CCL staffers Dana Nuccitelli and Elissa Tennant
Episode 104: Saving Clean Energy Tax Credits: Inside the Inflation Reduction Act Fight
Episode Summary:
In this episode of Citizens’ Climate Radio, we dive into the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—the biggest climate legislation in U.S. history—and the urgent effort underway to protect its clean energy tax credits.
CCL’s Content Marketing Manager Elissa Tennant joins CCL’s Research Manager Dana Nuccitelli to break it all down. You’ll learn what the IRA funds, how clean energy tax credits work for individuals and businesses, and why these policies are now under threat. Dana also explains the budget reconciliation process, the challenges in Congress, and the surprising level of bipartisan public support for clean energy investment.
You’ll leave this episode knowing exactly why clean energy tax credits matter — and what simple actions you can take to defend it.
Featured Guests:
- Elissa Tennant is CCL’s Content Marketing Manager, leading strategy and creation for web, social media, and volunteer resources.
- Dana Nuccitelli is CCL’s Research Manager, an environmental scientist, and an award-winning climate journalist with a background in physics and over a decade of science communication experience.
Listen Now!
Resources Mentioned:
Take action to defend clean energy tax credits: cclusa.org/IRAdefense
Register for the 2025 Citizens’ Climate Lobby Summer Conference: cclusa.org/conference
Get involved with other climate actions: cclusa.org/action
Schoolhouse Rock: Tyrannosaurus Debt (explainer video): Watch on YouTube
Join CCL’s Nerd Corner (for policy deep dives): CCL Community – Nerd Corner
Highlights:
- Why the Inflation Reduction Act focuses so heavily on clean energy.
- What “tax credits” mean for individuals, businesses, and the broader economy.
- How budget reconciliation works—and why it’s mostly a partisan process today.
- Why Republicans and Democrats alike have reasons to support clean energy tax credits.
- How CCL volunteers are defending climate investments—and how you can help.
We Want to Hear from You
Email: radio @ citizensclimate.org
Text/Voicemail: 619-512-9646
Social Media: Follow us on X, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, and TikTok.
Transcript
Peterson Toscano:
Welcome to Citizens Climate Radio, your climate change podcast. I’m Peterson Toscano.
Each month, we take you behind the scenes of climate policy. We break down what’s happening in Washington and beyond, and we share real steps you can take to make a difference.
Today, we are going to do something new. In this episode, CCL’s Elissa Tennant teams up with our policy wizard, Dana Nuccitelli. They’ll unpack what’s going on with the IRA.
No, not the Irish Republican Army. You’ll find out what the IRA is—but you probably know already, if you’re listening to this podcast—why the IRA matters and how you can help.
Elissa and Dana join us to talk about CCL
Peterson Toscano:
Elissa and Dana, welcome to today’s show.
Elissa Tennant:
Hello, hello. Good to be here.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Hi, Peterson.
Peterson Toscano:
What is your title, Dana?
Dana Nuccitelli:
I am CCL’s Research Manager..
Peterson Toscano:
a.k.a. policy wizard. Since you’re going to be on the show a lot the next few months, I thought it’d be great for you to tell the listeners a bit about yourselves and what you do for CCL.
But before that, I have an icebreaker for you.
If you could title your very own climate bill, what would it be?
Peterson Toscano:
If you could title your very own climate bill, what would it be and why?
Elissa Tennant:
I will go first, Dana, if that’s cool. I’m already going. If I could title a climate bill, I would call it the “Future Generations Security Act.”
I was browsing LinkedIn on Earth Day, as one does, and I saw this quote that I fear-ate a little bit. It said, “The Earth is not something we inherit from our ancestors; it’s something we borrow from our children.” And I feel like that hit.
I think that the Future Generations Security Act would have broad appeal and speak to that need to protect the Earth for our children—not that I have any.
Peterson Toscano:
Great. I love that.
Elissa Tennant:
Wow.
Dana Nuccitelli:
You put a lot of thought into that answer. Well done. We’ve got the Inflation Reduction Act, and I always felt it should be called the Climate Changed Reduction Act. So I’m going to go with that simple answer.
Peterson Toscano:
Oh, good. I like that.
Elissa and Dana are content marketing managers at Climate Change Now
Peterson Toscano:
Could you tell the listeners just a little bit about yourselves? Whatever you want to share about your own lives and what you do at CCL.
Elissa Tennant:
Yeah. So I am the Content Marketing Manager at CCL. I work on CCL’s marketing team. Every video, social media post—I make content. I make cool stuff.
I like to call myself a metaphorical air traffic controller, deciding what gets made based on our messaging, what kind of bills are running through Congress, and what we want to say to the people.
Dana Nuccitelli:
I’m an environmental scientist and a climate journalist. As the Research Manager, I keep up with the latest climate science research and policy and do a lot of education of our volunteers. And I make social media videos when Elissa forces me to, which is all the time.
Peterson Toscano:
All the time.
Dana Nuccitelli:
All the time.
Peterson Toscano:
Well, great. I’m excited that you’re going to be here. I’m going to take a back seat on this one and just sort of let you go for it. I’ll listen and learn, as I really need to do.
So thank you, Elissa and Dana, for taking over the show today, listener. I leave you in capable hands.
Elissa Tennant:
Thank you, Peterson, for having us.
Elissa Tennant:
Before we dive into the show, I just want to mention that Dana and I will be live and in person at CCL’s summer conference this July in Washington, D.C., which is a great opportunity to lobby your members of Congress on the Hill, but also have a full, jam-packed day of action preparing you to meet with your members of Congress.
If you want to join us there, please visit cclusa.org/conference.
But now, let’s talk about the Inflation Reduction Act, which is the aforementioned IRA and the clean energy tax credits that come with it.
Citizens Climate Radio is digging into the Inflation Reduction Act
Elissa Tennant:
I’m Elissa Tennant. Welcome to Citizens Climate Radio. Today, I am joined by Dana Nuccitelli, CCL’s Research Manager—recently got a promotion, shout out!
We are digging into the Inflation Reduction Act—what it is, how it works, and why the clean energy tax credits in this historic act are suddenly under threat.
So if you’re hearing phrases like “tax credits” and “budget reconciliation” and feeling your eyes glaze over, please do not worry. We are in this together. We’ve got you. Dana and I are going to walk you through it.
The Inflation Reduction Act was passed in August of 2022
Elissa Tennant:
Let’s start with the big picture, Dana. What is the Inflation Reduction Act, when did it pass, and why is it such a big deal for climate?
Dana Nuccitelli:
The Inflation Reduction Act was by far the biggest climate bill that the United States has ever passed.
We passed it in August of 2022. It’s a big deal for the climate because it has lots of investments in clean energy that will result in a big reduction in climate pollution over the next decade or so—assuming it stays in place.
Elissa Tennant:
Throwback to your climate bill fantasy—you said you would have called it the Climate Changed Reduction Act.
Why wasn’t it called that? Why didn’t they take that brilliant idea and run with it? Why is it the Inflation Reduction Act?
Dana Nuccitelli:
It was a nice bit of marketing because everybody was very, very worried about inflation at the time—and still is.
So they called it the Inflation Reduction Act to make sure it would be very popular.
And to be fair, in the long term, it should reduce the risks of inflation because fossil fuels tend to be a big contributor to inflation.
Their prices are very volatile—the price of oil can go up and down quite a bit.
If we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels like oil over the long term, that will reduce future risks of inflation.
So it’s kind of a long-term inflation reduction risk act.
But just calling it the Inflation Reduction Act was a nice bit of marketing.
Elissa Tennant:
I think I am biased, but I’m a really big fan of nice marketing. So I will allow Inflation Reduction Act to stand. Fine.
One of the IRA’s most powerful tools is this concept of clean energy tax credits. So can you break down why we are here today?
What actually are these clean energy tax credits?
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yeah, the bill had a whole bunch of different clean energy tax credits.
There are a couple of categories. There are investment and production tax credits for clean electricity and manufacturing.
So you can think about an example of a solar panel. If you are investing in a facility to manufacture solar panels, there’s a tax credit for that.
And then if you have a facility that’s manufacturing solar panels, you get a tax credit for the solar panels that you’re manufacturing.
Those solar panels can then go into building a solar generation facility—a solar farm.
If you’re investing in building a solar farm, you can get a tax credit for that.
Or if you are producing solar energy from an existing solar farm, you can get a tax credit for that too.
That’s one big category.
There’s also tax credits for things like carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and nuclear power.
Then there are also a category of tax credits for consumers.
Some examples are:
- Electric vehicles (there’s a tax credit for new, used, and commercial EVs, and for leasing an electric vehicle).
- Home energy efficiency improvements or electrification with technologies like heat pumps.
- Putting solar panels and battery systems on your roof if you’re a homeowner—or you can do it as a business owner too.
Those are some of the main ones, but there are even more.
Elissa Tennant:
Wait, let’s talk more about the tax credits for the run-of-the-mill people.
I’m not at heat pump levels of income yet, but I am maybe at home energy audit levels.
Does it still cover that?
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yes!
There is a tax credit for home energy audits.
If you get an expert to come in and look at your house and figure out the most efficient things you can do to improve your home energy efficiency, there’s a 30% tax credit for that.
So if you spend $450 on that, you can get a $150 tax credit.
They’ll tell you: improve your windows, your insulation, your doors—and you can get tax credits when you make those improvements as well.
Elissa Tennant:
Fantastic.
But we are kind of focusing on the business side of tax credits today, right?
I just want to know about the individual side for like… my personal own gain and use.
Dana Nuccitelli:
They’re both important.
Elissa Tennant:
Alright, so these clean energy tax credits for individuals and businesses—and everybody who can benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act—they are under threat.
So let’s talk about that.
Let’s take a little turn here and go down the not-as-fun part.
Not as fun as talking about home energy audits.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yeah, it’s a little more wonky.
So back in 2017, the last time Republicans had full control of Congress, they passed a bunch of tax cuts.
Those tax cuts are starting to expire—they last for a little bit under a decade.
So they’re nearing expiration now.
Now that Republicans are back in charge, they want to extend those tax cuts.
Doing so is going to cost a lot of money—something north of $4.5 trillion over the next decade, depending on exactly what they decide to do.
And a lot of people are also worried about the size of our national debt, which is getting close to $37 trillion now.
So if you add another $4.5 trillion to it, that’s more than a 10% increase in our already very large national debt.
They would prefer not to just do the spending without paying for it.
So they’re looking for “pay-fors,” as we call them.
The Inflation Reduction Act is one place to get some money to pay for those tax cut extensions, because we invested something like a trillion dollars over the coming decade in the IRA, largely in those tax credits.
That’s why they’re on the chopping block—with a big target on their back—to be used as a “pay-for” to extend those expiring tax cuts.
Elissa Tennant:
Do you ever watch Schoolhouse Rock where the national debt is an animated Tyrannosaurus rex that wanders through the nation’s capital and eats things?
Dana Nuccitelli:
I don’t think I saw that.
I saw the one like “Here’s how a bill becomes a law,” but I don’t think I saw the T-Rex.
Elissa Tennant:
This is a deep cut, okay?
Only the real ones know about the Tyrannosaurus debt, apparently.
But whenever we talk about the national debt, that’s all I think about—is this Schoolhouse Rock animated T-Rex.
That being said, so—we need to pay to extend the tax credits.
I’m repeating it back to you—this is an active listening technique—to make sure I understand.
We need to pay for the extension of tax credits—
Dana Nuccitelli:
Tax cuts.
Elissa Tennant:
—Tax cuts.
We need to pay for the extension of tax cuts.
And in order to do that, we need to find ways to cut our spending as a federal government.
There are a lot of other things on the chopping block, but we at Citizens’ Climate Lobby are focused on the IRA and the clean energy tax credits.
Dana Nuccitelli:
That’s right. You got it.
Elissa Tennant:
We are a climate org.
Okay. That makes sense to me.
We can move on.
Elissa Tennant:
So let’s talk about budget reconciliation.
This is something that has come up quite a bit in recent years.
I don’t think it was really a big topic a decade or so ago.
It sounds like something from a government finance class—and I fear it a little bit.
So what does it mean in practice?
And why is it such a big deal for climate?
How does budget reconciliation fit into all this?
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yeah, so the issue here is that the Senate has the 60-vote filibuster that makes it hard for the Senate to do very much.
Forty percent of the Senate can just block progress on a particular piece of legislation if they so desire.
Congress decided that getting a budget done each year is a really important thing to do.
So they carved out an exemption from the Senate filibuster for budgetary negotiations—and that’s what budget reconciliation is.
The Senate can do it once or twice per year.
Anything that goes into a budget reconciliation package has to be specifically focused on the budget.
They can’t, for example, change regulations that don’t have any budgetary cost and stick that into budget reconciliation—that’s not allowed.
Things like tax cut extensions, tax credit additions or repeals—those can all get put into a budget reconciliation package that then only needs 50 votes to pass in the Senate, along with a majority in the House.
Elissa Tennant:
I have many questions, and the first one is a question I’ve wanted to ask for so long but I’m too scared because it’s been too long:
Why is it called a filibuster?
That sounds more like a candy bar.
Dana Nuccitelli:
I have no idea why it’s called the filibuster.
Elissa Tennant:
At least you also don’t know.
Filibuster—anybody listening, if you know why it’s called a filibuster, please write in, because our Research Manager doesn’t know.
We stumped him on this one.
Dana Nuccitelli:
I failed.
I failed.
Sorry.
Elissa Tennant:
Oh my God.
So the budget reconciliation process does not require the filibuster candy bar as part of it.
How do they decide what is budgetary and what isn’t?
How is it decided what is allowed in budget reconciliation and what isn’t?
Like, if you tried to do something that was stepping over the line?
Dana Nuccitelli:
Generally speaking, it just has to have some kind of component that generates revenue for the government or costs the government some money.
That’s the focus.
They can ask the Senate Parliamentarian whether it is budgetary in nature.
The Senate Parliamentarian will make a ruling and say, “Yes, you can include it in budget reconciliation,” or “No, you can’t.”
The Parliamentarian is kind of like the cop of Congress—and the Senate actually listens to the Parliamentarian and does what they say.
Elissa Tennant:
Who’s the Parliamentarian?
I feel like we should all know who this person is.
Dana Nuccitelli:
I forget what her name is, but she’s been the Parliamentarian for quite a while.
She’s the Senate rules expert.
Elissa Tennant:
Good for her.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yeah.
Elissa Tennant:
Fantastic.
Elissa Tennant:
Alright, so this simple process that lets Congress pass a budget with just a simple majority—budget reconciliation.
Where are we in this process right now?
What’s the timeline?
And again, how do those IRA clean energy tax credits fit into all of this?
Lay the land.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yeah, so each relevant committee in the Senate and the House is given a broad outline of, “Here’s how much money you can spend,” or, “Here’s how much you have to cut.”
Then they work on the details of how they’re going to meet that broad outline.
That’s what they’re doing now—one at a time—coming up with their committee’s specifics.
Once those are all released into the wild, all the members of the House and the Senate look at them and decide if they can vote on it or say,
“I can’t vote for something that’s got this provision, so you need to change it.”
Then they have negotiations.
Ultimately, they come up with one big package that supposedly can get a majority of votes in both the House and Senate.
The House and Senate will each release their packages, and they have to agree to a reconciled version—so that one package can get a majority in both chambers.
Because the House and Senate might have different priorities and disagree.
Elissa Tennant:
It’s a reconciled package!
Budget reconciliation.
Okay.
I was about to ask where the reconciliation term came from too, so you were way ahead of me there.
They come out with two versions of it.
We at CCL always refer to budget reconciliation as largely a partisan process.
I feel like now’s a good time to dive into why it is largely a partisan process and why we call it that.
Dana Nuccitelli:
It wasn’t always a partisan process.
In the past, when there was more bipartisan negotiation that tended to be more successful—when there was less partisanship in Congress—then the budget reconciliation process was just to make sure they could get something passed with a majority of votes.
It didn’t necessarily have to be all Republicans or all Democrats.
It was just 50 votes in the Senate.
But over time, Congress became more partisan, more divided, and so it became a partisan process—whichever party was in the majority could get what they needed done in the Senate.
That’s why it’s become a partisan process.
It wasn’t always one—and it doesn’t have to be one.
It just is right now.
Elissa Tennant:
And there is a large, vast future ahead of us.
But for this exact moment, that’s why it’s largely a Republican process—as they hold a majority in the House and the Senate.
Elissa Tennant:
Okay, back to the lay of the land.
So where are we in the budget reconciliation process?
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yeah, so each committee is in the process of releasing their plans for how they’re going to meet their broad budgetary rules.
In terms of the Inflation Reduction Act tax credits:
- In the House, it’s the Ways and Means Committee that’s in charge.
- In the Senate, it’s the Senate Finance Committee that oversees the IRA tax credits and other important tax-related provisions.
So we are going to see what they have planned—and we’ll hope they preserve some stuff from the IRA.
And we’ll try to convince them to preserve the important stuff.
Elissa Tennant:
Side note: I think “Ways and Means” is an excellent committee name.
It’s just vague enough that I have no idea what they actually do—but they seem very prestigious and important.
In terms of marketing, they really nailed that one.
Dana Nuccitelli:
They have the ways.
They have the means.
Elissa Tennant:
They do.
Whatever—the Things and Stuff Committee.
Mysterious and important.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yes, that’s what they should call it. The Mysterious and Important Committee.
Elissa Tennant:
The work is mysterious and important.
Shout out Severance.
What’s your favorite IRA tax credit? If you had to pick one…
Elissa Tennant:
So what’s your favorite IRA tax credit?
If you had to pick one—you have to pick one, actually. It’s not an “if.”
Dana Nuccitelli:
That’s a good question.
I think I have to say the clean electricity tax credits, because they’re so important and they’re going to do so many things:
- Help us deploy a lot more clean electricity.
- Help us meet rising energy demand.
- Reduce home electricity bills.
- Create a lot of construction jobs.
They’re also the most important provision for reducing climate pollution.
According to modeling, they’re responsible for about half of the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate pollution reductions.
So for all those reasons—because they’re so important—clean electricity would have to be my favorite.
Although, if I were being more biased and selfish, I would say the home weatherization tax credits—because I recently upgraded my 70-year-old windows on my house just last year.
And I was able this year to take the tax credit for that and reduce the amount of taxes that I owed.
So I really appreciate that tax credit for selfish reasons too.
Elissa Tennant:
That’s how I feel about the induction stove tax credit.
When I got my induction stove last year—just because our old electric stove (this house is 105 years old)—when it finally gave out, I got the induction stove.
And I invited people over to watch me boil water.
I was like, “Do you want to come over and have like a spaghetti party? It’s so fast—you’ll love it.”
So I agree. That was a big one.
I thought you were going to say—I don’t even know why I know about these—but the USDA REAP credits, the agriculture ones.
Because you’re a big silvopasture fan.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Well, the REAP program’s not a tax credit. It’s more of a grant program.
That’s a good program—and I do love silvopasture (planting trees on pasture land)—but not technically a tax credit.
Elissa Tennant:
Yes. That’s right.
We’ll save that one for a silvopasture episode.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yeah. Ooh, I like that.
That’s a good idea.
Elissa Tennant:
We’ve established these tax credits are important.
The Inflation Reduction Act is important.
We really need to leave it intact throughout the budget reconciliation process.
So let’s talk about why this really matters.
What would we lose if these tax credits go away?
What’s at stake?
Dana Nuccitelli:
There’s a lot at stake.
We would lose a big chunk of climate pollution cuts.
We would lose—uh, I hate this—a whole bunch of domestic manufacturing facilities and jobs, local revenue that goes to communities where those facilities are located.
Our electricity bills would go up, because we’d get less of this cheap, clean electricity.
So there’s all kinds of bad stuff that would happen that I don’t think anybody wants to see.
We’re going to try very hard to convince our members of Congress to keep these important tax credits in place.
Elissa Tennant:
Yeah.
Can we get a “vibe check” on aisle America?
How are people feeling about the tax credits in general?
Do we have a general public opinion on the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits?
Dana Nuccitelli:
Yes.
There was just recently a survey released by the University of Maryland that asked specifically about a bunch of these tax credits.
They found that all of them they asked about were very popular—across the political spectrum.
Actually, the least popular one they asked about was the tax credit for new electric vehicles, which is a $7,500 credit if you qualify and are purchasing a new EV.
Even that one—among Republican voters—had 71% support, with 29% wanting to repeal it.
So even the least popular tax credit among Republicans was still roughly 2.5 to 1 in favor.
They’re all very, very popular, because they do so much good stuff.
And who doesn’t like to get a tax credit?
Elissa Tennant:
I can’t imagine people wouldn’t want to get a tax credit for their clean energy purchases. That makes sense to me.
Yeah, so these are important. We want to keep them intact.
What can listeners do right now to help protect these tax credits?
Dana Nuccitelli:
Well, we at CCL have been doing stuff to help protect them since, like, last December.
We’ve had our volunteers—whose members of Congress are on the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee—contact those representatives and tell them about the importance of the tax credits.
We’ve had lots of actions where our members have contacted their members of Congress, especially Republican members, asking them to support and preserve the IRA tax credits.
We had a conservative conference where our conservative volunteers went to Washington, D.C., had training, and lobbied almost 50 Republican members of Congress about the IRA tax credits and a few other things.
So we’ve been doing a lot.
Of course, we have our Summer Conference, as you mentioned, between July 20th and 22nd—where we will again, most likely (assuming this question hasn’t been settled yet, which it probably won’t be), be lobbying on the Inflation Reduction Act again.
We’ve also got a database that I put together of all the different facilities and projects the IRA has helped incentivize all across the country—like the number of jobs created, local revenue—and we’re using that to inform our lobbying.
We’re doing a whole lot.
So one thing people can do is join their local Citizens’ Climate Lobby chapter to help us with these lobbying efforts—or just contact their member of Congress directly and tell their story, to help convince Congress to keep these tax credits in place.
Elissa Tennant:
Dana, you just named so many things.
So I’m going to give people one thing.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Okay, one thing’s good.
Elissa Tennant:
That was so many things.
Dana Nuccitelli:
What’s the one thing?
Elissa Tennant:
The one thing I would say is:
If you are represented by a Republican member of Congress, you can write their office right now asking them to protect the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits.
We have a tool that makes it super easy: cclusa.org/IRAdefense
That’s cclusa.org/IRAdefense
Now a lot of people will say, “Well, I’m not represented by a Republican, but I still want to help.”
And you totally can.
You can share that link on your social media accounts.
Send it directly to your friends and family who are represented by Republican members of Congress. Spread the word.
Budget reconciliation is a really long process—like you said, this question probably will not be answered by the time our conference rolls around in July.
So we need to keep the conversation going.
The more we keep it going, the more important these tax credits are to the general public.
So bring it up at parties.
Talk about it at your next open mic night.
Take out a billboard.
Or just share this episode with anybody you think might be interested in learning more about the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits.
And once again—please join us July 20th through 22nd in Washington, D.C., at the Citizens’ Climate Lobby Summer Conference.
You can learn more and sign up at cclusa.org/conference
It’s the perfect opportunity to get up to speed on climate policy, build community, and meet directly with lawmakers to defend these tax credits and more.
And you don’t have to be a policy expert—because I clearly am not.
I am just someone who cares.
Again: cclusa.org/conference
Elissa Tennant:
I have one last question for you, Dana.
What gives you hope that we can keep these programs alive?
Why are we still going at this?
Dana Nuccitelli:
The good news is that a lot of Republican members of Congress have already expressed that they want to preserve at least some of these important tax credits.
There have been a number of letters from groups of Republicans to their leadership saying,
“Hey, let’s be careful about what we’re getting rid of here.”
Because there are a lot of great benefits—especially in Republican districts—
battery manufacturing, EV manufacturing facilities, big solar and wind farms…
These things generate local jobs and local revenue.
It doesn’t look good if you vote to repeal a policy that’s creating a bunch of jobs and economic growth in your district.
So it’s in their interest to preserve a lot of these tax credits.
I’m hopeful we’ll be successful in preserving at least some of the more important provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act.
Elissa Tennant:
Hear, hear.
Peterson, myself, and hopefully the listener agree with you.
Thank you, Dana!
The next episode, I think, might be about the Foreign Pollution Fee Act, which was just introduced in Congress a short time ago.
We’re doing a training on that for our volunteers coming up, so I think we have a lot to talk about—
unless we decide to skip it and just…
Dana Nuccitelli:
Go straight to silvopasture!
Elissa Tennant:
Who knows—both good topics.
Thank you for listening.
We’ll give it back to Peterson to close things out.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Thanks, Elissa.
Peterson Toscano:
Elissa, Dana—I need to thank you for that amazing overview.
I understand this so much more clearly than I did before.
I mean, I thought I knew about the Inflation Reduction Act, but I really lost the thread at some point.
You brought it all back for me. Thank you.
Dana Nuccitelli:
Thank you.
Elissa Tennant:
I thought it was just you doing the outro—I was sitting back.
Peterson Toscano:
Just sit back. You don’t have to do anything—you did all your hard work.
Elissa Tennant:
Yeah.
Peterson Toscano:
You can talk to me!
Elissa Tennant:
That’s alright.
Peterson Toscano:
You’re allowed.
Yeah, I just—I learned so much. So thank you very much.
Elissa Tennant:
Thank you, Dana.
I am happy to help facilitate a conversation about the Inflation Reduction Act at any party.
Peterson Toscano:
I have one request.
Whenever you talk about having created a database, can I call it a “Danabase”?
Elissa Tennant:
A…
Dana Nuccitelli:
The Danabase! That’s a good name. I like it.
Peterson Toscano:
Yeah, come back and talk more, because we need to know about this policy.
And I have to say—it’s one of the areas I’m weakest in.
As people who do climate work, it’s easy to lean into the places where we have strength because it’s comfortable.
But we all have to learn new tricks and adapt all the time—to climate change, and to climate policy.
So thank you so much. I’m looking forward to much more.
Elissa Tennant:
Thank you, Peterson.
Dana Nuccitelli:
We’re all going to learn and grow together.
Peterson Toscano:
Yay. And thank you for listening to Citizens Climate Radio.
If you are ready to take action to protect clean energy tax credits, visit cclusa.org/IRAdefense.
And don’t forget—you can join us in person.
And when I say “join us,” I mean Elissa, Dana, and I will all be at Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s Summer Conference.
It’s happening from July 20th to 22nd in Washington, D.C.
Learn more and sign up at cclusa.org/conference
In fact, I think you should just type in cclusa.org/[whatever you like] and see if it comes up as an actual page on the website.
Elissa Tennant:
Hey…
Peterson Toscano:
Do you have a story or a question you’d like to share?
Call or text our listener line: (619) 512-9646.
That’s (619) 512-9646.
You’ll find show notes and links to our hosts—all of us are hosts today, it feels like—at cclusa.org/radio.
Be sure to follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, LinkedIn, and yes, TikTok.
Just search for Citizens Climate Radio.
This episode was written by Elissa Tennant, Dana Nuccitelli, Lesley Beatty, Elise Silvestri, and me—Peterson Toscano.
Production by Elise Silvestri and me.
Music comes from Epidemic Sound.
Citizens Climate Radio is a project of Citizens Climate Education.
I’ll see you next time—but in the meantime, stay strong, determined, and creative in your work on climate change.
The post Episode 104: Saving Clean Energy Tax Credits: Inside the Inflation Reduction Act Fight appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.
Episode 104: Saving Clean Energy Tax Credits: Inside the Inflation Reduction Act Fight
Greenhouse Gases
Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes
Drought and heatwaves occurring together – known as “compound” events – have “surged” across the world since the early 2000s, a new study shows.
Compound drought and heat events (CDHEs) can have devastating effects, creating the ideal conditions for intense wildfires, such as Australia’s “Black Summer” of 2019-20 where bushfires burned 24m hectares and killed 33 people.
The research, published in Science Advances, finds that the increase in CDHEs is predominantly being driven by events that start with a heatwave.
The global area affected by such “heatwave-led” compound events has more than doubled between 1980-2001 and 2002-23, the study says.
The rapid increase in these events over the last 23 years cannot be explained solely by global warming, the authors note.
Since the late 1990s, feedbacks between the land and the atmosphere have become stronger, making heatwaves more likely to trigger drought conditions, they explain.
One of the study authors tells Carbon Brief that societies must pay greater attention to compound events, which can “cause severe impacts on ecosystems, agriculture and society”.
Compound events
CDHEs are extreme weather events where drought and heatwave conditions occur simultaneously – or shortly after each other – in the same region.
These events are often triggered by large-scale weather patterns, such as “blocking” highs, which can produce “prolonged” hot and dry conditions, according to the study.
Prof Sang-Wook Yeh is one of the study authors and a professor at the Ewha Womans University in South Korea. He tells Carbon Brief:
“When heatwaves and droughts occur together, the two hazards reinforce each other through land-atmosphere interactions. This amplifies surface heating and soil moisture deficits, making compound events more intense and damaging than single hazards.”
CDHEs can begin with either a heatwave or a drought.
The sequence of these extremes is important, the study says, as they have different drivers and impacts.
For example, in a CDHE where the heatwave was the precursor, increased direct sunshine causes more moisture loss from soils and plants, leading to a drought.
Conversely, in an event where the drought was the precursor, the lack of soil moisture means that less of the sun’s energy goes into evaporation and more goes into warming the Earth’s surface. This produces favourable conditions for heatwaves.
The study shows that the majority of CDHEs globally start out as a drought.
In recent years, there has been increasing focus on these events due to the devastating impact they have on agriculture, ecosystems and public health.
In Russia in the summer of 2010, a compound drought-heatwave event – and the associated wildfires – caused the death of nearly 55,000 people, the study notes.

The record-breaking Pacific north-west “heat dome” in 2021 triggered extreme drought conditions that caused “significant declines” in wheat yields, as well as in barley, canola and fruit production in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, says the study.
Increasing events
To assess how CDHEs are changing, the researchers use daily reanalysis data to identify droughts and heatwaves events. (Reanalysis data combines past observations with climate models to create a historical climate record.) Then, using an algorithm, they analyse how these events overlap in both time and space.
The study covers the period from 1980 to 2023 and the world’s land surface, excluding polar regions where CDHEs are rare.
The research finds that the area of land affected by CDHEs has “increased substantially” since the early 2000s.
Heatwave-led events have been the main contributor to this increase, the study says, with their spatial extent rising 110% between 1980-2001 and 2002-23, compared to a 59% increase for drought-led events.
The map below shows the global distribution of CDHEs over 1980-2023. The charts show the percentage of the land surface affected by a heatwave-led CDHE (red) or a drought-led CDHE (yellow) in a given year (left) and relative increase in each CDHE type (right).
The study finds that CDHEs have occurred most frequently in northern South America, the southern US, eastern Europe, central Africa and south Asia.

Threshold passed
The authors explain that the increase in heatwave-led CDHEs is related to rising global temperatures, but that this does not tell the whole story.
In the earlier 22-year period of 1980-2001, the study finds that the spatial extent of heatwave-led CDHEs rises by 1.6% per 1C of global temperature rise. For the more-recent period of 2022-23, this increases “nearly eightfold” to 13.1%.
The change suggests that the rapid increase in the heatwave-led CDHEs occurred after the global average temperature “surpasse[d] a certain temperature threshold”, the paper says.
This threshold is an absolute global average temperature of 14.3C, the authors estimate (based on an 11-year average), which the world passed around the year 2000.
Investigating the recent surge in heatwave-leading CDHEs further, the researchers find a “regime shift” in land-atmosphere dynamics “toward a persistently intensified state after the late 1990s”.
In other words, the way that drier soils drive higher surface temperatures, and vice versa, is becoming stronger, resulting in more heatwave-led compound events.
Daily data
The research has some advantages over other previous studies, Yeh says. For instance, the new work uses daily estimations of CDHEs, compared to monthly data used in past research. This is “important for capturing the detailed occurrence” of these events, says Yeh.
He adds that another advantage of their study is that it distinguishes the sequence of droughts and heatwaves, which allows them to “better understand the differences” in the characteristics of CDHEs.
Dr Meryem Tanarhte is a climate scientist at the University Hassan II in Morocco, and Dr Ruth Cerezo Mota is a climatologist and a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Both scientists, who were not involved in the study, agree that the daily estimations give a clearer picture of how CDHEs are changing.
Cerezo-Mota adds that another major contribution of the study is its global focus. She tells Carbon Brief that in some regions, such as Mexico and Africa, there is a lack of studies on CDHEs:
“Not because the events do not occur, but perhaps because [these regions] do not have all the data or the expertise to do so.”
However, she notes that the reanalysis data used by the study does have limitations with how it represents rainfall in some parts of the world.
Compound impacts
The study notes that if CDHEs continue to intensify – particularly events where heatwaves are the precursors – they could drive declining crop productivity, increased wildfire frequency and severe public health crises.
These impacts could be “much more rapid and severe as global warming continues”, Yeh tells Carbon Brief.
Tanarhte notes that these events can be forecasted up to 10 days ahead in many regions. Furthermore, she says, the strongest impacts can be prevented “through preparedness and adaptation”, including through “water management for agriculture, heatwave mitigation measures and wildfire mitigation”.
The study recommends reassessing current risk management strategies for these compound events. It also suggests incorporating the sequences of drought and heatwaves into compound event analysis frameworks “to enhance climate risk management”.
Cerezo-Mota says that it is clear that the world needs to be prepared for the increased occurrence of these events. She tells Carbon Brief:
“These [risk assessments and strategies] need to be carried out at the local level to understand the complexities of each region.”
The post Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes
Greenhouse Gases
DeBriefed 6 March 2026: Iran energy crisis | China climate plan | Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ wind turbine
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Energy crisis
ENERGY SPIKE: US-Israeli attacks on Iran and subsequent counterattacks across the Middle East have sent energy prices “soaring”, according to Reuters. The newswire reported that the region “accounts for just under a third of global oil production and almost a fifth of gas”. The Guardian noted that shipping traffic through the strait of Hormuz, which normally ferries 20% of the world’s oil, “all but ground to a halt”. The Financial Times reported that attacks by Iran on Middle East energy facilities – notably in Qatar – triggered the “biggest rise in gas prices since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine”.
‘RISK’ AND ‘BENEFITS’: Bloomberg reported on increases in diesel prices in Europe and the US, speculating that rising fuel costs could be “a risk for president Donald Trump”. US gas producers are “poised to benefit from the big disruption in global supply”, according to CNBC. Indian government sources told the Economic Times that Russia is prepared to “fulfil India’s energy demands”. China Daily quoted experts who said “China’s energy security remains fundamentally unshaken”, thanks to “emergency stockpiles and a wide array of import channels”.
‘ESSENTIAL’ RENEWABLES: Energy analysts said governments should cut their fossil-fuel reliance by investing in renewables, “rather than just seeking non-Gulf oil and gas suppliers”, reported Climate Home News. This message was echoed by UK business secretary Peter Kyle, who said “doubling down on renewables” was “essential” amid “regional instability”, according to the Daily Telegraph.
China’s climate plan
PEAK COAL?: China has set out its next “five-year plan” at the annual “two sessions” meeting of the National People’s Congress, including its climate strategy out to 2030, according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post. The plan called for China to cut its carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 17% from 2026 to 2030, which “may allow for continued increase in emissions given the rate of GDP growth”, reported Reuters. The newswire added that the plan also had targets to reach peak coal in the next five years and replace 30m tonnes per year of coal with renewables.
ACTIVE YET PRUDENT: Bloomberg described the new plan as “cautious”, stating that it “frustrat[es] hopes for tighter policy that would drive the nation to peak carbon emissions well before president Xi Jinping’s 2030 deadline”. Carbon Brief has just published an in-depth analysis of the plan. China Daily reported that the strategy “highlights measures to promote the climate targets of peaking carbon dioxide emissions before 2030”, which China said it would work towards “actively yet prudently”.
Around the world
- EU RULES: The European Commission has proposed new “made in Europe” rules to support domestic low-carbon industries, “against fierce competition from China”, reported Agence France-Presse. Carbon Brief examined what it means for climate efforts.
- RECORD HEAT: The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said there is a 50-60% chance that the El Niño weather pattern could return this year, amplifying the effect of global warming and potentially driving temperatures to “record highs”, according to Euronews.
- FLAGSHIP FUND: The African Development Bank’s “flagship clean energy fund” plans to more than double its financing to $2.5bn for African renewables over the next two years, reported the Associated Press.
- NO WITHDRAWAL: Vanuatu has defied US efforts to force the Pacific-island nation to drop a UN draft resolution calling on the world to implement a landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on climate, according to the Guardian.
98
The number of nations that submitted their national reports on tackling nature loss to the UN on time – just half of the 196 countries that are part of the UN biodiversity treaty – according to analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- Sea levels are already “much higher than assumed” in most assessments of the threat posed by sea-level rise, due to “inadequate” modelling assumptions | Nature
- Accelerating human-caused global warming could see the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit crossed before 2030 | Geophysical Research Letters covered by Carbon Brief
- Future “super El Niño events” could “significantly lower” solar power generation due to a reduction in solar irradiance in key regions, such as California and east China | Communications Earth & Environment
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured

UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 fell to 54% below 1990 levels, the baseline year for its legally binding climate goals, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. Over the same period, data from the World Bank shows that the UK’s economy has expanded by 95%, meaning that emissions have been decoupling from growth.
Spotlight
Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ community wind turbine
Following the recent launch of the UK government’s local power plan, Carbon Brief visits one of the country’s community-energy success stories.
The Lawrence Weston housing estate is set apart from the main city of Bristol, wedged between the tree-lined grounds of a stately home and a sprawl of warehouses and waste incinerators. It is one of the most deprived areas in the city.
Yet, just across the M5 motorway stands a structure that has brought the spoils of the energy transition directly to this historically forgotten estate – a 4.2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine.
The turbine is owned by local charity Ambition Lawrence Weston and all the profits from its electricity sales – around £100,000 a year – go to the community. In the UK’s local power plan, it was singled out by energy secretary Ed Miliband as a “pioneering” project.
‘Sustainable income’
On a recent visit to the estate by Carbon Brief, Ambition Lawrence Weston’s development manager, Mark Pepper, rattled off the story behind the wind turbine.
In 2012, Pepper and his team were approached by the Bristol Energy Cooperative with a chance to get a slice of the income from a new solar farm. They jumped at the opportunity.
“Austerity measures were kicking in at the time,” Pepper told Carbon Brief. “We needed to generate an income. Our own, sustainable income.”
With the solar farm proving to be a success, the team started to explore other opportunities. This began a decade-long process that saw them navigate the Conservative government’s “ban” on onshore wind, raise £5.5m in funding and, ultimately, erect the turbine in 2023.
Today, the turbine generates electricity equivalent to Lawrence Weston’s 3,000 households and will save 87,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) over its lifetime.

‘Climate by stealth’
Ambition Lawrence Weston’s hub is at the heart of the estate and the list of activities on offer is seemingly endless: birthday parties, kickboxing, a library, woodworking, help with employment and even a pop-up veterinary clinic. All supported, Pepper said, with the help of a steady income from community-owned energy.
The centre itself is kitted out with solar panels, heat pumps and electric-vehicle charging points, making it a living advertisement for the net-zero transition. Pepper noted that the organisation has also helped people with energy costs amid surging global gas prices.
Gesturing to the England flags dangling limply on lamp posts visible from the kitchen window, he said:
“There’s a bit of resentment around immigration and scarcity of materials and provision, so we’re trying to do our bit around community cohesion.”
This includes supper clubs and an interfaith grand iftar during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Anti-immigration sentiment in the UK has often gone hand-in-hand with opposition to climate action. Right-wing politicians and media outlets promote the idea that net-zero policies will cost people a lot of money – and these ideas have cut through with the public.
Pepper told Carbon Brief he is sympathetic to people’s worries about costs and stressed that community energy is the perfect way to win people over:
“I think the only way you can change that is if, instead of being passive consumers…communities are like us and they’re generating an income to offset that.”
From the outset, Pepper stressed that “we weren’t that concerned about climate because we had other, bigger pressures”, adding:
“But, in time, we’ve delivered climate by stealth.”
Watch, read, listen
OIL WATCH: The Guardian has published a “visual guide” with charts and videos showing how the “escalating Iran conflict is driving up oil and gas prices”.
MURDER IN HONDURAS: Ten years on from the murder of Indigenous environmental justice advocate Berta Cáceres, Drilled asked why Honduras is still so dangerous for environmental activists.
TALKING WEATHER: A new film, narrated by actor Michael Sheen and titled You Told Us To Talk About the Weather, aimed to promote conversation about climate change with a blend of “poetry, folk horror and climate storytelling”.
Coming up
- 8 March: Colombia parliamentary election
- 9-19 March: 31st Annual Session of the International Seabed Authority, Kingston, Jamaica
- 11 March: UN Environment Programme state of finance for nature 2026 report launch
Pick of the jobs
- London School of Economics and Political Science, fellow in the social science of sustainability | Salary: £43,277-£51,714. Location: London
- NORCAP, innovative climate finance expert | Salary: Unknown. Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
- WBHM, environmental reporter | Salary: $50,050-$81,330. Location: Birmingham, Alabama, US
- Climate Cabinet, data engineer | Salary: hourly rate of $60-$120 per hour. Location: Remote anywhere in the US
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 6 March 2026: Iran energy crisis | China climate plan | Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ wind turbine appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Greenhouse Gases
Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change?
China’s leadership has published a draft of its 15th five-year plan setting the strategic direction for the nation out to 2030, including support for clean energy and energy security.
The plan sets a target to cut China’s “carbon intensity” by 17% over the five years from 2026-30, but also changes the basis for calculating this key climate metric.
The plan continues to signal support for China’s clean-energy buildout and, in general, contains no major departures from the country’s current approach to the energy transition.
The government reaffirms support for several clean-energy industries, ranging from solar and electric vehicles (EVs) through to hydrogen and “new-energy” storage.
The plan also emphasises China’s willingness to steer climate governance and be seen as a provider of “global public goods”, in the form of affordable clean-energy technologies.
However, while the document says it will “promote the peaking” of coal and oil use, it does not set out a timeline and continues to call for the “clean and efficient” use of coal.
This shows that tensions remain between China’s climate goals and its focus on energy security, leading some analysts to raise concerns about its carbon-cutting ambition.
Below, Carbon Brief outlines the key climate change and energy aspects of the plan, including targets for carbon intensity, non-fossil energy and forestry.
Note: this article is based on a draft published on 5 March and will be updated if any significant changes are made in the final version of the plan, due to be released at the close next week of the “two sessions” meeting taking place in Beijing.
- What is China’s 15th five-year plan?
- What does the plan say about China’s climate action?
- What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?
- Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?
- What does the plan signal about coal?
- How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years?
- What else does the plan cover?
What is China’s 15th five-year plan?
Five-year plans are one of the most important documents in China’s political system.
Addressing everything from economic strategy to climate policy, they outline the planned direction for China’s socio-economic development in a five-year period. The 15th five-year plan covers 2026-30.
These plans include several “main goals”. These are largely quantitative indicators that are seen as particularly important to achieve and which provide a foundation for subsequent policies during the five-year period.
The table below outlines some of the key “main goals” from the draft 15th five-year plan.
| Category | Indicator | Indicator in 2025 | Target by 2030 | Cumulative target over 2026-2030 | Characteristic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic development | Gross domestic product (GDP) growth (%) | 5 | Maintained within a reasonable range and proposed annually as appropriate. | Anticipatory | |
| ‘Green and low-carbon | Reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP (%) | 17.7 | 17 | Binding | |
| Share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption (%) | 21.7 | 25 | Binding | ||
| Security guarantee | Comprehensive energy production capacity (100m tonnes of standard coal equivalent) |
51.3 | 58 | Binding |
Select list of targets highlighted in the “main goals” section of the draft 15th five-year plan. Source: Draft 15th five-year plan.
Since the 12th five-year plan, covering 2011-2015, these “main goals” have included energy intensity and carbon intensity as two of five key indicators for “green ecology”.
The previous five-year plan, which ran from 2021-2025, introduced the idea of an absolute “cap” on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, although it did not provide an explicit figure in the document. This has been subsequently addressed by a policy on the “dual-control of carbon” issued in 2024.
The latest plan removes the energy-intensity goal and elevates the carbon-intensity goal, but does not set an absolute cap on emissions (see below).
It covers the years until 2030, before which China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions. (Analysis for Carbon Brief found that emissions have been “flat or falling” since March 2024.)
The plans are released at the two sessions, an annual gathering of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). This year, it runs from 4-12 March.
The plans are often relatively high-level, with subsequent topic-specific five-year plans providing more concrete policy guidance.
Policymakers at the National Energy Agency (NEA) have indicated that in the coming years they will release five sector-specific plans for 2026-2030, covering topics such as the “new energy system”, electricity and renewable energy.
There may also be specific five-year plans covering carbon emissions and environmental protection, as well as the coal and nuclear sectors, according to analysts.
Other documents published during the two sessions include an annual government work report, which outlines key targets and policies for the year ahead.
The gathering is attended by thousands of deputies – delegates from across central and local governments, as well as Chinese Communist party members, members of other political parties, academics, industry leaders and other prominent figures.
What does the plan say about China’s climate action?
Achieving China’s climate targets will remain a key driver of the country’s policies in the next five years, according to the draft 15th five-year plan.
It lists the “acceleration” of China’s energy transition as a “major achievement” in the 14th five-year plan period (2021-2025), noting especially how clean-power capacity had overtaken fossil fuels.
The draft says China will “actively and steadily advance and achieve carbon peaking”, with policymakers continuing to strike a balance between building a “green economy” and ensuring stability.
Climate and environment continues to receive its own chapter in the plan. However, the framing and content of this chapter has shifted subtly compared with previous editions, as shown in the table below. For example, unlike previous plans, the first section of this chapter focuses on China’s goal to peak emissions.
| 11th five-year plan (2006-2010) | 12th five-year plan (2011-2015) | 13th five-year plan (2016-2020) | 14th five-year plan (2021-2025) | 15th five-year plan (2026-2030) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chapter title | Part 6: Build a resource-efficient and environmentally-friendly society | Part 6: Green development, building a resource-efficient and environmentally friendly society | Part 10: Ecosystems and the environment | Part 11: Promote green development and facilitate the harmonious coexistence of people and nature | Part 13: Accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development to build a beautiful China |
| Sections | Developing a circular economy | Actively respond to global climate change | Accelerate the development of functional zones | Improve the quality and stability of ecosystems | Actively and steadily advancing and achieving carbon peaking |
| Protecting and restoring natural ecosystems | Strengthen resource conservation and management | Promote economical and intensive resource use | Continue to improve environmental quality | Continuously improving environmental quality | |
| Strengthening environmental protection | Vigorously develop the circular economy | Step up comprehensive environmental governance | Accelerate the green transformation of the development model | Enhancing the diversity, stability, and sustainability of ecosystems | |
| Enhancing resource management | Strengthen environmental protection efforts | Intensify ecological conservation and restoration | Accelerating the formation of green production and lifestyles | ||
| Rational utilisation of marine and climate resources | Promoting ecological conservation and restoration | Respond to global climate change | |||
| Strengthen the development of water conservancy and disaster prevention and mitigation systems | Improve mechanisms for ensuring ecological security | ||||
| Develop green and environmentally-friendly industries |
Title and main sections of the climate and environment-focused chapters in the last five five-year plans. Source: China’s 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year plans.
The climate and environment chapter in the latest plan calls for China to “balance [economic] development and emission reduction” and “ensure the timely achievement of carbon peak targets”.
Under the plan, China will “continue to pursue” its established direction and objectives on climate, Prof Li Zheng, dean of the Tsinghua University Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development (ICCSD), tells Carbon Brief.
What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?
In the lead-up to the release of the plan, analysts were keenly watching for signals around China’s adoption of a system for the “dual-control of carbon”.
This would combine the existing targets for carbon intensity – the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP – with a new cap on China’s total carbon emissions. This would mark a dramatic step for the country, which has never before set itself a binding cap on total emissions.
Policymakers had said last year that this framework would come into effect during the 15th five-year plan period, replacing the previous system for the “dual-control of energy”.
However, the draft 15th five-year plan does not offer further details on when or how both parts of the dual-control of carbon system will be implemented. Instead, it continues to focus on carbon intensity targets alone.
Looking back at the previous five-year plan period, the latest document says China had achieved a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7%, just shy of its 18% goal.
This is in contrast with calculations by Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which had suggested that China had only cut its carbon intensity by 12% over the past five years.
At the time it was set in 2021, the 18% target had been seen as achievable, with analysts telling Carbon Brief that they expected China to realise reductions of 20% or more.
However, the government had fallen behind on meeting the target.
Last year, ecology and environment minister Huang Runqiu attributed this to the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather and trade tensions. He said that China, nevertheless, remained “broadly” on track to meet its 2030 international climate pledge of reducing carbon intensity by more than 65% from 2005 levels.
Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that the newly reported figure showing a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7% is likely due to an “opportunistic” methodological revision. The new methodology now includes industrial process emissions – such as cement and chemicals – as well as the energy sector.
(This is not the first time China has redefined a target, with regulators changing the methodology for energy intensity in 2023.)
For the next five years, the plan sets a target to reduce carbon intensity by 17%, slightly below the previous goal.
However, the change in methodology means that this leaves space for China’s overall emissions to rise by “3-6% over the next five years”, says Myllyvirta. In contrast, he adds that the original methodology would have required a 2% fall in absolute carbon emissions by 2030.
The dashed lines in the chart below show China’s targets for reducing carbon intensity during the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year periods, while the bars show what was achieved under the old (dark blue) and new (light blue) methodology.

The carbon-intensity target is the “clearest signal of Beijing’s climate ambition”, says Li Shuo, director at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s (ASPI) China climate hub.
It also links directly to China’s international pledge – made in 2021 – to cut its carbon intensity to more than 65% below 2005 levels by 2030.
To meet this pledge under the original carbon-intensity methodology, China would have needed to set a target of a 23% reduction within the 15th five-year plan period. However, the country’s more recent 2035 international climate pledge, released last year, did not include a carbon-intensity target.
As such, ASPI’s Li interprets the carbon-intensity target in the draft 15th five-year plan as a “quiet recalibration” that signals “how difficult the original 2030 goal has become”.
Furthermore, the 15th five-year plan does not set an absolute emissions cap.
This leaves “significant ambiguity” over China’s climate plans, says campaign group 350 in a press statement reacting to the draft plan. It explains:
“The plan was widely expected to mark a clearer transition from carbon-intensity targets toward absolute emissions reductions…[but instead] leaves significant ambiguity about how China will translate record renewable deployment into sustained emissions cuts.”
Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that this represents a “continuation” of the government’s focus on scaling up clean-energy supply while avoiding setting “strong measurable emission targets”.
He says that he would still expect to see absolute caps being set for power and industrial sectors covered by China’s emissions trading scheme (ETS). In addition, he thinks that an overall absolute emissions cap may still be published later in the five-year period.
Despite the fact that it has yet to be fully implemented, the switch from dual-control of energy to dual-control of carbon represents a “major policy evolution”, Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), tells Carbon Brief. He says that it will allow China to “provide more flexibility for renewable energy expansion while tightening the net on fossil-fuel reliance”.
Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?
“How quickly carbon intensity is reduced largely depends on how much renewable energy can be supplied,” says Yao Zhe, global policy advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, in a statement.
The five-year plan continues to call for China’s development of a “new energy system that is clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient” by 2030, with continued additions of “wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power”.
In line with China’s international pledge, it sets a target for raising the share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption to 25% by 2030, up from just under 21.7% in 2025.
The development of “green factories” and “zero-carbon [industrial] parks” has been central to many local governments’ strategies for meeting the non-fossil energy target, according to industry news outlet BJX News. A call to build more of these zero-carbon industrial parks is listed in the five-year plan.
Prof Pan Jiahua, dean of Beijing University of Technology’s Institute of Ecological Civilization, tells Carbon Brief that expanding demand for clean energy through mechanisms such as “green factories” represents an increasingly “bottom-up” and “market-oriented” approach to the energy transition, which will leave “no place for fossil fuels”.
He adds that he is “very much sure that China’s zero-carbon process is being accelerated and fossil fuels are being driven out of the market”, pointing to the rapid adoption of EVs.
The plan says that China will aim to double “non-fossil energy” in 10 years – although it does not clarify whether this means their installed capacity or electricity generation, or what the exact starting year would be.
Research has shown that doubling wind and solar capacity in China between 2025-2035 would be “consistent” with aims to limit global warming to 2C.
While the language “certainly” pushes for greater additions of renewable energy, Yao tells Carbon Brief, it is too “opaque” to be a “direct indication” of the government’s plans for renewable additions.
She adds that “grid stability and healthy, orderly competition” is a higher priority for policymakers than guaranteeing a certain level of capacity additions.
China continues to place emphasis on the need for large-scale clean-energy “bases” and cross-regional power transmission.
The plan says China must develop “clean-energy bases…in the three northern regions” and “integrated hydro-wind-solar complexes” in south-west China.
It specifically encourages construction of “large-scale wind and solar” power bases in desert regions “primarily” for cross-regional power transmission, as well as “major hydropower” projects, including the Yarlung Tsangpo dam in Tibet.
As such, the country should construct “power-transmission corridors” with the capacity to send 420 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from clean-energy bases in western provinces to energy-hungry eastern provinces by 2030, the plan says.
State Grid, China’s largest grid operator, plans to install “another 15 ultra-high voltage [UHV] transmission lines” by 2030, reports Reuters, up from the 45 UHV lines built by last year.
Below are two maps illustrating the interlinkages between clean-energy bases in China in the 15th (top) and 14th (bottom) five-year plan periods.
The yellow dotted areas represent clean energy bases, while the arrows represent cross-regional power transmission. The blue wind-turbine icons represent offshore windfarms and the red cooling tower icons represent coastal nuclear plants.


The 15th five-year plan map shows a consistent approach to the 2021-2025 period. As well as power being transmitted from west to east, China plans for more power to be sent to southern provinces from clean-energy bases in the north-west, while clean-energy bases in the north-east supply China’s eastern coast.
It also maps out “mutual assistance” schemes for power grids in neighbouring provinces.
Offshore wind power should reach 100GW by 2030, while nuclear power should rise to 110GW, according to the plan.
What does the plan signal about coal?
The increased emphasis on grid infrastructure in the draft 15th five-year plan reflects growing concerns from energy planning officials around ensuring China’s energy supply.
Ren Yuzhi, director of the NEA’s development and planning department, wrote ahead of the plan’s release that the “continuous expansion” of China’s energy system has “dramatically increased its complexity”.
He said the NEA felt there was an “urgent need” to enhance the “secure and reliable” replacement of fossil-fuel power with new energy sources, as well as to ensure the system’s “ability to absorb them”.
Meanwhile, broader concerns around energy security have heightened calls for coal capacity to remain in the system as a “ballast stone”.
The plan continues to support the “clean and efficient utilisation of fossil fuels” and does not mention either a cap or peaking timeline for coal consumption.
Xi had previously told fellow world leaders that China would “strictly control” coal-fired power and phase down coal consumption in the 15th five-year plan period.
The “geopolitical situation is increasing energy security concerns” at all levels of government, said the Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress in a note responding to the draft plan, adding that this was creating “uncertainty over coal reduction”.
Ahead of its publication, there were questions around whether the plan would set a peaking deadline for oil and coal. An article posted by state news agency Xinhua last month, examining recommendations for the plan from top policymakers, stated that coal consumption would plateau from “around 2027”, while oil would peak “around 2026”.
However, the plan does not lay out exact years by which the two fossil fuels should peak, only saying that China will “promote the peaking of coal and oil consumption”.
There are similarly no mentions of phasing out coal in general, in line with existing policy.
Nevertheless, there is a heavy emphasis on retrofitting coal-fired power plants. The plan calls for the establishment of “demonstration projects” for coal-plant retrofitting, such as through co-firing with biomass or “green ammonia”.
Such retrofitting could incentivise lower utilisation of coal plants – and thus lower emissions – if they are used to flexibly meet peaks in demand and to cover gaps in clean-energy output, instead of providing a steady and significant share of generation.
The plan also calls for officials to “fully implement low-carbon retrofitting projects for coal-chemical industries”, which have been a notable source of emissions growth in the past year.
However, the coal-chemicals sector will likely remain a key source of demand for China’s coal mining industry, with coal-to-oil and coal-to-gas bases listed as a “key area” for enhancing the country’s “security capabilities”.
Meanwhile, coal-fired boilers and industrial kilns in the paper industry, food processing and textiles should be replaced with “clean” alternatives to the equivalent of 30m tonnes of coal consumption per year, it says.
“China continues to scale up clean energy at an extraordinary pace, but the plan still avoids committing to strong measurable constraints on emissions or fossil fuel use”, says Joseph Dellatte, head of energy and climate studies at the Institut Montaigne. He adds:
“The logic remains supply-driven: deploy massive amounts of clean energy and assume emissions will eventually decline.”
How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years?
Meanwhile, clean-energy technologies continue to play a role in upgrading China’s economy, with several “new energy” sectors listed as key to its industrial policy.
Named sectors include smart EVs, “new solar cells”, new-energy storage, hydrogen and nuclear fusion energy.
“China’s clean-technology development – rather than traditional administrative climate controls – is increasingly becoming the primary driver of emissions reduction,” says ASPI’s Li. He adds that strengthening China’s clean-energy sectors means “more closely aligning Beijing’s economic ambitions with its climate objectives”.
Analysis for Carbon Brief shows that clean energy drove more than a third of China’s GDP growth in 2025, representing around 11% of China’s whole economy.
The continued support for these sectors in the draft five-year plan comes as the EU outlined its own measures intended to limit China’s hold on clean-energy industries, driven by accusations of “unfair competition” from Chinese firms.
China is unlikely to crack down on clean-tech production capacity, Dr Rebecca Nadin, director of the Centre for Geopolitics of Change at ODI Global, tells Carbon Brief. She says:
“Beijing is treating overcapacity in solar and smart EVs as a strategic choice, not a policy error…and is prepared to pour investment into these sectors to cement global market share, jobs and technological leverage.”
Dellatte echoes these comments, noting that it is “striking” that the plan “barely addresses the issue of industrial overcapacity in clean technologies”, with the focus firmly on “scaling production and deployment”.
At the same time, China is actively positioning itself to be a prominent voice in climate diplomacy and a champion of proactive climate action.
This is clear from the first line in a section on providing “global public goods”. It says:
“As a responsible major country, China will play a more active role in addressing global challenges such as climate change.”
The plan notes that China will “actively participate in and steer [引领] global climate governance”, in line with the principle of “common,but differentiated responsibilities”.
This echoes similar language from last year’s government work report, Yao tells Carbon Brief, demonstrating a “clear willingness” to guide global negotiations. But she notes that this “remains an aspiration that’s yet to be made concrete”. She adds:
“China has always favored collective leadership, so its vision of leadership is never a lone one.”
The country will “deepen south-south cooperation on climate change”, the plan says. In an earlier section on “opening up”, it also notes that China will explore “new avenues for collaboration in green development” with global partners as part of its “Belt and Road Initiative”.
China is “doubling down” on a narrative that it is a “responsible major power” and “champion of south-south climate cooperation”, Nadin says, such as by “presenting its clean‑tech exports and finance as global public goods”. She says:
“China will arrive at future COPs casting itself as the indispensable climate leader for the global south…even though its new five‑year plan still puts growth, energy security and coal ahead of faster emissions cuts at home.”
What else does the plan cover?
The impact of extreme weather – particularly floods – remains a key concern in the plan.
China must “refine” its climate adaptation framework and “enhance its resilience to climate change, particularly extreme-weather events”, it says.
China also aims to “strengthen construction of a national water network” over the next five years in order to help prevent floods and droughts.
An article published a few days before the plan in the state-run newspaper China Daily noted that, “as global warming intensifies, extreme weather events – including torrential rains, severe convective storms, and typhoons – have become more frequent, widespread and severe”.
The plan also touches on critical minerals used for low-carbon technologies. These will likely remain a geopolitical flashpoint, with China saying it will focus during the next five years on “intensifying” exploration and “establishing” a reserve for critical minerals. This reserve will focus on “scarce” energy minerals and critical minerals, as well as other “advantageous mineral resources”.
Dellatte says that this could mean the “competition in the energy transition will increasingly be about control over mineral supply chains”.
Other low-carbon policies listed in the five-year plan include expanding coverage of China’s mandatory carbon market and further developing its voluntary carbon market.
China will “strengthen monitoring and control” of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, the plan says, as well as implementing projects “targeting methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons” in sectors such as coal mining, agriculture and chemicals.
This will create “capacity” for reducing emissions by 30m tonnes of CO2 equivalent, it adds.
Meanwhile, China will develop rules for carbon footprint accounting and push for internationally recognised accounting standards.
It will enhance reform of power markets over the next five years and improve the trading mechanism for green electricity certificates.
It will also “promote” adoption of low-carbon lifestyles and decarbonisation of transport, as well as working to advance electrification of freight and shipping.
The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change?
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?









