Connect with us

Published

on

Wall Street investors have earned billions financing activities linked to deforestation in the tropics, with forest loss reaching record highs last year. But a major proposal by Brazil’s COP30 presidency wants to turn financial markets into allies of the rainforest.

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a proposed new fund seeking to raise cash for conservation efforts in tropical countries, is set to be launched at the COP30 climate summit in Belém later this year.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has rallied behind the initiative and secured key endorsements from the eight South American nations home to the entire Amazon Basin. Private banks and countries in the BRICS group of large emerging economies have voiced support.

COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago has said “the TFFF is the right answer for forest conservation”.

The initiative comes as developing countries have complained about being unable to access existing forest funds at the Global Environment Facility (GEF), while foreign aid budgets which have funded forest conservation shrink in the US and Europe.

Yet finance needs in developing countries are large and growing, with estimates ranging between $20 billion and $72 billion every year to protect forests. In contrast, in 2022, the total finance destined for forests was just $2.3 billion.

    What is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF)? 

      The TFFF is being proposed as a blended finance instrument, with funding from both public and private sources. It would seek to directly pay tropical countries that can show effective forest protection.

      On paper, the TFFF will get its money similarly to an investment fund. Donor countries and private investors put their money in the fund, which then invests the capital in financial markets. A part of the returns is used to pay back investors and what remains is allocated to forest protection in tropical countries.

      “Think of a bank that runs normal market operations but that directs its profits not to shareholders but to forests,” said João Paulo de Resende, undersecretary for economic and fiscal affairs at Brazil’s Ministry of Finance.

      In its most recent version, Brazilian officials propose that the fund starts with $125 billion in capital, of which $25 billion would come from donor countries and $100 billion from private investors.

      The payments to forest countries would depend on the returns of the fund, but an 8% yield would allow the fund to pay at a rate of about $4 per hectare of protected forest — which in total could raise an estimated $2.8 billion for rainforests every year.

      The Brazilian government has said donor countries could include the United Kingdom, Norway and the United Arab Emirates, while private investors endorsing the fund include investment managers PIMCO, Bank of America and Barclays.

      Recipients would include tropical countries in major rainforest basins such as Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Indonesia, among others.

      An aerial view shows deforestation near a forest on the border between Amazonia and Cerrado in Nova Xavantina, Mato Grosso state, Brazil in 2021 (REUTERS/Amanda Perobelli)

      How is the TFFF different from other climate funds? 

        Other UN funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) or the GEF mostly give out one-time grants to countries that reduce emissions through projects and programmes to protect or restore forests (an approach known as REDD+). The TFFF would instead aim to reward countries that have kept their forests standing and can show results.

        This “results-based payments” system is not new – the GCF, for example, gave out more than $500 million between 2015 and 2020 in this way. However, a fund solely for countries that can show success in preventing deforestation is a new way to target large intact rainforests, which struggle to receive REDD+ funding, said Torbjørn Gjefsen, international forest finance advisor at the Rainforest Foundation Norway.

        “There is complementarity. It’s not competing with REDD+,” said Gjefsen. “If fully operational, it will substantially increase the amount of funding available for this kind of results-based payments.”

        Amid a context of tighter foreign aid spending, another key difference is that the TFFF would seek to attract investments rather than depending on donations from public budgets.

        The fund’s concept note claims that, if fully operational, the one-time investment from donor countries would allow payments to forest nations for as much as 40 years in the future.

        Finally, unlike the other UN environmental funds, the TFFF is being proposed as a mechanism hosted by the World Bank outside of UN environmental conventions.

        Sandra Guzman, founder of the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), said this could potentially help convince large developing countries like China to contribute funds without having to assume donor-country responsibilities at the UN negotiations. Chinese officials have welcomed the TFFF and said they “hope it plays a positive role”.  

        Colombia announces fossil fuel phase-out summit to be held in 2026

        How will the TFFF make money from financial markets? 

          In tapping financial markets, the TFFF will have to also deal with risk. If investments don’t generate the expected yields, payments to forest countries would need to be paused and paid out later, de Resende said.

          The Brazilian government’s estimates show that if the TFFF had been operating in the last 20 years, it would have been under financial stress on two occasions: during the 2008 financial crisis and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The TFFF’s models project a 60% chance that payments to forest countries would need to be slightly reduced at some point in the fund’s lifespan.

          The Brazilian authorities remain optimistic, as most value fluctuations are likely to be small, they say. Resende said that “over the long run, this risk is minimal.”

          The TFFF’s main strategy is to get cheap money from investors and lend money to emerging economies at much higher interest rates. Emerging market bonds would account for as much as 80% of its investments.

          Critics say this could be a risky strategy, which is precisely why these emerging countries pay higher interest rates. “The risk of Egypt’s state bond is just not the same as the risk of US treasury bonds,” said Max Alexander Matthey, co-founder of Climate Impact Auctions.

          Another key point is that, for the fund to achieve the promised payments, it would need to borrow money at a very low cost, so it would need a top-category AAA rating from credit rating agencies. Brazilian authorities have been in discussion with agencies on this and have said they aim to receive a “shadow rating” for the TFFF before COP30.

          As part of the strategy, the fund will also exclude any investments in polluting industries such as coal, oil and gas. 

          Can COP30 turn adaptation talks into real-world investments?

          Who is allowed to receive payments from the TFFF? 

            According to the fund’s concept note, the 74 countries that are home to rainforests could be eligible to apply for TFFF payments if they meet the required criteria.

            To access funds, tropical countries must demonstrate that they are reducing deforestation in a defined area, have a robust forest measurement system and a set of forest policies, and demonstrate that the payments will not replace national resources.

            Countries would also have to commit to reserve at least 20% of payments for Indigenous people. While an important step, Guzman said this could be tricky in practice because of the challenges of directly transferring funds to these communities.

            “Indigenous communities do not always have formal legal structures or administrative capacity,” she said. “It’s not easy, but it is desirable that communities start building these legal mechanisms.”

            Currently not many forest countries meet the minimum requirements to be eligible for TFFF payments.

            Online platform TFFF Watch, built by NGO Plant for the Planet, estimates that major countries like the DRC and Indonesia would not qualify for payments due to high deforestation rates, and would be missing on annual deals worth $400 million and $450 million respectively.

            On the other hand, Papua New Guinea would be greatly benefitted if the TFFF went into operation exactly as laid out in its concept note, according to TFFF Watch. The country is already eligible for around $120 million in annual rewards, the platform estimates.

            As shown by recent wildfires in the Amazon, some countries could end up losing or seeing some of their forests degraded even with robust protections. In these cases, countries would get their payments cut by the same ratio as they lose forests.

            Yet once they do access TFFF funding, forest countries will have full authority over how to use the funds.

            Brazilian government authorities have sent a letter of intent to the World Bank, which will have to decide by October whether it will host the TFFF. By COP30, Brazil plans to sign a declaration of intent with donor countries.

            The post Explainer: Brazil’s “right answer” to forest finance turns to financial markets to keep rainforests standing appeared first on Climate Home News.

            https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/09/23/explainer-brazil-forest-finance-financial-markets-tfff-cop30/

            Continue Reading

            Climate Change

            South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right

            Published

            on

            After a five-year long legal battle, the Constitutional Court of South Africa has blocked Shell and local partner Impact Africa’s permit to explore for oil and gas off the country’s East Coast, in a landmark victory for local communities and civil society.

            “Today’s judgment makes me feel very happy and proud that the ocean is not for profit for mining companies,” said East Coast resident and environmental campaigner Siyabonga Ndovela.

            The verdict culminates a years-long process in which non-profits Sustaining the Wild Coast, Natural Justice, Greenpeace Africa, and others took legal action against Shell, Impact Africa and the South African government for failing to consult affected communities – a legal requirement in the country.

            The Constitutional Court ruled that Shell and Impact Africa had not complied with resource governance law, had failed to meaningfully conduct public consultation and had failed to consider the impact on climate change, cultural rights, livelihoods and ecological harm.

            The ruling references last year’s landmark advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which states that countries have a legal duty to prevent and repair damage to the climate system. The South African judges argued climate change “transcends borders” and that states’ obligations “must be understood within the broader framework of international law.”

            “This case must also be understood against the backdrop of well-documented struggles by coastal communities to protect their land, marine resources and ways of life in the face of extractive activities that they believe threaten their very existence,” wrote Justice Narandran Kollapen.

            Protesters march to the Constitutional Court in 2025 (Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee/GroundUp)

            The Constitutional Court found that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.The ruling upholds a 2022 regional court decision against Shell and overturns a 2024 appeal that allowed the company to conduct fresh public consultations under the original exploration right. Today’s decision means the right, initially granted in 2014, must be set aside.

            Celebrating the decision, Sherelee Odyar, oil and gas campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home News that the court confirmed “serious failures” in the awarding of exploration rights to Shell and Impact Africa, which “can not simply be corrected later”.

            The Wild Coast is a biodiversity hotspot which has been conserved over generations by coastal communities who rely on the ocean and land. “Our land and sea are central to our livelihoods and our way of life. Over generations we have conserved them, and they have conserved us,” reads the founding statement in the case. 

            A Shell spokesperson said it noted the ruling, responding that “we are committed to responsible offshore exploration, meaningful stakeholder engagement and environmental stewardship.”

            The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.

            “Renewed strength” for communities

            The ruling adds to a series of legal challenges brought by civil society groups against oil companies and the government as South Africa has expanded oil and gas development since 2014 under Operation Phakisa, a plan aimed at “unlocking the economic potential of the oceans”.

            On the West Coast, Walter Steenkamp, Chair of Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, which is involved in a separate ongoing legal action against TotalEnergies, said that “today’s court case gave me renewed strength.”

            The case could also set a precedent for future oil developments, said Alessandro Mazzi, legal governance researcher at the University of Wageningen. He added that the verdict “sends a strong signal to investors that where projects affect people’s land, livelihoods and environment, meaningful consultation and genuine ecological assessment are an integral part of responsible investment”.

            Janet Solomon, coordinator of advocacy group Oceans not Oil, said that the Court’s emphasis on democratic participation, culture, livelihoods and the health of future generations in handing down the verdict signals a shift in jurisprudence on environmental governance, saying that this focus “may prove to be the judgment’s most enduring legacy.”

            The post South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right appeared first on Climate Home News.

            South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right

            Continue Reading

            Climate Change

            Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?

            Published

            on

            China has published a new five-year plan for coal, the latest in a slew of important policy documents for the country’s energy transition.

            The 15th five-year plan for the development of the coal industry was published by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA) on 10 August, covering the period 2026-2030.

            This is a key period, covering the years building up to China’s pledge to peak its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions “before 2030”.

            Government-affiliated organisations had previously mooted the possibility of coal consumption peaking before 2027.

            However, the new plan does not set a specific, government-endorsed year for peaking coal consumption, instead including a broader goal to peak use of the fuel in this five-year period.

            It also discusses the “green and low-carbon transition” of the coal industry, coal-related methane emissions and the “clean and efficient use” of the fuel.

            But, in general, the plan emphasises the importance of coal in China’s energy system and focuses on the systems underpinning its production.

            Analysts tell Carbon Brief that the plan confirms a “broader trend” – driven by the conflict in the Middle East – in which coal’s role in China as a “cheap and secure” source of energy is reinforced – instead of plotting a phase-down or transition for the industry.

            Nevertheless, as the deadline for peaking CO2 emissions looms, the plan does warn the sector of the need to diversify into other industries – including clean energy and chemicals – as coal consumption peaks.

            Below, Carbon Brief looks closer at what the plan means for China’s use of coal over the next five years and how it relates to wider climate targets.

            Article Contents

            What does the plan say about peaking coal?

            Five-year plans are a key tool in Chinese governance, used to guide economic and social development across the economy.

            The plan for coal is the latest topic-specific document to address climate and energy matters within the 15th five-year plan period of 2026-30. It is subordinate to the overarching 15th five-year plan, which covers China’s broad socio-economic strategy.

            Other topic-specific plans for the period cover climate change, developing a “new-type energy system” and renewable energy, among other topics.

            The coal plan opens by stating that coal is a “foundational [source of] energy” for China:

            “[Coal is] vital to the national economy, people’s livelihoods and national energy security, and plays a crucial role in providing foundational support and systemic regulation within the energy supply system.”

            However, the plan also covers the 15th five-year plan period (2026-2030), the final five-year period before China is expected to have peaked its carbon emissions.

            The 15th five-year plan period marks a time of “significant transformation” for the coal industry, the plan says.

            Policy documents issued in April 2026 called for the “strict control” of fossil fuels and created a framework for local governments to be graded on coal use in their region.

            Coal has traditionally been the largest source of energy in China and is responsible for around 80% of its emissions.

            But its role is gradually being superseded by non-fossil energy, which accounted for more than half of the country’s power mix in 2025. In the first half of 2026, coal supplied less than 50% of power generation, while its share of total energy consumption fell to 51.4%, as shown below.

            Coal's share of total energy consumption in China fell to 51% in 2025. The share of coal and non-fossil energy in China's total energy consumption from 2015-2025, %. Source: National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Carbon Brief analysis of China Energy Transformation Outlook 2025, Yicai analysis of NBS statistics - (alt text generated by Google Gemini)

            The five-year plan for coal signals “continuity” of China’s aim of “safeguarding energy security while advancing the low-carbon transition”, says Kevin Tu, non-resident fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

            Another key factor behind the plan is concerns from policymakers around energy security, exacerbated by the conflict in the Middle East.

            In an article published in early August, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily noted the “severe volatility” the war has created in energy markets, adding that “China’s energy system has withstood these shocks”.

            It quoted NEA head Wang Hongzhi stating in a press conference that “coal is [China’s] greatest source of confidence in ensuring a stable energy supply”.

            The conflict will “reinforce coal’s role in China’s energy system”, both as a source of energy and as a feedstock for commodities, Li Shuo, China climate hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute, tells Carbon Brief.

            The plan outlines a number of aims to be achieved by 2030, starting with a goal to “further strengthen” the coal industry’s “ability to be a ‘bottom-line guarantee’”.

            The other targets in the plan, to be achieved by 2030, include:

            • Peaking coal consumption;
            • “Basically establishing” a modern coal-industrial system;
            • Optimising the “layout” of coal production and development;
            • Increasing the proportion of “high-quality, advanced” coal-production capacity;
            • “Clearly improving” levels of “safe, green development” and “clean, efficient use” of coal;
            • Increasing the share of coal produced by “large-scale, modernised coal mines” to 87%;
            • Developing a diversified coal-based industrial structure;
            • Improving mechanisms to ensure a “dynamic balance” between supply and demand.

            The large share of China’s CO2 emissions that come from coal and China’s carbon-peaking and neutrality targets are not the main focus of the five-year plan.

            “This is clearly neither a coal phase-out nor phase-down plan,” Tu tells Carbon Brief. He adds that it grants China “considerable flexibility…over the pace of the transition”.

            A pledge to peak coal consumption during the five-year plan period is reiterated several times in the document. Notably, the plan says that China will “promote coal consumption successfully reaching a peak”.

            This, it says, is “guided” by China’s “dual-carbon” goals for peaking and neutrality, but is also based on the premise of “guaranteeing the secure supply of energy”

            However, the plan does not provide a government-endorsed target year for peaking consumption.

            State-affiliated organisations, such as Xinhua, have suggested that coal consumption is “expected to peak around 2027”. Independent analysis has stated that emissions from coal consumption may have already peaked.

            “The absence of a 2027 deadline is significant, but I would be careful not to over-interpret it,” Tu tells Carbon Brief.

            While a 2027 peak for coal remains possible, in his view, it is dependent on factors such as “electricity-demand growth, renewable generation, industrial activity, weather conditions and coal demand from the chemical sector”.

            Similarly, Li believes that it will be “market and technological progress”, rather than state directives, that determine exactly when coal consumption and emissions will peak.

            “Beijing’s regulatory interventions, if any, will be limited to making sure the peaking timelines do not blow past 2030,” he says.

            What does the plan say about China’s coal production?

            The plan does not set a concrete target for coal production during the five-year plan period. In contrast, total coal production targets for 2015 and 2020 had been set in the 12th and 13th five-year plans.

            The plan also reduces a target for “reserve production” capacity, which was first announced in 2024.

            The plan reiterates that, by 2030, China should “establish a coal reserve-production capacity of 100m metric tonnes or more per year”. This was first mentioned in the 15th five-year plan for building a “new-type energy system”, published in June.

            Despite China’s rapid buildout of renewable energy, reserve coal capacity is necessary, argues state news agency Xinhua. It says that, to balance the variability of renewable energy, coal will shift to “playing a supporting and regulating role to safeguard energy supply”.

            Nevertheless, the new reserve goal is lower than the target of 300m tonnes of coal set when China first announced the establishment of the system in 2024.

            “Overall, this five-year plan is targeted at the coal industry, not the energy transition”, says Yang Biqing, energy analyst at Ember, although the energy transition and the peaking of coal consumption form the overarching context for the plan.

            Provinces in northern China will continue to provide the majority of China’s coal, according to the plan.

            It reiterates a pledge from the new-type energy five-year plan that China will continue building “coal-supply security bases” in the provinces of Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Xinjiang. It says these bases will supply more than 80% of China’s coal by 2030.

            This does not indicate a change in direction, as coal production is already increasingly concentrated in northern China. In 2025, 82% of China’s coal came from these four provinces.

            New or expanded coal mines in these provinces – with the exception of southern Xinjiang – must have a minimum annual production capacity of 1.2m tonnes, says the plan.

            This is an “important signal”, Tu tells Carbon Brief. He notes that the plans suggest that “China’s coal transition is not simply about reducing the quantity consumed”, but also about creating a “more concentrated, efficient, flexible and resilient” coal system.

            The plan also calls for a more centralised approach to managing coal. It states that in 2026-2030, any new production capacity must be “included in the single ledger” – essentially meaning that it must be approved by the central government – before it can be implemented.

            Yang tells Carbon Brief that this could indicate that the government is trying to prevent a potential “rush” to get new capacity approved as coal consumption starts to plateau and fall.

            What does the plan say about coal’s greenhouse gas emissions?

            The plan includes sections on the need to “accelerate” the low-carbon transition of the industry, as well as the “clean and efficient use” of coal.

            The former section largely focuses on the production and processing of coal, while the latter addresses emissions associated with its consumption.

            Suggested policies include promoting energy efficiency, water conservancy and electrification, coupled with greater use of renewable-energy sources at coal mines.

            In addition to promoting a successful peaking of coal consumption, the plan also re-affirms existing policies around promoting energy efficiency and carbon-emission reduction.

            It calls for “accelerate energy conservation and consumption reduction in key coal-consuming industries”, largely through methods already established by existing policies.

            This includes phasing out inefficient coal-fired equipment, replacing coal-fired equipment with “clean energy” alternatives, reducing use of “dispersed coal” and promoting clean heating sources such as distributed solar heating and waste heat utilisation.

            Tom Wang, executive director of People of Asia for Climate Solutions, describes the plan as “more of a coal exploration plan, rather than a coal transition plan”. He tells Carbon Brief that while several policies call for “green” or “smart” development, the plan does not address the greenhouse gas emissions underpinning each step of coal extraction, processing and combustion.

            Another major focus is on utilisation of coalbed methane, a significant source of China’s methane emissions.

            China will “implement work plans to increase coalbed-methane reserves and production”, the plan says, including a “rapid ramp-up” of production in deep coalbed-methane sites.

            Affixed to the main five-year plan is an appendix further detailing plans for coalbed methane.

            It notes that utilising coalbed methane has “multiple benefits”, such as improving safety, “increasing the supply of clean energy” and reducing emissions. [Methane is a fossil fuel.]

            The government is targeting 26bn cubic metres of coalbed-methane production and 6.5bn cubic metres of mine-gas utilisation by 2030, it says.

            At least 18bn cubic metres will be sourced from the Ordos Basin, a region spanning several northern provinces, according to an action plan published by the NEA.

            In its coverage of the Ordos action plan, the state-run newspaper China Daily said that developing coalbed methane is a “vital strategic move to optimise [China’s] energy mix and ensure domestic gas supply”.

            Reporting by Xinhua and economic news outlet Jiemian said that coalbed methane could help China become an “energy powerhouse” and “secure [its] energy self-sufficiency”, respectively.

            In addition, the coal industry will “steadily advance methane-emission control” and “actively participate in the reduction of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions”, according to the appendix.

            However, Sun Xiaopu, senior China counsel at the thinktank Institute For Governance and Sustainable Development, tells Carbon Brief, the plan “does not establish an absolute methane-emissions reduction target”.

            She notes that the implications for emissions may only become clear as implementation frameworks for meeting the utilisation targets are released.

            How does the plan tell coal companies to evolve?

            Despite reaffirming the importance of coal, the plan emphasises that the overall role of the fuel in China will change. It adds that the coal industry must adapt to this changing reality.

            As the coal industry “modernises”, coal companies must “strengthen management” of mine closures and exit plans. They must also plan for a “smooth transition” and “prudently handle” workforce relocation, debt resolution and ecological restoration, it says.

            Companies should also be supported in expanding into industries such as “power, new energy and chemicals”, according to the plan.

            A number of major coal producers, as well as at least one oil giant, have already established wings focused on “new energy”.

            But the focus on the use of coal to make chemicals is one of the “most consequential parts of the plan”, says Tu.

            China must promote the shift to coal being used “equally” as a fuel and a feedstock, the plan says.

            The plan urges policymakers to push through “construction of strategic coal-to-oil and gas bases”

            The chemicals sector is China’s fastest source of emissions growth, although it remains well behind power and other industries in terms of total emissions.

            Tu notes that the plan calls on the coal-chemicals industry to decarbonise production, such as through low-carbon power, green hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.

            As such, he says, the policy signal is “not to exit coal chemicals, but to make them more efficient, higher-value and potentially less carbon-intensive”.

            Li echoes this, telling Carbon Brief that the sector is “likely to receive a major boost from the conflict in Iran”. He adds:

            “We will probably see further capacity expansion in the sector and I doubt environmental arguments will convince Chinese authorities to take a different approach.”

            The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

            Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?
            Continue Reading

            Climate Change

            New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

            Published

            on

            The world saw the lowest amount of new coal mine capacity brought online for at least 10 years in 2025, according to a new report, as clean energy displaces coal for electricity generation in East Asia.

            A report by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) found that new coal mine capacity declined by nearly 40% from 2024, the second consecutive year new mine capacity has hit a decade low. This represents an acceleration of a steady decline that began in 2019.

            The slowdown in new coal mine openings was driven by China and Australia, where new additions fell by 44% and 96%, respectively. In China, the report said this was partly due to solar and wind displacing coal for electricity generation – although coal rebounded in the first half of 2026 – and the National Energy Administration implementing new rules to curb new mine openings.

            In Australia, a 96% reduction in new coal mine capacity was driven by shrinking demand from the countries that import Australian coal for electricity, like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the report said.

            This trend is likely to continue, according to GEM, as the Australian state of New South Wales recently banned new coal mines on undeveloped greenfield land. South Korea has promised to stop building coal-fired power plants that cannot capture and store the emissions produced. Meanwhile, Japan is pushing for a post-Fukushima nuclear revival to displace coal.

            This Australian coal community is co-designing its own green future

            Globally, growth in coal demand has slowed over the last few years and the International Energy Agency expects it to plateau through to 2030 because of the growth of renewable energy, nuclear and fossil gas.

            Openings down, pipeline up

            But while new coal mine openings fell, the amount of global coal mine capacity proposed increased by 11%. This was almost entirely driven by a spate of projects in the eastern Indian states of Jharkhand and Odisha.

            “If built,” the GEM report says, “the projects would commit India – a country with no formal coal phaseout timeline – to years of coal expansion and would put a 1.5C-aligned transition away from fossil fuels farther out of reach”.

            The Indian government says it needs to increase coal production to meet growing electricity demand from economic growth and from dealing with heatwaves. It plans to open more than 20 new coal mines to meet its coal production targets.

            Because of energy security concerns, India is also aiming to produce chemicals with Indian coal rather than imported gas. China is also pursuing this strategy, although the Global Energy Monitor report said that Indian coal’s high ash content means the South Asian nation will find it harder to make chemicals from coal.

              Nations agreed at COP26 five years ago to “phase down” coal power – a commitment that China and India successfully pushed to weaken from “phase out”. At COP28 in 2023, governments agreed to transition away from all fossil fuels in energy systems.

              Since then, wealthy nations have partnered with coal-producing countries like South Africa, Vietnam and Indonesia on plans to transition from coal to clean energy. But, after preliminary talks, India and these governments did not agree a JETP.

              The post New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus appeared first on Climate Home News.

              New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

              Continue Reading

              Trending

              Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com