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
COP16 resumes in Rome
CALI CARRIES ON: The UN biodiversity summit, COP16, resumed in Rome yesterday after the countries failed to reach agreement on several key issues in Cali, Colombia last year. The latest round of talks “will focus on securing financial resources and developing a robust system to track biodiversity commitments”, DownToEarth said. Devex noted that the Rome meeting “won’t have the same pomp and circumstance” as the Colombia talks. On the first day of the resumed talks, the Cali fund for sharing the benefits derived from genetic data – seen as one of the big “wins” from the Colombia talks – was launched.
DEFORESTATION IS UP: Last week, COP16 president (and former environment minister of Colombia) Susana Muhamad announced that deforestation in the country was 35% higher in 2024 than 2023. According to Climate Home News, the increase was “fuelled by an uptick in the Amazon region”, which Muhamad attributed primarily to “the involvement of organised crime more than rural communities”. Despite the uptick, the deforestation rate in 2024 was still the second lowest in the last 23 years, after last year’s record low.
NATURE PLANS LACKING: Meanwhile, a joint investigation by Carbon Brief and the Guardian found that of the 137 countries that had submitted updated biodiversity plans to the UN by 21 February, fewer than half were committing to protecting 30% of their land and sea by 2030. The so-called “30 by 30” target was a key goal of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed at COP15 in Montreal. Responding to Carbon Brief and the Guardian, several countries said that they are still finalising their targets. Indonesia pointed out that the target is meant to be a global one, with no contributions specified for each country. Brian O’Donnell, director of Campaign for Nature, said: “This is troubling and action must be taken to put the world on track.”
Extreme weather driving up food prices
MAPPING DAMAGES: Carbon Brief published a new interactive map showing some of the impacts of extreme weather on global crops during 2023 and 2024. Using news reports in global media and other sources, the analysis identified 100 cases around the world where crops were damaged or destroyed by heat, drought, wildfires or other extreme events. According to the findings, Europe, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa were the regions most impacted by flooding, while Asia, Europe and Latin America were the most frequently hit by droughts.
HUGE IMPACT: Extreme weather is “expected to” drive up food prices throughout 2025, according to analysis covered by the Guardian. The research showed a “long-term trend towards more extreme weather events would continue to hit regional crop yields, causing price spikes”. Of the studied crops, coffee and cocoa had the highest price spikes last year due to surging rainfall and temperatures. Elsewhere, Mongabay covered a new report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization pointing out that increasing droughts and floods, as well as rising temperatures in Latin America and the Caribbean, are leading to crop and livestock losses, interruption of supply chains and impoverishment among farmers. Those events are “highly frequent” in 74% of the countries in the region, the report said.
TOWARDS COP30: Warmer temperatures threaten wheat production in India, which has declined over the past three years, the New Indian Express reported. According to India’s Meteorological Department, north-western areas have seen temperatures fluctuate 2-6C above normal during that time. In Brazil, the inflation rate for food and beverage reached nearly 7.7% last year due to the impacts of climate change, according to COP30’s official webpage. The website quoted Guilherme Mello, secretary of economic policy at Brazil’s ministry of finance, who stressed the need to “adapt and create adequate instruments to guarantee food and water security”.
Spotlight
Biodiversity banking on a breakthrough
This week, Carbon Brief traces the history and future of the fight for a new biodiversity fund as COP16 restarts in Rome.
The fight for a new biodiversity fund – dominating the agenda at the resumed nature talks in Rome and led by “megadiverse” countries – is a fight that has come a long way in the last four years.
From a proposal in Nairobi to an overlooked objection that soured nature’s “Paris” moment in Montreal, the call for a COP-governed biodiversity fund that could match climate’s $100bn-promise failed to materialise at COP15.
Instead, the final nature deal for this decade – gavelled through in a hurry – gave the world an interim fund with a mandate to operate only until 2030. It gave rich countries a scaled-down, collective bottom line of paying $20bn per year by 2025 and $30bn per year by 2030 in biodiversity finance, against a $700bn-a-year nature funding “gap” that is widening every year.
With only $250m collected in the interim fund and developed countries accused of failing to pay their “fair share” by the start of COP16, Zimbabwe revived the fight for the fund on the very first day in Cali.
The decision “to establish a dedicated global financing instrument” eventually made it to a 3:30am draft issued by Colombia’s Susana Muhamad. That “L document” published well into overtime and an inability to gather a quorum put the brakes on COP16. It is now at the heart of what brings countries again to Rome.
To Muhamad, the “polarisation” around resource mobilisation has a lot to do with the “changing landscape of power in geopolitics”, the economic cost of conflict and the need to “substantially address” biodiversity loss and climate change.
The Rome session follows what has been described as a “betrayal” of climate finance talks at COP29 in Baku. It also comes as a re-elected Donald Trump dismantles US climate policy and many European countries cut their aid budgets.
Although the US is not a party to the UN Biodiversity Convention (CBD), Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and geopolitical trade wars have cast a cloud over global environmental cooperation and tempered hopes for more public funding for nature and climate.
At the opening of the resumed talks, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres warned in a statement that “[w]ith the world approaching dangerous tipping points, it is imperative that [countries] reach agreement here in Rome” on how biodiversity finance commitments will be honoured. He added:
“We share nature and we depend on nature. Multilateralism is our only hope.”
The Rome talks are already seeing countries bringing the same arguments to the table, even though $30bn is a 10th of the $300bn climate-finance goal.
In general, developed countries want to broaden and review the list of donor states contributing biodiversity finance to include other countries, such as China and Russia, as well as private sources, such as biodiversity credits. They also typically do not see the need for a new fund after 2030. In contrast, developing countries do not want to leave Rome without a new fund or to let countries escape their historical obligations to pay.
Muhamad, meanwhile, is hoping nations will agree on a roadmap somewhere in between and make progress towards reforming the complex, but shallow, pool of biodiversity finance.
After back-to-back regional consultations and bilateral meetings, her ambitious after-midnight draft has since been reformed into a “reflection note” attempting compromise. But, as she notes, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, including a monitoring framework that countries say is contingent on a strong finance outcome.
As a delegate from Panama pointed out on the first day of the Rome talks:
“Biodiversity financing beyond 2030 must reflect the urgency of the biodiversity crisis and align with the commitments under the framework. This is a matter of survival for ecosystems, economy and humanity. We cannot repeat the failures of climate finance. [The Rome talks] must deliver more than words. It must deliver funding.”
News and views
US AG DEPARTMENT CHAOS: Organic farmers have sued the US agriculture department over its deletion of climate-related information from its website, the New York Times reported. The now-missing pages contained “datasets, interactive tools and funding information that farmers and researchers relied on for planning and adaptation projects”, the newspaper wrote. The department also implemented a funding freeze on climate- and conservation-related programmes, although some freezes on the latter have been lifted, according to Civil Eats. Meanwhile, the department is “scrambling to rehire several workers who were involved in the government’s response to the ongoing bird flu outbreak” and had been fired on Elon Musk’s recommendation, according to the Associated Press.
RIVER RESTRICTIONS: Norway’s parliament has approved a bill that would “open up protected rivers to hydropower plants”, the Guardian reported. Nearly 400 of the country’s waterways are currently protected from such development. The Guardian noted that “companies seeking to build hydropower dams would still face strict assessments before being granted a permit”. However, one member of the Norwegian parliament said the bill was “a historic attack on Norwegian nature”. The newspaper added that as a result of Norway’s network of hydropower dams, “the Norwegian electricity grid is among the cleanest on the planet”.
CONGO CORRIDOR: A plan to create the “world’s largest protected area” in the Democratic Republic of Congo does not have the approval of Indigenous peoples and local communities, Climate Home News reported. In January, DRC president Felix Tshisekedi announced the creation of a 2,600km-long “green corridor” in the Congo basin forest, which he said would “strengthen agricultural value chains and sustainable development”. However, the outlet noted that Indigenous and local groups have not been consulted about the project and “fear it could impinge on their land”. Groups that oppose the project, including Greenpeace Africa, fear it could “perpetuate neo-colonialism”.
ET TU, EU?: The European Commission plans to pare back the number of companies facing the EU’s sustainability reporting requirements and delay a key due diligence law that would require companies to address environmental and human-rights issues in their supply chains, according to a draft seen by Reuters. Politico published a set of five takeaways on the EU’s long-term “vision” for agriculture, which includes “stronger support for carbon farming [and] bioenergy production”. Environmental campaigners told the Guardian that the new farming strategy “ignores vital green proposals” including a just transition fund, a “necessary increase in environmental payments” and “the case for eating less meat”. Separately, Scandinavia’s largest dairy producer told the Financial Times that uncertainty about the EU’s rules “is deterring investment in food production and pushing up prices”.
TENSION OVER CORN: Mexico lifted its ban on genetically modified corn imports from the US, after a ruling made under the US, Mexico, Canada Agreement (USMCA), SciDevNet reported. In 2020, former Mexico’s former president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, had issued a decree to ban GM corn. After a recent ruling against such a ban, filed by a dispute settlement panel, current president Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration released a new decision on 5 February approving the use of GM corn for human consumption and calling off the plan to halt its use for animal feeding.
Watch, read, listen
PAYBACK TIME: The Straits Times’s Green Pulse podcast spoke to Dr Siva Thambisetty, who was closely involved in negotiations for the landmark Cali Fund that launched this week.
SEA TREASURES: A BBC Earth video showed the “top five whale scenes”, including everything from feeding techniques to the ongoing challenges they face.
BANANA BOOM: Mekong Eye explored how booming demand for bananas has driven large-scale soil depletion in Laos.
KEEPING CHAPARRAL ALIVE: NPR explained the importance of California’s native chaparral brush and how clearing it will not reduce the risk of wildfires.
New science
- Research published in Bird Study found that solar farms contained greater numbers and diversity of birds, as compared to arable farmland. Researchers studied six solar farms in the UK, finding that these benefits could be magnified by managing the farms with biodiversity in mind.
- UK peatland fires emitted around 800,000 tonnes of carbon between 2001 and 2021, according to a study published recently in Environmental Research Letters. By looking at climate projections, the researchers found that 2C of warming could increase peatland-fire emissions by more than 60%.
- A new study, published in Nature Food, finds that 1.2 billion people globally are dependent on imported nitrogen fertilisers for food production. The authors suggest that shifting towards smaller-scale ammonia production could increase both food security and agricultural sustainability.
In the diary
- 24-28 February: 62nd session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | Hangzhou, China
- 25-27 February: Resumed session of COP16 | Rome
- 26 February: UK Climate Change Committee seventh carbon budget advice published | London
- 26-28 February: Finance in common summit | Cape Town, South Africa
- 3 March: World Wildlife Day
- 5-7 March: World Sustainable Development Summit 2025 | New Delhi
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyer and Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org
The post Cropped 26 February 2025: COP16 biodiversity talks resume; Farmers sue Trump; Mapping extreme weather’s ag impacts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia?
Starting on Monday, about 10,000 government negotiators, scientists, journalists and campaigners will gather at a purpose-built venue in a national park in Mongolia’s capital Ulaanbaatar to discuss how to stop land turning into desert as the world warms.
Drought is currently sweeping much of the Northern hemisphere, leaving normally green urban parks looking like dry savannah, causing crops to fail, food prices to rise and billions to be shaved off economic output.
On Wednesday, Britain’s prime minister chaired an emergency meeting of the government’s Cobra committee. These are usually reserved for wars, terrorist attacks, riots and pandemics – but this one was on the extreme heat and drought the UK has been suffering since May.
With many countries facing far worse with fewer resources than the UK, the issues to be discussed at the UN’s COP17 summit in Mongolia – often overlooked – should be nearer the top of policy-makers minds.
But what is COP17? What will be decided and announced there over the next two weeks? How does it relate to climate change and how will it help restore the lands on which we all rely for our food, water and other essential resources? Climate Home News explains all below.
What is COP17?
It is the conference of parties (COP) to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The parties are 196 governments, which includes all of the countries recognised by the UN.
The convention was conceived at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, at the same time as the other two larger “Rio trio” conventions on climate and biodiversity.
While the climate convention’s COP takes place every year, the UNCCD COP happens only once every two years. COP17 will be its seventeenth gathering.

What is desertification?
It is the process by which land degrades and becomes more like a desert, making it harder – and sometimes impossible – to grow crops or graze livestock there.
Climate change and other human activities – like excessive irrigation which depletes ground water – are making this process worse, causing poverty, hunger, health problems, forced migration and loss of species.
It’s a widespread problem. The UN estimates that half a billion people live within areas that have experienced desertification since the 1980s and that two-fifths of the world’s land is degraded.
What has it got to do with climate change?
The planet’s climate is heating up, mainly due to humans burning fossil fuels, and drying out its land. This kills plants and exposes the soil which can then be blown away by wind and washed away by water.
Without a top layer of soil, plants struggle to grow again and the land gets closer to being a desert. So combating desertification is a way of adapting to climate change.
It is also a way of lessening the pace of climate change, as land degradation releases carbon dioxide previously stored in healthy soils and plants.
What will be negotiated at COP17?
The main issue is what form a new initiative to tackle drought could take. The last COP saw Africa push hard for this to be a protocol – a kind of binding sub-treaty to the UNCCD.
But the US, Europe, Argentina and others argued that would take too long to set up, cost too much and take money away from what can be spent on the ground. They prefer a legally weaker alternative – a framework instead of a protocol.
Negotiations went late into the last night of talks in Riyadh, with the Saudis hosting informal consultations, but eventually governments had to agree to disagree and pick up talks again in Ulaanbaatar.
As Earth dries out, countries fail to reach drought agreement
Governments will also negotiate a new policy on protecting rangelands and pastoralists from degradation. Rangelands are areas where animals graze. They cover around half the Earth’s land and include almost everything other than forest, deserts, farms, glaciers and cities. Pastoralists are people who herd animals on these rangelands, often moving from place to place to find fresh pasture.
COP17 host country Mongolia has a lot of both – and pushed successfully for the UN to declare 2026 the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists. It is keen to agree a decision at COP17 bringing those issues more to the forefront of the UNCCD.
Negotiators will also debate the UNCCD’s post-2030 strategic framework, which they hope to adopt at COP18 in 2028. Campaign groups like the World Wildlife Fund want a stronger focus on biodiversity and nature-positive food systems.
What will happen when?
The COP will formally open with a ceremony on Monday August 17, followed by opening statements by governments and the adoption of the agenda.
Negotiations will begin, mostly behind closed doors for two weeks until the closing plenaries on Friday August 28.
While talks rumble on in the background, the second week will see senior government representatives including ministers get involved, with a “high-level segment” running from August 24-26.

They will discuss issues like drought resilience, finance and pastoralist communities. This is likely to be when any announcements – of new funding, for instance – are made.
On Monday August 24, there will also be an open dialogue between government officials and civil society members. Here, local practitioners are likely to share stories of how they are helping their communities reverse land degradation. UNCCD prides itself on being a bottom-up convention.
Unlike climate COPs, which often end a day or two over time, UNCCD COPs usually finish on the evening of their last day and – while they have gone late into the night – have never run into the next day.
What else should we watch out for?
At the last COP two years ago, host Saudi Arabia led the creation of an initiative called the Riyadh Global Drought Resilience Partnership to help 80 of the poorest nations deal with drought.
It received $12 billion in pledges, mainly from Gulf-based development finance institutions. Saudi Arabia is expected to report back on whether these pledges have been delivered and how the money will reach those in need now.
There are also hopes that governments will announce financial support for Mongolia’s Rangelands Flagship Initiative, which aims to mobilise investment in projects to fight land degradation.
Who will preside over COP17?
While the last five and the next two climate COPs have been or will be presided over by men, COP17 will be woman-led with Mongolia’s foreign minister, Battsetseg Batmunkh, as president.

This will also be the first COP for the UNCCD’s new executive director Yasmin Fouad. Before being appointed environment minister in her native Egypt, Fouad was a scientist and lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on desertification. She played a key role at the COP27 climate summit in Egypt in 2022.
Although Saudi Arabia’s UNCCD COP presidency is ending, the Gulf power house will likely continue to be influential. It has supported the COP financially as part of the Riyadh-Ulaanbaatar action agenda and will be following up on initiatives announced two years ago.
While Saudi Arabia is often blamed for obstructing progress at climate talks, as a desert nation it is generally thought to have played a constructive role at UNCCD COPs.
What are the negotiating dynamics?
The UNCCD has six main negotiating groups: Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Northern Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe, and developed donor countries. Governments can also speak in their own capacities.
While divisions between the Global North and Global South do exist at UNCCD COPs, they are not as stark as at climate COPs. The Global South’s umbrella group – the G77 and China – usually only speaks on finance issues, on which developing countries tend to be united.
Civil society groups are present but not as vocal or as confrontational as at climate COPs. There are generally no protests and campaigners tend to try to hold governments accountable more quietly. There are likely to be far fewer journalists than at climate COPs too.
What role will the US play?
While the US has left the UN’s climate convention, it remains in the UNCCD and is expected to bring a delegation of officials from its departments of agriculture and state. It is likely to resist any renewed push from Africa for a drought protocol.
The post Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Will the world’s drying lands get relief from COP17 in Mongolia?
Climate Change
Pushing the climate crisis: How advertising fuels high-carbon lifestyles
Helen Phillips’ book, ‘Hum’, is set in a dystopian near future, in a city suffering the effects of climate breakdown and with dire air quality. Robots (the Hums) press advertising messages during conversations, meetings and even as they carry out medical procedures.
The Hums are vehicles for these ad messages, which are often for products like cosmetics, sweets or anything that might be relevant during interactions with humans. This advertising is poorly disguised, and merges with sentiments that lean towards concerns of well-being, convincing people how much better off they’ll be if they make a purchase.
While the novel is futuristic, the insidious way advertising permeates daily life is resonant of how adverts show up in our world today. And these ads are directly contributing to the worsening future climate Phillips describes in her book.
Already by the summer of 2026, Europe had seen a 57% increase in wildfires in just four years with western Europe recording the hottest ever June and July on record. We’re facing droughts and floods, as well as predicted hikes in food costs or even chronic food shortages – and that’s before the expected additional effects of a strong El Niño later this year.
Frequent flying and bigger burgers
A portion of this climate breakdown is fuelled by over-consumption in richer countries, particularly of products that are high carbon – for which advertising can take some of the blame. Research shows that adverts drive citizens to consume about a third more goods and services in general, over and above what they might have purchased.
Yet despite a clear link between promoting high-carbon behaviours and climate breakdown, little advertising regulation exists in the UK. Take frequent flying for instance, one of the most carbon-intensive activities we can partake in.
EasyJet’s latest ad campaign is called “Drop Everything”. It encourages consumers to book cheap flights departing within the next 48 hours for presumably short or weekend getaways. Rather than promoting a specific destination, “Drop Everything” promotes a mindset that encourages indiscriminate consumption of flying. The ads were shown on billboards with clever creative slogans, as well as on digital media and through influencer campaigns.
Overall, flight numbers are increasing. The UK Civil Aviation Authority reported the highest number of UK passengers in the first quarter of 2026 (more than 61 million, breaking previous records for travel between January and March). It seems we’re still not joining the dots between flying and a worsening climate.
And how about meat consumption? Scientists advocate for less meat-eating, especially beef which has the highest carbon footprint of nearly all foods. Yet adverts from McDonald’s proliferate, helping make it one of the highest-volume sellers of fast-food chain beef burgers. In 2024, the outdoor advertising budget for McDonald’s UK rose to £86 million, an increase of 71% on previous years.


Small share for sustainability
While over half of UK ad professionals feel increasingly queasy about their profession and its effects on the climate crisis, the people running the show – the UK trade bodies – prefer to focus on the growth advertising brings.
In the first three months of 2026, they stated that UK advertising spend increased by 9.3%, reaching a total of £11.7 billion for that quarter, fuelling consumption and market growth.
But how many of those adverts actually promote low carbon goods and services? Kantar’s Sustainable Ads Tracker shows the percentage of ads featuring sustainability messaging in 2026 is around 4.3%. That’s woefully low, and much of this is made up of messaging that promotes recycling.
Additionally, the ad industry continues to happily produce adverts for the large oil and gas corporations that are fuelling climate breakdown. These adverts only narrowly pass the Advertising Standards Authorities’ advertising codes, allowing the continued greenwashing of the world’s most polluting brands.
There is essentially no leadership from the UK trade bodies, likely because they are directly funded by the brands and advertisers themselves. They are essentially ‘ad shushing’ – pushing for indiscriminate growth and directing attention to their sustainability awards, while confusingly denying that adverts drive higher consumption overall.
Let’s ‘un-shush’
Where does this leave us as we are subjected to hundreds, if not thousands, of persuasive advertising messages every day that support high-carbon lifestyles? Most ad professionals are unable to push back against this agenda at work, often due to the threat of job loss. The advertising trade bodies won’t take the lead as they work in service to big brands and advertisers.
NGOs urge Brazil to prevent fossil fuel capture of COP30 climate summit
So, who can push for the changes we need? Members of the public.
Through pressuring our city officials and governments, we can force through restrictions, such as the watershed bans on unhealthy foods on TV before 9pm in the UK. Through supporting the efforts of organisations such as Ad Free Cities and others, we can help achieve bans on outdoor advertising for fossil fuels, aviation, meat and even single-use plastics in cities and regions such as Amsterdam, The Hague, Edinburgh, Florence, Uppsala and many more.
If we’re serious about climate change and stopping big global brands pushing their high-carbon products onto us, then advertising restrictions are one of the best ways to achieve this. If we don’t want a world like the one Phillips describes in her book, we need to make our voices heard above the advertising noise.
The post Pushing the climate crisis: How advertising fuels high-carbon lifestyles appeared first on Climate Home News.
Pushing the climate crisis: How advertising fuels high-carbon lifestyles
Climate Change
Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030
An upcoming UK government consultation on weakening targets for electric vehicles (EVs) could cost consumers as much as £3bn a year by 2030, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
It could require the UK to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, raising expected net imports by 8%, as well as adding 2.5% to national emissions that year, the analysis shows.
After years of fierce lobbying by parts of the car industry – and despite the significant savings on offer for EV drivers – media reports suggest that EV targets could be “watered down”.
Under current rules, battery EVs – BEVs, those which run only on electricity – must make up a rising share of new car sales in the UK.
This policy, known as the “zero-emission vehicles” (ZEV) mandate, was introduced by the previous Conservative government and sets a goal for 33% BEV sales in 2026, rising to 80% in 2030.
(Carmakers are able to use “flexibilities” to help meet their targets, which reduces the effective target under the ZEV mandate to an estimated 25% of sales in 2026.)
Now, the government under new Labour prime minister Andy Burnham is reported to be considering a cut in the BEV target for 2030 to just 50% of new car sales, alongside options for 60% or 70%.
Carbon Brief understands that a consultation on weakening the ZEV mandate is being reviewed by the prime minister’s office in Number 10, ahead of being formally released.
If the mandate is weakened to 50% by 2030 – and if carmakers make more use of “flexibilities” – there could be up to 3m fewer BEVs on UK roads by 2030, according to the NGO T&E.
Previous Carbon Brief analysis found that BEVs are around £1,100 cheaper to run per year than a petrol car, thanks to far lower fuel costs.
Overall, BEVs are more than £1,000 per year cheaper to own than either petrol cars or plug-in hybrids (PHEVs, which can run on petrol or electricity).
This is according to analysis of the “total cost of ownership” by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), including purchase price, fuel costs, insurance and proposed pay-per-mile charges.
In total, Carbon Brief analysis shows that UK drivers could be hit with an extra £3bn in annual ownership costs by 2030, if the ZEV mandate is weakened, as shown below.

A weaker ZEV mandate could “put billions of pounds of committed investments at risk”, reports BusinessGreen, including in the EV charging network and battery supply chains.
Industry group Energy UK says that the mandate is “working in the way it was designed to work” and that it is the “single biggest driver of emissions reductions” in government climate plans.
However, Carbon Brief analysis shows that a weaker ZEV mandate could result in an extra 7.4m tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (MtCO2) in 2030. This would add the equivalent of 2.5% to national emissions in 2030, under the UK’s international climate goal for that year.
In addition, a weaker ZEV mandate could result in the UK needing to import an extra 17m barrels of oil in 2030, equivalent to 8% of projected net imports that year.
Energy UK says that shifting to EVs will help to reduce household energy bills “for everyone”. This is not only through direct cost-of-ownership savings for EV drivers, but also by spreading the costs of upgrading the electricity system across a wider user base.
Car industry group the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders claims that its members are spending “blilions…on discounts, finance incentives and marketing support” and that “natural” EV demand is below the level required to meet the current ZEV mandate. Its claims are disputed.
related
Q&A: Does the world need ‘carbon capture and storage’ to reach net-zero?
UK withdraws millions in funding from world’s second-largest rainforest in Congo
28 quotes from new UK leader Andy Burnham on climate, net-zero and fossil fuels
Analysis: UK newspapers have already printed 63 editorials in 2026 backing North Sea drilling
The post Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
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 Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits

