander told Sky News that £54 million would be taken from an under-spend in the budget of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and £400 million would come from changing unspecified international climate finance from grants to loans. The details “still need to be worked through”, she said, adding that the government “had wanted to make an announcement today”.
Mohamed Adow, director of Nairobi-based think-tank Power Shift Africa, said “climate finance was never meant to be a pot of money that governments raid when they need to pay for domestic spending”.
DESNZ had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. “We’re not wanting to fleece anyone here, and we actually want to maximise the development potential of this money that is available,” minister Alexander said in her TV interview.
Aside from the controversy over their funding, the policies themselves were widely welcomed by climate campaigners. Jess Ralston, energy lead at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said the tax cut on electricity bills “could help households to switch to electric heat pumps, protecting UK homes from becoming ever more exposed to the whims of Putin and Trump when turning on their gas boiler”.
The last few months have seen global momentum build behind electrification, spurred by the US-Iran war disrupting oil and gas supplies and driving up prices. The Turkish and Australian COP31 presidencies have announced a global target to boost electrification, backed by the European Union, Canada, Philippines, UK and others.
Campaigners call for lower power prices
While reaction to the VAT cut was supportive, some questioned whether £45 a year of savings per household is enough and called for more measures to cut electricity bills.
Friends of the Earth’s energy lead Imogen Dow said those on the lowest incomes should be given cheaper electricity through a “social tariff” and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think-tank – which is close to the Labour Party – said levies on energy bills should be shifted to general taxation.
Matthew Paterson, a politics professor at Manchester University, told Climate Home News that the most effective way to reduce electricity bills is to take on the UK’s private electricity companies, while consumer-oriented measures like the VAT cut are “tinkering around the edges”.
Jarrod Birch, head of policy and public affairs for the EV charging industry association Charge UK, said that while the policy would make home-charging cheaper, people who charge their vehicles at public points will still have to pay 20% VAT. The UK’s tax authority is fighting a court ruling that ordered it to reduce the tax motorists pay on public chargers to the current household rate of 5%.
Further measures will be the responsibility of Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh, who is relatively new to politics after a career at left-wing, pro-climate think tanks the IPPR and the New Economics Foundation.
Michael Jacobs, political economy professor at Sheffield University and former adviser to UK Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, said Fahnbulleh would be a “climate advocate” who would continue the “progressive climate agenda” of her predecessor Ed Miliband.
“She’s a very creative policy wonk so I expect there to be lots of policy innovation under her,” he said, “I think she will be looking at new ways to encourage take-up of heat pumps and domestic batteries.”
Aid budget in Miliband’s hands
Despite reports he could be made finance minister, Miliband has been appointed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Miliband has attended many climate COP meetings over several decades, most recently representing the UK at COP29 and COP30, and has been targeted by the right-wing media for his support for climate action and opposition to new oil and gas drilling in the UK’s part of the North Sea.
In his new role, Miliband will be responsible for the UK’s overseas aid budget including its international climate finance, which the Starmer government had slashed to fund increases in defence spending.
UK cuts support for climate action abroad to fund military instead
Jacobs said he expected Miliband to prioritise climate and development in the UK’s foreign policy and to push Burnham and new finance minister John Healey to reverse Starmer’s aid cuts.
But there are fears Healey could try to cut the aid budget further to fund the military. Healey was a surprise pick for Chancellor of the Exchequer and grabbed headlines when he resigned as Starmer’s defence minister in June over what he saw as insufficient defence spending.
The post Will new UK PM’s green measures at home cause climate finance pain overseas? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will new UK PM’s green measures at home cause climate finance pain overseas?
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, 22 July 2026 – Greenpeace Netherlands has launched legal proceedings against a multi-billion-dollar global expansion plan by the biggest meat producer in Australia, JBS, in an escalation of climate litigation against the livestock industry.
Greenpeace petitioned a Dutch court to compel the meat giant to disclose information in order to challenge its business policies in court, including a US$6 billion global expansion, for which almost half is earmarked for Nigeria.
Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said: “JBS’ meat empire expanded hand-in-glove with Amazon destruction, colossal emissions, human rights and corruption scandals, all with barely a semblance of transparency. This is the business model it wants to export to sub-Saharan Africa. JBS promises food security, but its expansion in Nigeria risks causing irreversible environmental damage and the displacement of smallholder farmers to line the pockets of wealthy global elites.
“Nigerians know well from the legacy of companies like Shell the destructive impact wrought by unchecked corporate power. As Greenpeace Africa has argued before the African Court of Human Rights, states with jurisdiction over multinationals must hold those corporate actors accountable – wherever they operate in the world. We welcome this bold legal action: the Netherlands and other European states must not be safe havens for corporations like JBS seeking to evade their responsibilities.”
In light of JBS’ longstanding failure to publish accurate and reliable information on its climate, nature and human rights impacts or its expansion plans, Greenpeace Netherlands views accessing this data as a necessary precursor to formal litigation in order to support its case. The case has the potential to be the first climate litigation of this scale against the livestock industry. This could set a major precedent for future legal challenges against the industrial agriculture sector, a major source of global emissions, particularly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for 0.5°C of warming since the Industrial Revolution.[1]
JBS, via its subsidiary JBS Foods Australia, is the largest meat and food processing company in Australia. With a weekly processing capacity of over 50,000 cattle, it accounts for almost a quarter of all beef processing in the country, as well as a significant presence in the lamb, pork and farmed fish markets. [2] In 2022, ABC’s Four Corners accused the company of ‘repeatedly failing to protect its workers from horrific injuries.’ [3]
Marieke Vellekoop, Executive Director at Greenpeace Netherlands, said “In a month where JBS has thrown its flagship environmental commitments onto the scrap heap, JBS’ disdain for basic transparency only adds to the impression that this meat giant has something to hide and is desperate to prevent its expansion plans from going public. We were hoping we wouldn’t have to trouble a judge with this matter, but JBS has left us no choice but to seek our right to information through the Dutch courts.
“JBS appears to believe that despite moving to the Netherlands, our rules do not apply to it. This legal action aims to prove it wrong – and lay the ground for a first major climate and nature lawsuit against the dangerous expansion of the global meat industry.“
At the centre of the dispute is JBS’ planned US$ 2.5 billion investment in industrial livestock production in Nigeria.[2] Civil society groups in Nigeria have raised urgent warnings that the aggressive expansion will threaten local food security, drive regional instability, and accelerate ecological degradation. There is no available evidence that JBS has conducted any impact assessments or community consultations in Nigeria, and local efforts to gather more information via Freedom of Information requests have reportedly been ignored.[3]
The escalation to the courts follows the refusal of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, to comply with a formal disclosure demand delivered by Greenpeace Netherlands in April. The environmental group is utilising new Dutch legislation, which grants parties with a legitimate interest the right to demand access to specific corporate data necessary to build litigation against Dutch companies.[4]
Greenpeace Netherlands’ lawyers allege that JBS’ historic business practices and future expansion plans are inconsistent with the company’s climate and biodiversity obligations and represent a breach of its Dutch duty of care, which requires companies to act in line with international human rights law.[5]
If the court rules in favor of Greenpeace Netherlands, it is entitled to seek the required information in the form of documents and from senior JBS figures under oath, raising the prospect of the Batista brothers being forced to testify in Dutch court. JBS reincorporated as a Dutch entity (JBS N.V.) last year to facilitate a dual listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
In April, JBS was forced to temporarily suspend its first annual general meeting since moving its headquarters to Amsterdam after it was disrupted by dozens of Greenpeace Netherlands activists.
Last week, JBS scrapped two flagship commitments to reach Net Zero emissions by 2040 and eradicate deforestation from its supply chain. It also removed any explicit reference to Indigenous lands from all of its current policies. Greenpeace Netherlands is concerned this indicates JBS is seeking to expand unconstrained by the climate, nature and human rights impacts of its business.
–ENDS–
Notes:
[1] The livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for 31% of global methane emissions (more than oil and gas operations). In comparison to CO2, methane is shorter lived (around 12 years) but has a much stronger ability to trap heat in the atmosphere over its lifetime: it has approximately 80 times more climate impact than CO2 when measured over 20 years. This means that changes in methane emissions have a more rapid effect on the climate than changes in CO2. See Greenpeace Netherlands letter to JBS dated 30 April 2026.
[2] JBS Foods Australia, Our Business
[3] ABC, Australia’s biggest meat company JBS is repeatedly failing to protect its workers from horrific injuries, 25 April 2022
[4] JBS announcement
[5] Experts raise concerns over the risks of industrial animal farming (The Sun Nigeria)
[6] Simplification and modernisation of Dutch evidence law (Fieldfisher)
[7] Greenpeace Netherlands petition to Dutch court available here. Media briefing with further details on JBS expansion plans, including in Nigeria, available here.
Greenpeace launches legal challenge against Australia’s biggest meat company
Climate Change
“Next year is too late for regulations”: Beetaloo Energy’s 2GW gas-powered AI data centre a “disaster proposal” destined to cause climate chaos
SYDNEY, Wednesday 22 July 2026 — Beetaloo Energy has secured land from the NT Government for a massive $40 billion “hyperscale” AI data centre near Darwin, which would be powered by 2 gigawatts (GW) of gas power fracked directly from the Beetaloo basin, prompting calls from Greenpeace for urgent federal legislation.
The proposal marks a dangerous escalation in the AI data centre industry’s expansion, which threatens to entrench fossil fuel infrastructure for decades and put immense pressure on the region’s fragile water resources — while continuing to be unregulated.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This disaster proposal for a 2GW gas-powered AI data centre in the NT is a shocking example of the unchecked expansion of hyperscale data centres in Australia. It is also, critically, more evidence for the urgent need for a moratorium on all new data centres until strong, binding regulations are put in place to protect our communities and climate.
“This proposal mirrors the frenzied, unchecked expansion currently wreaking havoc on communities in the US. We are seeing cowboy data centre operators treat Australia like a playground, steam-rolling ahead with projects that would lock down precious water resources and spike emissions, despite the overwhelming community opposition.
“Every day, more councils, communities and environmental groups are joining Greenpeace’s call for a moratorium on data centres, yet as of today there is still no system of safeguards or rules in place to regulate these companies.
“While Beetaloo Energy and the NT Government prepare to bulldoze ahead with this climate and water disaster, the Prime Minister is asleep at the wheel, promising to legislate a vague set of standards next year.
“Next year is too late, and anything less than mandating data centres cover their own energy demand, and then some, with new renewable energy is not enough.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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 Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测