Episode 105: What’s at Stake for Clean Energy Tax Credits?
In this second episode of our new policy mini-series, CCL’s Dana Nuccitelli and Elissa Tennant return to break down the latest developments in the ongoing fight to defend the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) clean energy tax credits.
With the Senate Finance Committee’s budget text now public, Dana and Elissa compare how the Senate version stacks up against the House Ways and Means Committee’s bill — and what it all means for our energy bills, manufacturing sector, and climate targets.
Spoiler alert: If key tax credits are repealed or weakened, households could face up to $3,000 in higher energy costs over the next decade, and the U.S. could lose hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs.
Listen Now!
In this episode:
- What the “Byrd bath” process is, and why it matters
- Why transferability of tax credits is essential for small clean energy businesses
- What’s really behind the “Foreign Entities of Concern” language
- How repealing credits affects electric vehicles, clean energy buildout, and climate pollution
- Action steps for advocates
Listener Questions: Energy Efficiency and Podcast Joy
In this episode, we feature two insightful voicemails from listeners. One caller asks about the real-world impact of removing the 45L energy-efficient homes tax credit and the potential loss of the long-standing Energy Star program. Dana breaks down how these changes would raise household energy bills and reduce incentives for smarter energy use. Another listener shares how Citizens’ Climate Radio boosts their mood and motivation, even when the topics are tough—reminding us why we do this work.
Leadership Update: Meet Ricky Bradley
We close the episode with a major announcement from CCL Board Chair Bill Blancato: Ricky Bradley will become Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s Interim Executive Director starting July 16, 2025. Ricky has been with CCL since 2012, starting as a volunteer and later launching key initiatives like Citizens’ Climate University and CCL Community. Ricky shares heartfelt reflections on his journey with CCL and his vision for leading the organization into its next chapter.
Mentioned in the episode:
- CCL’s action page to defend clean energy tax credits
- Overview of the Senate Finance Committee’s proposed budget
- Energy Innovation modeling on IRA repeal
- Princeton’s REPEAT Project
- U.S. DOE info on the 45L tax credit
- Energy Star program background
We Want to Hear from You
Join the conversation over at The Nerd Corner
Email: radio @ citizensclimate.org
Listener Line: Call or text us at +1-619-512-9646 with your comments or questions.
Social Media: Follow us on X, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, and TikTok.
Join us in person: Register now for the Citizens’ Climate Lobby Summer Conference and Lobby Day happening July 20–22, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Transcript
Citizens’ Climate Radio – Episode 105
Title: What’s at Stake for Clean Energy Tax Credits
PETERSON TOSCANO:
Welcome to Citizens’ Climate Radio, the podcast that helps you understand the climate policy news behind the headlines. I’m Peterson Toscano.
Each month we bring you timely updates from Capitol Hill and beyond, breaking down complex topics and showing how you can make an impact.
In this episode, you’ll hear big news from Citizens’ Climate Lobby regarding our leadership. But first, we’re continuing our new series with CCL’s Elissa Tennant and Dana Nuccitelli. They team up to help you navigate the fast-changing world of climate legislation.
Today, they’re diving into the latest news and research on the Inflation Reduction Act—and how repealing it would hurt American families and businesses. So what’s in the new text, what’s at stake, and how can climate advocates respond?
Elissa and Dana, welcome back to the show.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Glad to be here. Thanks, Peterson.
PETERSON TOSCANO:
Before we dive in, what’s one climate policy term or phrase you wish more people understood—and why?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
I’m going to say the concept of net zero emissions, which means you’re pulling as much carbon out of the atmosphere as you’re adding in a given year. So you’re not increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Some people argue that’s not good enough because our emissions aren’t literally zero. Others say it’s impossible to reach. But not only is it possible—it’s a good target. Once you reach net zero emissions, that’s when global warming stops. And that’s the whole goal.
ELISSA TENNANT:
And mine segues nicely into our discussion. My term is budget reconciliation. It’s not directly a climate-related term, but I had never heard of it before I came to Citizens’ Climate Lobby. It impacts so many policies, including climate and energy. I wish more people understood it—but I get it, it’s a really long process.
PETERSON TOSCANO:
Same. It was a new thing for me too. I love those answers.
Thanks so much—and thank you for taking over the mic today. Listener, you are in excellent hands. I’ll be back at the end of the show.
Chapter 1: Senate Budget Breakdown
ELISSA TENNANT:
Thank you, Peterson. And thank you for listening and for joining us. Later in the show, we’ll share some listener voicemails and our responses—and let you know how you can leave your own voicemail or question for us.
But first—Dana, we are knee-deep in budget reconciliation. Let’s talk about it.
Our last episode covered the release of the House Ways and Means Committee’s version of the budget, which gutted the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits. The House ultimately passed that version, and now negotiations have moved to the Senate.
So let’s set the scene. What’s happening in the Senate right now?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
All of the Senate committees have released their versions of the budget reconciliation bill. The last committee to go was the Senate Finance Committee—they have the most complicated and wide-ranging responsibilities, including decisions about the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits.
They’ve now released their text, and it’s going through what’s called the bird bath, which is when the Senate parliamentarian checks each proposal to make sure it qualifies for inclusion under budget reconciliation rules.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Talk to me more about the bird bath. I don’t know if we mentioned it in our last episode, but we can’t just throw that term out and move on.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Yeah, we’ve talked about the parliamentarian before—Elizabeth McDonough. Shout out to her.
For a proposal to qualify for budget reconciliation, it must be primarily budgetary in nature. That means the proposal’s main purpose has to be to affect federal spending or revenue. It can’t just be a policy change with minor budget implications.
The parliamentarian reviews all provisions and decides what stays. That process is called the bird bath, named after Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who helped establish these rules.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Okay, and we learn something new every day! So the Senate Finance Committee is essentially the Senate counterpart to the House Ways and Means Committee, right?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Correct.
ELISSA TENNANT:
That’s what I thought! So let’s get into it: How is the Senate Finance Committee’s proposed budget different from the House bill?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
They definitely made improvements—especially when it comes to clean energy tax credits.
For example, the House version effectively repealed the clean electricity tax credits immediately. The Senate version, though, phases them out more gradually. Solar and wind tax credits would begin phasing out after 2025, tapering through 2027.
Other technologies—like geothermal, nuclear, hydro, and battery storage—get even more runway, with phaseouts beginning in the 2030s. That’s especially good for battery storage, which is key to addressing the intermittency of solar and wind power.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Sounds like a solid improvement. Let’s talk about those so-called “poison pills” in the House version. I want to get into the weeds.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Let’s do it. One of the biggest issues was the Foreign Entities of Concern rule—FIAC for short.
Basically, the U.S. government maintains a list of countries considered foreign entities of concern—currently China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. The goal is to reduce our reliance on countries like China for clean energy technology components.
The House version took this idea to the extreme. It said that if any part of your clean energy project came from China—even a single bolt or wire—then your entire project would be disqualified from receiving tax credits. That’s just not realistic.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Right, because we rely on a global supply chain. That rule would have been nearly impossible to comply with.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Exactly. The Senate version still includes FIAC language, but it’s less extreme. It looks more workable, though folks are still analyzing the details to see if it’s feasible for specific technologies.
Another big difference is on transferability. In the Inflation Reduction Act, clean energy tax credits are transferable. That means small companies that don’t owe a lot in taxes can sell those credits to larger businesses that do—basically creating a marketplace.
The House bill would have rolled that back. Without transferability, small solar and wind companies would have to partner with big banks to monetize those credits. And of course, the banks would take a cut.
ELISSA TENNANT:
So instead of tax credits going to solar panels, they’d be going to financial institutions. Not ideal.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Exactly. The Senate version preserves transferability, which means those taxpayer dollars are more likely to support actual clean energy projects rather than getting siphoned off in financing deals.
ELISSA TENNANT:
I love a good metaphor, and one we’ve been using on internal calls is: The House bill really dug a deep hole. The Senate version is throwing in a few shovelfuls of dirt to try and fill it back in.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Right. It’s still not great—but definitely better. The Senate version eliminates some of the most harmful provisions from the House bill.
Chapter 2: What’s at Stake?
ELISSA TENNANT:
And now… we’re going to stop celebrating and talk about the impacts. As our resident nerd, I know you’ve been poring over 10 to 15 studies on what happens if the IRA’s clean energy tax credits get repealed.
So what’s the headline here? What happens if we lose these credits or they get phased out?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
I looked at about 8 to 10 reports. The headline is simple: Repealing these tax credits will make household energy bills go up.
That includes electricity, gasoline, and natural gas. And that’s bad news for pretty much everyone.
ELISSA TENNANT:
How much are we talking?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Gasoline prices could go up anywhere from 3 to 25 cents per gallon. That’s because eliminating the EV tax credit would mean fewer people buy electric vehicles—and more people buy gas cars. More gas demand = higher prices.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Oof. A little economics lesson there.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Exactly. Electricity bills would increase by about $100 per year per household. Same goes for vehicle fuel costs—another $100 a year. And if your home uses natural gas, those prices could go up too, because utilities would be relying more on fossil fuels.
All together, average U.S. households could see $1,000 to $3,000 in additional energy costs over the next 10 years.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Okay, I’m going to speak on behalf of the audience: We’re not loving this news.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Yeah, no one wants to pay an extra two grand just because Congress gutted a clean energy policy.
ELISSA TENNANT:
And that’s just the household side. What about jobs and manufacturing?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
We’ve seen a clean energy manufacturing boom since the Inflation Reduction Act passed—especially in EVs, batteries, and solar panels. Companies invested based on the expectation that these tax credits would stick around.
If those credits disappear, demand drops. And when demand drops, companies stop building new factories—or even close existing ones.
The Princeton REPEAT Project estimates that repealing the EV tax credit could result in 20 to 40 million fewer EVs on the road by 2035. That kind of drop means we may already have too much manufacturing capacity. Companies could start laying off workers.
ELISSA TENNANT:
This whole conversation is painful. The only way out is through. Let’s talk about jobs.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Right. So if demand for clean energy drops, the need for manufacturing drops, and we lose jobs.
It’s not just factory jobs. It’s also the people who build wind and solar farms—construction workers, electricians, and so on. If the House version passed as-is, clean power deployment would be cut in half over the next decade.
Even the Senate version, while better, would still result in fewer projects being built than if we kept the full IRA incentives. That means hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in clean energy manufacturing and construction.
And remember, those workers spend money in their communities. Fewer jobs means less local spending, which means more job losses across the economy.
ELISSA TENNANT:
So we’re talking about higher household costs, fewer clean energy projects, massive job losses… and shrinking GDP?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Yes. Analysts estimate the IRA repeal would reduce GDP by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
And that’s the kicker: lawmakers are trying to save half a trillion by repealing the tax credits—but it’ll cost the economy twice that in lost output. It’s not fiscally smart.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Tell me that’s the last of the bad news?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Not quite. More fossil fuel use means more air pollution. One report I reviewed projected thousands of additional premature deaths due to smog, particulates, and other pollutants from burning gas and coal.
There are also increases in asthma, heart disease, even dementia. And of course, there’s climate pollution—greenhouse gas emissions will rise if we roll back these clean energy programs.
ELISSA TENNANT:
So not only would we fall short of our climate targets, we’d be rolling back gains in public health and energy affordability?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Exactly. If this repeal effort goes through, the U.S. will only achieve a 20–30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030.
Our Paris Agreement target is 50%. So we’d be well short—unless Congress changes course.
Chapter 3: Energy Security & Grid Strain
ELISSA TENNANT:
Let’s talk about energy security. What happens if we roll back clean energy investments at the same time electricity demand is rising?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
That’s a big problem. Right now, we’re seeing a sharp increase in electricity demand—faster than anything in the past 20 years.
Why? A few reasons:
- Data centers, especially for artificial intelligence, use a ton of power.
- More people are buying electric vehicles.
- Homes are switching to electric heat pumps.
- And hotter temperatures from global warming mean more air conditioning.
All that adds up to a projected 5 to 10 times faster growth in power demand compared to previous decades.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Wow.
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Yeah. And if we strip away the financial incentives for building new clean power sources, we won’t be able to keep up with that demand.
That means we’re at risk of blackouts and grid instability—especially in the summer, when power use spikes.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Why are solar and wind getting the short end of the stick here? What did they ever do?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Some lawmakers argue that solar and wind are “mature technologies” and don’t need help anymore.
And it’s true—they’ve gotten cheaper. But clean energy projects still rely on long-term financial modeling, and if you suddenly yank away the incentives, it disrupts those plans.
A gradual phaseout makes more sense than ripping off the bandage.
Also… let’s be honest. The Trump administration has had a long-standing dislike of wind power. Wind energy got treated especially badly in both the House and Senate proposals.
ELISSA TENNANT:
Just for the record, I’m squinting my eyes in disapproval at that statement. Deep squint.
All right… are there any more bad impacts? Or can we finally move on?
DANA NUCCITELLI:
We can move on—but just one more: repealing these credits increases climate pollution, and we fall far short of our climate goals.
ELISSA TENNANT:
We love hearing from you, the listener. And today, we’ve got two voicemails to share.
Dana, the first one’s for you.
Listener voicemail:
Hi there. I really enjoyed your recent episode on saving clean energy tax credits. I’d love to hear a deeper dive into how removing the 45L tax credit and possibly ending the Energy Star program would impact homeowners—especially their monthly energy bills.
These programs seem so important in helping people lower utility costs, and I think that message needs to be clearer when lobbying Congress.
Thanks again—great show!
DANA NUCCITELLI:
Great question. The 45L tax credit is for building new homes that meet energy efficiency standards—think solid insulation, good windows, and Energy Star appliances. It gives developers an incentive to build efficient homes.
The Energy Star program itself is a consumer guide. If you see the sticker, you know you’re getting an energy-efficient appliance.
Repealing these would do two things:
- Raise energy bills for families living in new homes.
- Accelerate demand on the grid at a time when electricity use is already rising.
We’ve kept energy use relatively flat for the last 20 years largely because of programs like Energy Star. Removing them now, when demand is spiking, is a recipe for even higher bills.
ELISSA TENNANT:
So… we need a third-party Energy Star label. Someone out there, please start that and we’ll give you a shoutout on the show.
Our second voicemail comes from a longtime CCL volunteer.
CRAIG PRESTON (voicemail):
Hello, Peterson and the team. This is Craig Preston from the Orange County Coast Chapter.
I’ll be honest—I’m always tempted to skip a 40-minute podcast. But every time I listen, Citizens’ Climate Radio gives me a boost of inspiration and energy for activism.
Thanks for the gift of this show.
ELISSA TENNANT:
That is so kind. Thank you, Craig. You’re the best. We’ll see you in D.C. this July at the CCL Summer Conference and Lobby Day!
ELISSA TENNANT:
Before we wrap up, one more update—and it’s a big one.
PETERSON TOSCANO:
That’s right. We’ve got some leadership news to share.
BILL BLANCATO (clip from June monthly call):
Hey everybody. I’m Bill Blancato, and I’ve been a CCL volunteer since 2013. In 2014, I helped start the second chapter in North Carolina.
As of June 1st, I’m serving as Chair of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby Board.
The leadership update I want to share is this: Our Executive Director, Rachel Kerestes, has announced she’ll be stepping down effective July 15th.
Together with the board, we’ve offered the role of Interim Executive Director to Ricky Bradley—and I’m happy to say he’s accepted. He’ll officially assume the role on July 16th.
RICKY BRADLEY (clip):
Thank you, Bill. I’m deeply honored by this opportunity.
For those who don’t know me, I started volunteering with CCL in 2012. My first chapter meeting was at my kitchen table—with my spouse and one other person.
Since then, I’ve served in lots of roles—helping to relaunch the website, create CCL Community, and build Citizens’ Climate University. I’ve worked as Regional Coordinator in the South and most recently served as VP of Field Operations.
What makes CCL powerful isn’t just the strategy—it’s the people. The relationships we’ve built together. The passion and the purpose we bring to the work.
PETERSON TOSCANO:
Here at Citizens’ Climate Radio, Ricky holds a special place in our hearts. He was the one who first approached me about creating this podcast—almost ten years ago.
Ricky, congratulations. If you want to see him in action, join us at the Citizens’ Climate Lobby Summer Conference, July 20–22 in Washington, D.C. You can register at cclusa.org/conference.
ELISSA TENNANT:
And as a final reminder—if you’ve got a story to share or a question for the show, call or text our listener line at 619-512-9646. That’s +1 if you’re outside the U.S.
PETERSON TOSCANO:
And don’t forget: you can still take action to protect clean energy tax credits. Head to cclusa.org/IRAdefense to contact your senators.
This episode was written by Elissa Tennant, Dana Nuccitelli, and me—Peterson Toscano. I also recorded and edited the episode. (Though let’s be honest… this one barely needed editing.)
Music comes from Epidemic Sound. Citizens’ Climate Radio is a project of Citizens’ Climate Education.
Stay strong, determined, and creative in your climate work.
The post Episode 105: What’s at Stake for Clean Energy Tax Credits? appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.
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.
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 Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change8 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?