Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
This week
September heat record ‘shattered’
‘GOBSMACKINGLY BANANAS’: September has “shattered” its previous global heat record “by a record margin”, according to data covered by the Washington Post. BBC News reported that last month was 0.93C hotter than the 1991-2020 September average and 0.5C hotter than the previous record set in 2020. Several outlets, including the Guardian, have quoted the verdict of Carbon Brief’s science contributor, Dr Zeke Hausfather, who described the heat as “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas”.
OCTOBER HEATS UP: The unusual heat has continued into October, with the New York Times publishing a map showing that parts of Europe, the Middle East, southern Africa, southeast Asia, Australia, North America and South America experienced temperatures up to 9C higher than average this week. CBC noted that “warm summer-like weather” has continued in the Canadian province of Ontario and the Australian Associated Press reported that more than 100 fires have been blazing across New South Wales amid a heatwave in the Australian state.
EU launches first carbon border tax
PHASE ONE: The EU has launched the initial phase of its carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), the world’s first system to impose emissions tariffs on imported goods, according to Reuters. For now, importers of steel, cement and other products only have to report the emissions “embodied” in their goods, but, from 2026, they will face border charges for high-emitting goods, the Economist explained.
GLOBAL PUSHBACK: Major EU trading partners, including Russia, the UK and US, are likely to feel CBAM’s effects the most, according to a recent report by Carnegie Europe. Brazil, South Africa and India have accused the CBAM of being “discriminatory” and China has called on the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to assess the measure, Politico stated. Writing in the Financial Times, EU economy commissioner Paolo Gentiloni said non-European countries “need not fear” the tax and said it was “fully compatible” with WTO rules.
NEW CLIMATE CHIEFS: Meanwhile, European Commission vice-president Maroš Šefčovič and former Dutch foreign minister Wopke Hoekstra have been approved by the European parliament as the EU “green deal” chief and climate commissioner, respectively, according to Politico.
Around the world
- ‘IRRESPONSIBLE’ LIFESTYLES: The Pope has pointed to an “irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model” as a key driver of climate change in a new “apostolic exhortation” titled Laudate Deum (Praise God), CNN reported.
- RUSSIA ROADBLOCK: Ahead of the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, Russia has stated it will oppose a global deal to cut fossil-fuel use, according to the Financial Times. Another Financial Times article said the United Arab Emirates has proposed hosting COP for two years in a row as Russia continues to block eastern European states from hosting it next year.
- INDIA FLOODS: At least 14 people have been killed and 102 are missing after flash floods in North Sikkim, India, triggered by a glacial lake outburst, the Times of India reported.
- OIL LAWSUIT: Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against French oil giant TotalEnergies and its major pipeline project in Tanzania and Uganda, alleging numerous criminal offences, according to Radio France Internationale.
- CLIMATE ARRESTS: Vietnamese state media has confirmed the arrest of energy expert Ngo Thi To Nhien, who worked on the G7-backed plan to wean the nation off fossil fuels, Agence France-Presse reported. Drilled has covered a string of arrests of Vietnamese climate advocates since 2021.
- ‘NET-ZERO ZEALOTS’: “Green politics” has been “under attack” at the UK’s Conservative party conference, the Guardian stated, with even the net-zero secretary, Claire Coutinho, taking aim at “zealots” who “view net-zero as a religion”.
$143bn
The annual “global cost” of extreme weather that can be attributed to human-caused climate change, according to a new study in Nature Communications.
Latest climate research
- The boom in commercial tree plantations for the purpose of carbon-offsetting threatens biodiversity in the tropics, a paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution concluded.
- The second Global Amphibian Assessment, published in Nature, found that 41% of species are threatened with extinction – and climate change is a key factor in their decline.
- A paper in Nature Food explored how meat taxes in Europe could be designed to avoid overburdening low-income consumers.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
The second “pledging conference” for the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF) took place on Thursday in Bonn, Germany. The GCF, which is the world’s largest multilateral climate fund, was established in 2010 as part of the global effort to help developing countries cut emissions and prepare for climate change. The event brought the total pledged by wealthy nations to just $9.3bn, less than previous funding rounds and short of the GCF’s internal targets, according to Climate Home News. Notable absences included the US and Australia, both of which have failed to pledge anything since 2014. They, along with Italy, Sweden and Switzerland, said they will commit funds, but did not specify how much. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Green Climate Fund Pledge Tracker has data on every country’s contributions.
Spotlight
Factcheck: Do large solar projects produce more CO2 than they save?
This week, Carbon Brief factchecks claims pushed by right-wing politicians and anti-solar campaigners that a major UK solar project would produce more greenhouse gases than it is able to save.
Matt Hancock, former UK minister turned TV reality show contestant – has urged the government to reject plans for a solar farm in his West Suffolk constituency. The proposed Sunnica scheme is on track to be one of the nation’s largest solar projects. When built, the developers say it would produce enough electricity to power up to 100,000 homes.
Hancock is not alone. At least 19 other UK MPs – all Conservatives – have come out against new solar farms, citing the concerns of people in their rural constituencies. The issue became a hot topic during the Conservative leadership contest last year, when both former prime minister Liz Truss and current prime minister Rishi Sunak vowed to stop farmland being used for solar power.
This is part of a wider trend of groups claiming to represent local communities pushing back against new renewable projects. Hundreds of new wind and solar projects are facing local opposition across the US, amid an organised effort by climate-sceptics. In the UK, a group called the Solar Campaign Alliance, which stresses it is “not against renewables”, supports a network of around 100 anti-solar protest groups, including the Say No To Sunnica campaign.
One of the central points made by many of these activists is that some new solar farms are “not carbon neutral” and will “do nothing to help” the UK meet its climate goals. This has been repeated on the campaign websites and materials distributed by those protesting the Sunnica project and other sites. Also repeating the claim, Hancock has written in the Daily Mail that Sunnica “would pump out more carbon…than it actually saved”.
These claims appear out of step with the central role solar power is expected to play in getting the UK – and the world – to net-zero.
They come from analysis commissioned by the Say No To Sunnica campaign and carried out by researchers at Cranfield University. The authors argue that the Sunnica scheme “during its lifetime would constitute a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions”, largely based on the developers underestimating its “lifecycle” emissions – including those associated with battery production and replacement.
Solar projects do not produce emissions when they generate electricity, but the manufacture of their components does as fossil fuels are used in these processes.
Despite this, experts tell Carbon Brief that the Cranfield study contains unusual methodological choices. Not least, it compares the Sunnica solar farm to a scenario in which the grid decarbonises, thanks in large part to solar power. Prof Edgar Hertwich, a researcher of resource efficiency and climate change at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, says arguing that the new solar farm replaces renewable power is “conceptually not correct”.
A more relevant comparison would be contrasting Sunnica with a scenario in which fossil fuels continue to be used. Gas power produces more than eight times more carbon dioxide (CO2) per unit of energy throughout its lifetime than ground-mounted solar panels.
The Cranfield researchers tell Carbon Brief they agree that the comparison they make is problematic, but point out that they followed the same methodology as the one used by the Sunnica developers.
They also warn that solar developers are not sufficiently accounting for battery production emissions when making claims about their net-zero credentials, stating that Sunnica did not factor in the need to replace batteries. However, other research shows that when solar power displaces fossil fuels from the grid, its climate benefits are only “marginally affected” by adding batteries.
Ultimately, the researchers stress that their conclusions “apply to this particular scheme only”, adding that each project “needs to be assessed on its own merits”.
The Say No To Sunnica campaign did not respond to Carbon Brief’s request for comment.
Watch, read, listen
CLIMATE SLEUTHING: Bloomberg has a feature on Itziar Irakulis Loitxate, a PhD student tasked with searching for global methane leaks at the UN Environment Programme. She is the “closest thing the world has to climate police”.
SOLUTIONS SEARCH: NPR has dedicated an entire week to stories and conversations about the search for climate solutions, from the Philippines to California.
WEAPONISING HEAT PUMPS: A long read in Politico explored how the far-right Alternative for Germany party has turned the issue of electric heat pumps into “electoral rocket fuel”.
Coming up
- 8 October: Luxembourg parliamentary election
- 8-12 October: Middle East and North Africa Climate Week, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- 9-15 October: World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meeting, Marrakech, Morocco
- 10 October: Liberia presidential, senate and house of representatives election
Pick of the jobs
- International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), senior researcher | Salary: £52,244-64,944. Location: Hybrid (within or outside of UK) with occasional travel to the UK offices
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, assistant professor trained in geographical and related social science approaches to critical development | Salary: Unknown. Location: Madison, Wisconsin, US
- China Global South Project (CGSP), freelance copy editor (Africa climate) | Salary: Unknown. Location: Africa, (remote)
DeBriefed is written in rotation by Carbon Brief’s team and edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org
The post DeBriefed 6 October 2023: ‘Gobsmackingly bananas’ global heat; EU’s carbon border tax; UK solar claims factchecked appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate Change
Analysis: UK newspaper editorial opposition to climate action overtakes support for first time
Nearly 100 UK newspaper editorials opposed climate action in 2025, a record figure that reveals the scale of the backlash against net-zero in the right-leaning press.
Carbon Brief has analysed editorials – articles considered the newspaper’s formal “voice” – since 2011 and this is the first year opposition to climate action has exceeded support.
Criticism of net-zero policies, including renewable-energy expansion, came entirely from right-leaning newspapers, particularly the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph.
In addition, there were 112 editorials – more than two a week – that included attacks on Ed Miliband, continuing a highly personal campaign by some newspapers against the Labour energy secretary.
These editorials, nearly all of which were in right-leaning titles, typically characterised him as a “zealot”, driving through a “costly” net-zero “agenda”.
Taken together, the newspaper editorials mirror a significant shift on the UK political right in 2025, as the opposition Conservative party mimicked the hard-right populist Reform UK party by definitively rejecting the net-zero target that it had legislated for and the policies that it had previously championed.
Record climate opposition
Nearly 100 UK newspaper editorials voiced opposition to climate action in 2025 – more than double the number of editorials that backed climate action.
As the chart below shows, 2025 marked the fourth record-breaking year in a row for criticism of climate action in newspaper editorials.
This also marks the first time that editorials opposing climate action have overtaken those supporting it, during the 15 years that Carbon Brief has analysed.
This trend demonstrates the rapid shift away from a long-standing political consensus on climate change by those on the UK’s political right.
Over the past year, the Conservative party has rejected both the “net-zero by 2050” target that it legislated for in 2019 and the underpinning Climate Change Act that it had a major role in creating. Meanwhile, the Reform UK party has been rising in the polls, while pledging to “ditch net-zero”.
These views are reinforced and reflected in the pages of the UK’s right-leaning newspapers, which tend to support these parties and influence their politics.
All of the 98 editorials opposing climate action were in right-leaning titles, including the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Times and the Daily Express.
Conversely, nearly all of the 46 editorials pushing for more climate action were in the left-leaning and centrist publications the Guardian and the Financial Times. These newspapers have far lower circulations than some of the right-leaning titles.
In total, 81% of the climate-related editorials published by right-leaning newspapers in 2025 rejected climate action. As the chart below shows, this is a marked difference from just a few years ago, when the same newspapers showed a surge in enthusiasm for climate action.
That trend had coincided with Conservative governments led by Theresa May and Boris Johnson, which introduced the net-zero goal and were broadly supportive of climate policies.
Notably, none of the editorials opposing climate action in 2025 took a climate-sceptic position by questioning the existence of climate change or the science behind it. Instead, they voiced “response scepticism”, meaning they criticised policies that seek to address climate change.
(The current Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has described herself as “a net-zero sceptic, not a climate change sceptic”. This is illogical as reaching net-zero is, according to scientists, the only way to stop climate change from getting worse.)
In particular, newspapers took aim at “net-zero” as a catch-all term for policies that they deemed harmful. Most editorials that rejected climate action did not even mention the word “climate”, often using “net-zero” instead.
This supports recent analysis by Dr James Painter, a research associate at the University of Oxford, which concluded that UK newspaper coverage has been “decoupling net-zero from climate change”.
This is significant, given strong and broad UK public support for many of the individual climate policies that underpin net-zero. Notably, there is also majority support for the “net-zero by 2050” target itself.
Much of the negative framing by politicians and media outlets paints “net-zero” as something that is too expensive for people in the UK.
In total, 87% of the editorials that opposed climate action cited economic factors as a reason, making this by far the most common justification. Net-zero goals were described as “ruinous” and “costly”, as well as being blamed – falsely – for “driving up energy costs”.
The Sunday Telegraph summarised the view of many politicians and commentators on the right by stating simply that said “net-zero should be scrapped”.
While some criticism of net-zero policies is made in good faith, the notion that climate change can be stopped without reducing emissions to net-zero is incorrect. Alternative policies for tackling climate change are rarely presented by critical editorials.
Moreover, numerous assessments have concluded that the transition to net-zero can be both “affordable” and far cheaper than previously thought.
This transition can also provide significant economic benefits, even before considering the evidence that the cost of unmitigated warming will significantly outweigh the cost of action.
Miliband attacks intensify
Meanwhile, UK newspapers published 112 editorials over the course of 2025 taking personal aim at energy security and net-zero secretary Ed Miliband.
Nearly all of these articles were in right-leaning newspapers, with the Sun alone publishing 51. The Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Times published most of the remainder.
This trend of relentlessly criticising Miliband personally began last year in the run up to Labour’s election victory. However, it ramped up significantly in 2025, as the chart below shows.
Around 58% of the editorials that opposed climate action used criticism of climate advocates as a justification – and nearly all of these articles mentioned Miliband, specifically.
Editorials denounced Miliband as a “loon” and a “zealot”, suffering from “eco insanity” and “quasi-religious delusions”. Nicknames given to him include “His Greenness”, the “high priest of net-zero” and “air miles Miliband”.
Many of these attacks were highly personal. The Daily Mail, for example, called Miliband “pompous and patronising”, with an “air of moral and intellectual superiority”.
Frequently, newspapers refer to “Ed Miliband’s net-zero agenda”, “Ed Miliband’s swivel-eyed targets” and “Mr Miliband’s green taxes”.
These formulations frame climate policies as harmful measures that are being imposed on people by the energy secretary.
In fact, the Labour government decisively won an election in 2024 with a manifesto that prioritised net-zero policies. Often, the “targets” and “taxes” in question are long-standing policies that were introduced by the previous Conservative government, with cross-party support.
Moreover, the government’s climate policy not only continues to rely on many of the same tools created by previous administrations, it is also very much in line with expert evidence and advice. This is to prioritise the expansion of clean power and to fuel an economy that relies on increasing levels of electrification, including through electric cars and heat pumps.
Despite newspaper editorials regularly calling for Miliband to be “sacked”, prime minister Keir Starmer has voiced his support both for the energy secretary and the government’s prioritisation of net-zero.
In an interview with podcast The Rest is Politics last year, Miliband was asked about the previous Carbon Brief analysis that showed the criticism aimed at him by right-leaning newspapers.
Podcast host Alastair Campbell asked if Miliband thought the attacks were the legacy of his strong stance, while Labour leader, during the Leveson inquiry into the practices of the UK press. Miliband replied:
“Some of these institutions don’t like net-zero and some of them don’t like me – and maybe quite a lot of them don’t like either.”
Renewable backlash
As well as editorial attitudes to climate action in general, Carbon Brief analysed newspapers’ views on three energy technologies – renewables, nuclear power and fracking.
There were 42 newspaper editorials criticising renewable energy in 2025. This meant that, for the first time since 2014, there were more anti-renewables editorials than pro-renewables editorials, as the chart below shows.
As with climate action more broadly, this was a highly partisan issue. The Times was the only right-leaning newspaper that published any editorials supporting renewables.
By far the most common stated reason for opposing renewable energy was that it is “expensive”, with 86% of critical editorials using economic arguments as a justification.
The Sun referred to “chucking billions at unreliable renewables” while the Daily Telegraph warned of an “expensive and intermittent renewables grid”.
At the same time, editorials in supportive publications also used economic arguments in favour of renewables. The Guardian, for example, stressed the importance of building an “affordable clean-energy system” that is “built on renewables”.
There was continued support in right-leaning publications for nuclear power, despite the high costs associated with the technology. In total, there were 20 editorials supporting nuclear power in 2025 – nearly all in right-leaning newspapers – and none that opposed it.
Fracking was barely mentioned by newspapers in 2023 and 2024, after a failed push by the Conservatives under prime minister Liz Truss to overturn a ban on the practice in 2022. This attempt had been accompanied by a surge in supportive right-leaning newspaper editorials.
There was a small uptick of 15 editorials supporting fracking in 2025, as right-leaning newspapers once again argued that it would be economically beneficial.
The Sun urged current Conservative leader Badenoch to make room for this “cheap, safe solution” in her future energy policy. The government plans to ban fracking “permanently”.
North Sea oil and gas remained the main fossil-fuel policy focus, with 30 editorials – all in right-leaning newspapers – that mentioned the topic. Most of the editorials arguing for more extraction from the North Sea also argued for less climate action or opposed renewable energy.
None of these editorials noted that the UK is expected to be significantly less reliant on fossil-fuel imports if it pursues net-zero, than if it rolls back on climate action and attempts to squeeze more out of the remaining deposits in the North Sea.
Methodology
This is a 2025 update of previous analysis conducted for the period 2011-2021 by Carbon Brief in association with Dr Sylvia Hayes, a research fellow at the University of Exeter. Previous updates were published in 2022, 2023 and 2024.
The count of editorials criticising Ed Miliband was not conducted in the original analysis.
The full methodology can be found in the original article, including the coding schema used to assess the language and themes used in editorials concerning climate change and energy technologies.
The analysis is based on Carbon Brief’s editorial database, which is regularly updated with leading articles from the UK’s major newspapers.
The post Analysis: UK newspaper editorial opposition to climate action overtakes support for first time appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK newspaper editorial opposition to climate action overtakes support for first time
Tsvetelina Kuzmanova is EU sustainable finance lead for the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), based in Brussels.
Europe is set to arrive in Davos on the defensive after a year of trade uncertainty and tariff threats from the Trump administration, as well as pressure to roll back core elements of the EU’s Green Deal. The war in Ukraine and situation in Greenland also continue to test Europe’s security and strategic cohesion.
While Trump’s administration is “coming in force” to the World Economic Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos with the largest-ever US delegation, Europe is not showing up in a strong position or as a shaper of the global agenda. Instead, it has become reactive to other global powers.
Amid the pressure, it is crucial that the EU maintains its ambitions on energy security and decarbonisation, both against headwinds at Davos and by continuing to uphold the energy transition. This is not about climate leadership alone, but a question of power and independence. Maintaining the energy transition is central to reducing geopolitical exposure, limiting external leverage and preserving Europe’s ability to act strategically, including in negotiations on the next EU budget.
-
Roadmaps and Colombia conference aim to shift fossil fuel transition into higher gear
In 2026, global dialogues will chart a path to shift away from fossil fuels without harming workers or financial systems, experts told Climate Home -
Ahead of Davos, climate drops down global elite’s list of pressing concerns
In the short term, leading business people, academics and politicians are more worried about geoeconomic confrontation than extreme weather -
At ‘Davos of mining’, Saudi Arabia shapes new narrative on minerals
Over 100 countries attended the Future Minerals Forum in Riyadh, putting the Kingdom at the heart of discussions on minerals for the energy transition
Over the past year, debates in Europe have increasingly framed climate ambition as a liability to competitiveness. Green policies have been softened, delayed or revised in the name of industrial survival.
Yet global leaders identify climate-driven disruption as the most likely defining risk of the 2030s. Looking a decade into the future, climate collapse and extreme weather dominate the risk landscape, according to the World Economic Forum’s newly published Global Risks Report 2026 . Economic downturn, by contrast, sits far lower on the list at 24.
Near-term risks for Europe
Even setting aside the risk of climate change, Europe’s vulnerabilities are painfully concrete in the short-term: energy remains a pressure point, trade is increasingly weaponised, supply chains are exposed, and geopolitical leverage continues to be exercised through fossil fuel supplies.
If recent history taught Europe anything, it should have been that such dependency directly threatens economic prosperity, as was seen during the 2022 energy crisis.
Oil and gas remain central to geopolitical arm-twisting, including supply threats, price manipulation or diplomatic pressure – for example, the US and Qatar telling the European Union that its corporate sustainability due diligence directive threatens LNG supplies to the bloc.
Strategic spending or strategic drift
In this context, the EU budget is a geopolitical choice as much as a fiscal exercise. It will run until 2034, meaning it overlaps almost exactly with when long-term risks will become tomorrow’s reality and frame Europe’s place on the global stage for almost a decade.
Choices will have to be made as public money is scarce and there is no chance of further joint European debt. The question is whether Europe uses its limited fiscal firepower to preserve the status quo or to address its vulnerabilities and the long-term economic risks.
This is where electrification, grids, incentivising cleantech and greening Europe’s heavy industry come in. These shouldn’t be viewed just as climate projects, but as instruments of strategic autonomy.
Governments defend clean energy transition as US snubs renewables agency
Other economies are already doing this. China will spend 4 trillion yuan ($574 billion) by 2030 in electricity grid infrastructure, treating transmission and system balancing as core national assets.
Even under the Trump administration, the US has continued to scale up grid investment. Last year, it recorded the highest level of grid spending globally, at around $115 billion, accounting for roughly a quarter of total worldwide investment. A significant share of this has been driven by federal funding for grid modernisation and transmission expansion, explicitly linking energy infrastructure to industrial competitiveness and security.
Meanwhile, Europe estimates that it needs close to €600 billion in grid investment by 2030, yet annual spending remains fragmented across national systems and constrained by permitting and financing bottlenecks. This comparison underscores why the next Multiannual Financial Framework (the EU budget) must prioritise strategic public spending on grids, electrification and related infrastructure.
Bolstering competitiveness with electricity
Despite the narrative being pushed by the US in forums like Davos, industrial electrification, system flexibility and cleantech scale-up are prerequisites for a competitive industry in a decarbonising world.
Electrification is critical to reducing vulnerability to fossil fuel imports and grids are essential to do this at scale. This shift would also reduce Europe’s exposure to the very risks flagged by the World Economic Forum, from climate-driven instability to energy and supply-chain shocks, turning vulnerability into strategic resilience.
This is a textbook case for mission-oriented public investment – not picking individual corporate winners but backing system-level capabilities that markets will not support enough despite their strategic importance.
Q&A: “False” climate solutions help keep fossil fuel firms in business
In today’s global economy, power flows from control over infrastructure, energy systems and industrial capacity. Without the underlying investment, even the most sophisticated regulatory frameworks risk becoming aspirational.
And, if Europe does not decisively shift towards investing in electrification, grids and industrial transformation, it will remain exposed to pressure tactics, with oil and gas supplies shaping Europe’s future and making it reactive rather than proactive at meetings like Davos.
Any talk of resilience, competitiveness and strategic autonomy at Davos will be hollow if Europe is unable to match it with spending decisions that address future risks and drive ahead with decarbonisation.
The post Power play: Can a defensive Europe stick with decarbonisation in Davos? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Power play: Can a defensive Europe stick with decarbonisation in Davos?
The non-disclosure agreement was a major sticking point in a lively town hall that featured city officials, data center representatives and more than a hundred frustrated residents.
COLUMBIANA, Ala.—At first, no one knew about the non-disclosure agreement.
An Alabama Mayor Signed an NDA With a Data Center Developer. Read It Here.
Google Powers U.S. Data Centers with 1.2 GW of Carbon-Free Energy from Clearway
Analysis: UK newspaper editorial opposition to climate action overtakes support for first time
Power play: Can a defensive Europe stick with decarbonisation in Davos?
-
Greenhouse Gases5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change5 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
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
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”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits