Last month, Germany became the first major economy to commit to a target to reach “net-negative” emissions later this century.
While “net-zero” describes a state where a country’s emissions are balanced by the amount of greenhouse gases it can remove from the atmosphere, “net-negative” describes a state of removals exceeding emissions.
Therefore, when a country achieves “net-negative” emissions, it has not only stopped its contribution to climate change, but is actively helping to reduce warming.
Many of the scenarios for achieving the world’s most ambitious climate goals require the world to become net-negative in the second half of this century.
In these scenarios, failure to cut emissions fast enough in the near term causes the world to “overshoot” its climate targets, meaning they can only be met later on in the century by removing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.
Some experts have also called on developed countries to aim to reach net-negative emissions earlier on this century, arguing they have a moral responsibility to reduce climate change and to create space for other countries to emit as they develop.
However, the ability of countries to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is defined by a range of factors, including their land area, forest cover and population size.
There is also a risk that setting distant net-negative targets could become a “distraction” from the urgent need to reduce emissions this decade, a researcher tells Carbon Brief.
Below, Carbon Brief explores which countries are or have targets to be net-negative, as well as the moral and scientific arguments for setting such a milestone.
- What is meant by ‘net-negative’ emissions?
- Which countries are already at net-negative emissions?
- Which countries are aiming for net-negative emissions?
- Does the world need to be net-negative to meet global climate goals?
- Do some countries need to be net-negative to meet climate goals fairly?
What is meant by ‘net-negative’ emissions?
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “net-negative emissions” is achieved when human-caused greenhouse gas removals exceed human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
The specification of “greenhouse gases” rather than CO2 ”makes a very big difference” when it comes to net-negative emissions, says Prof Joeri Rogelj, an IPCC lead author and climate scientist at Imperial College London.
The reason for this, he explains, is that there are some non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions that will be almost impossible to eliminate completely. This is true even if the world makes every effort to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, the global deal aimed at keeping temperatures well below 2C by the end of the century, with an ambition of keeping them below 1.5C.
This includes, for example, methane emissions from rice production. There are currently no technologies available to eliminate these emissions completely – and it is unrealistic to expect rice production to cease entirely in the future.
Scientists call these kinds of emissions “residual non-CO2 emissions”. Rogelj explains:
“Because of residual non-CO2 emissions, we will always reach net-zero CO2 emissions before we reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”
To reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, some additional CO2 removal will be needed to compensate for impossible-to-eliminate non-CO2 emissions, he adds:
“To reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, we already need to reach net-negative CO2 emissions – because we know that non-CO2 emissions will always be an emissions contribution.”
Because of this, a national target to reach net-negative greenhouse gas emissions can always be interpreted as “significantly more ambitious” than a net-negative CO2 target over the same timescale, he adds.
Which countries are already at net-negative emissions?
Though the vast majority of countries are not close to being net-zero – let alone net-negative – there are a small number of global south countries that already remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit each year.
This net-negative group includes Suriname in South America, Panama in Central America and Bhutan in south Asia.
Suriname is one of the most highly forested countries in the world. It has trees over 97% of its land surface.
Trees absorb CO2 as they grow and can store it in their leaves, trunks and roots. Tropical forests are particularly carbon dense, storing a quarter of all the world’s land carbon.
As well as being heavily forested, Suriname is also the smallest country in South America by population, with just 618,000 people.
Its low consumption combined with its ability to remove large amounts of CO2 through its forests each year has allowed Suriname to remain a net-negative country.
However, Suriname’s UN climate plan, known as its “nationally determined contribution” (NDC), says that “significant international support is needed” from developed countries in order for its forests to keep being protected.
In 2023, Reuters reported that Suriname has plans to sell forest carbon offset credits to developed nations under the Paris Agreement.
This means that Suriname wants to sell off some of its ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere through its forests to more-polluting developed countries, who can then claim that they have effectively paid to reduce their own emissions.
Suriname argues this will bring in finance needed to protect its forests, Reuters said.
However, experts have questioned whether developed nations should be able to claim that they have reduced their own emissions by protecting Suriname’s forests. This is because these forests may have remained intact even without developed nations’ investment. If this were the case, it would mean that no real emissions reduction would have taken place.
(See Carbon Brief’s in-depth carbon offsets series to understand more about the accounting problems associated with forest carbon offset schemes.)
Much like Suriname, Bhutan in south Asia is characterised by high forest cover and a small population. It has trees covering 71% of its land, and 51% of its total land area is covered by strict laws ensuring forest cover is maintained.
At the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, Bhutan started a “carbon-negative” club with Suriname as a founding member.
During the summit, Panama’s president declared that the country was also net-negative and that it would be joining the carbon-negative club.
According to Panama’s NDC, its emissions are currently more than balanced by its CO2 removals, which come largely from its forests. This is despite the country’s tree cover declining by 8.5% between 2000 and 2022.
The country has targets to restore 50,000 hectares of forest by 2050 and to cut its energy emissions by at least 24% by 2050, when compared to a business-as-usual baseline, according to its NDC.
At COP28 in Dubai in 2023, Panama also joined the Group of Negative Emitters, a small alliance of countries that are or are aiming to be net-negative led by Denmark (more on this below).
Aside from these three countries, there are other global south countries that claim to be “carbon sinks” in their NDCs – implying that they remove more CO2 than they emit each year.
This includes the heavily forested nations Gabon in Central Africa and Guyana in South America, as well as small island nations the Comoros, a volcanic archipelago off Africa’s east coast, and Niue, a south Pacific island.
The African island Madagascar has also claimed to be a carbon sink, but it is worth noting that the nation has lost 27% of its tree cover since 2001.
Which countries are aiming for net-negative emissions?
The past few years have seen a small number of global north countries commit to becoming net-negative on a variety of different timescales – and for a variety of different reasons.
Most recently in February 2024, Germany announced that it intends to introduce a target to reach net-negative greenhouse gas emissions by 2060.
In a document laying out the key features of its proposed target, the German government argues that reaching net-negative emissions, at least in some parts of the world, will be necessary to balance out unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane from farming.
The government also says that, given the current pace of global emissions, limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C is looking “increasingly unlikely”.
It alludes to a situation in which the world first overshoots 1.5C and then uses CO2 removal techniques to bring temperatures back down, saying:
“Beyond carbon neutrality, net-negative emissions must therefore be used to reduce the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere again in order to meet the 1.5C target and thus minimise the risks of serious and irreversible consequences for humans and ecosystems on Earth.”
(More on this below in: Does the world need to be net-negative to meet global climate goals?)
Back in 2022, both Denmark and Finland announced targets to reach net-negative emissions.
Finland announced targets to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, and net-negative greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.
According to the climate not-for-profit Carbon Gap, Finland’s 2035 and 2040 goals represent the most ambitious legally-binding CO2 removal targets of any country globally.
Climate Home News reported that Finland’s targets were based on an analysis by the country’s independent climate panel. The analysis aimed to calculate what Finland’s “fair share” of global emissions should be, based on its share of the global population, its ability to pay to reduce emissions and its historic responsibility for causing climate change.
Finnish environment minister Emma Kari told Climate Home it was “very important” that the target was underpinned by research, adding:
“High income countries have to take a progressive and active role when it comes to tackling climate change.”
(More on this below in: Do some countries need to be net-negative to meet climate goals fairly?)
Denmark, meanwhile, announced targets to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 and to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 110% by 2050, achieving net-negative emissions.
In a document explaining the rationale behind the new targets to the people of Denmark, the government said that the country has “an opportunity and an obligation to promote the spread of green solutions in the EU and globally”.
It said its new targets will “increase the implementation of already decided initiatives”, likely referring to the Paris Agreement.
At COP28 in December 2023, Denmark announced it was starting the Group of Negative Emitters, an alliance of countries that are at or are aiming for net-negative emissions. The group included Denmark, Finland and Panama.
However, it was neighbouring Sweden that was the first global north country to set a net-negative target.
Back in 2017, it committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 and net-negative emissions shortly after.
Reporting on Sweden’s climate law in 2017, New Scientist said it was the first country to significantly update its climate targets in light of the Paris Agreement.
One global north nation that has not yet set a net-negative target but has been advised to do so is Scotland.
Scotland has committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 – five years before the overall UK target of 2050.
The UK’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), says that its central scenario for how the UK as a whole can reach its 2050 net-zero target sees Scotland becoming net-negative “well before” 2050.
Under this central scenario – known as the “balanced pathway” – Scotland reaches net-negative emissions sooner to compensate for slower action in Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
This reflects that Scotland has the largest remaining intact forests of any nation in the UK – and that Wales and Northern Ireland face a particularly steep challenge in reducing emissions in agriculture, the CCC says.
(Under the CCC’s most ambitious net-zero scenario – known as “tailwinds” – the UK as a whole reaches net-negative emissions shortly after 2042. The UK government has not indicated that it intends to act based on the CCC’s most ambitious scenario – and is currently behind on meeting its less ambitious targets.)
Another global north power that has been advised to set a net-negative target is the EU.
In advice published ahead of a recommendation for a new EU 2040 target in February, the bloc’s science advisers said that the EU could “improve the fairness” of its contribution to global climate action by adopting a net-negative target for “beyond 2050”.
EU members have not yet indicated that they are considering such a target.
Does the world need to be net-negative to meet global climate goals?
The question of whether, scientifically speaking, the world needs to reach net-negative greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets depends on what actions countries take in the next few years.
In its latest assessment of how the world can tackle climate change, the IPCC presents a range of scenarios for how the world can meet its temperature goals by the end of the century.
In some of these scenarios, global emissions fall extremely rapidly, avoiding the need for the world to reach net-negative greenhouse gas emissions.
However, because global emissions have remained so high in recent years, the path to limiting global warming to 1.5C or 2C is getting steeper and steeper, the IPCC says.
Many of its scenarios for keeping temperatures well below 2C by 2100 do rely on the world reaching net-negative greenhouse gas emissions in the second half of this century.
In these scenarios, failure to cut emissions fast enough in the next few years would see the world temporarily overshoot 1.5C. This is before large-scale CO2 removal techniques are rolled out globally, alongside ambitious measures to slash emissions, including rapid declines in fossil-fuel use.
At the point when greenhouse gas removals exceed emissions – when the world becomes net-negative – temperatures will be in decline and, depending on the scenario, may fall below 1.5C or 2C by the end of the century.
Summarising what the IPCC scenarios say about net-negative emissions, Rogelj says:
“Net-zero CO2 is a geophysical necessity, we need that to stop warming increasing. Net-zero greenhouse gases is more of a policy milestone. When we reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions – let alone net-negative greenhouse gas emissions – global warming will be slowly reducing at the rate of a couple of tenths of a degree per century.”
Although many of the IPCC scenarios see the world turning net-negative this century, there are some scenarios where the world takes immediate action to rapidly cut emissions – meaning temperatures can be kept at 1.5C without large amounts of CO2 removal.
The charts below, adapted from the IPCC’s report on how to tackle climate change, illustrate how global greenhouse gas emissions change under various scenarios where temperatures are kept to 1.5C or well below 2C by 2100.
In the first scenario, “Neg”, temperatures are highly likely to overshoot 1.5C this century before returning to this level of warming by 2100. In this scenario, the extensive use of CO2 removal techniques sees the world reach net-negative greenhouse gas emissions (turquoise dotted line) by 2080.
(CO2 removal techniques include direct air capture (DAC – purple), land-use change such as tree planting (blue) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS – green). All of these methods are discussed in more detail below.)
In the second scenario, GS, there is a gradual strengthening of climate policies, giving the world a 66% chance of limiting warming to well below 2C by 2100. In this scenario, the world reaches net-negative greenhouse gas emissions around 2090.
In the third scenario, LD, a low demand for energy coupled with a rapid fossil fuel phaseout sees net greenhouse gas emissions drop to near – but not below – zero, limiting warming to below 1.5C without the world becoming net-negative.
(For a more thorough look at scenarios for keeping global warming below 1.5C or 2C, see Carbon Brief’s recently published interactive on the topic.)
Although almost all IPCC scenarios limiting warming to 1.5C – and most that stay below 2C – see a role for large-scale CO2 removal, the report also notes that the techniques available for doing this are at varying levels of readiness and pose different challenges and trade-offs.
Currently, tree-planting and ecosystem restoration are the only “widely deployed” forms of CO2 removal, according to the IPCC.
However, research suggests that relying too much on land-based CO2 removal methods, such as tree-planting and BECCS – a still emerging technique involving burning crops to produce energy before capturing the resultant CO2 – could take up large areas of land, threatening wildlife and food production.
DAC – which involves directly removing CO2 from air using giant fans that use chemical reactions to filter out the greenhouse gas – is currently limited by its large energy requirements and by cost, the IPCC says.
It is also worth noting that, while the IPCC sets out various scenarios for meeting the 1.5C and 2C targets, it does not map out the role that individual countries can or should play in meeting these goals.
Some argue that, given their wealth and historic responsibility for climate change, it is only fair that developed countries reach net-negative emissions in order to create space for ongoing emissions in developing nations. This is discussed in more detail below.
Do some countries need to be net-negative to meet climate goals fairly?
When setting its net-negative target, Finland made it clear that the rationale was to do its “fair share” when it comes to tackling climate change.
Under the Paris Agreement adopted by nearly every country in the world in 2015, it is officially recognised that developed nations should “take the lead” with slashing their emissions. Additionally, developed nations committed to providing financial assistance to help developing nations transition their economies.
This reflects the fact that developed nations hold the most historic responsibility for climate change. For example, the US and Europe have produced nearly half of all of the greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere since the 1800s.
It also reflects the fact that developed nations have the most resources for addressing climate change.
It follows that developed nations should take the lead when it comes to reaching net-negative emissions, says Rogelj:
“Developed countries should decline emissions first and farthest. That also includes going net-negative, both CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions.”
Getting to net-negative emissions sooner could provide more room for developing nations to transition their economies while still prioritising development, he adds:
“When we think of the global pathway that needs to be achieved, the more ambitious that any country that is in a position to do so can be, the more leeway this provides for developing regions to pursue alternative paths.”
However, it is worth noting that not all countries will feasibly be able to go net-negative, he adds.
The ability of a country to go net-negative is defined by a variety of factors, including its land size, forest cover, economy and population size.
For example, heavily forested nations with relatively small populations will be more able to get to a position where they are removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than they are emitting each year.
Two out of three of the countries that are already at net-negative emissions, Bhutan and Suriname, are heavily forested with small populations.
Finland, which has the world’s most ambitious CO2 removal goals, has forests over nearly three-quarters of its land area.
Rogelj adds:
“I think countries that have CO2 removal potential should [set net-negative goals]. However, countries without CO2 removal potential, it’s useless to say you have to go net-negative.”
Prof David Reiner, a researcher of climate policy at the University of Cambridge, was part of a research effort to work out how the responsibility for CO2 removal could be shared equally between countries.
He says that trying to figure out who should be responsible for reaching net-negative greenhouse gas emissions is fraught with complicated questions, beyond which countries have the technical capacity. He tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s challenging to impose historical responsibility for climate change. We’ve seen in many areas, people chafe or resist what their grandparents might have done. One example is reparations for slavery. It becomes difficult to assign that. There are people here [in the UK] whose parents moved from the Indian subcontinent, whose emissions are they responsible for?”
He adds that there is a risk that more attention on setting net-negative targets could be a distraction from the urgent need for countries to reduce their emissions this decade:
“What I wouldn’t want to see is a rush for more and more countries to adopt net-negative targets to divert attention from the fact that they haven’t established how they’re going to get their net-zero targets. Or to say: ‘Well, now it’s even easier for us to justify missing our 2030 target, because look how tough our 2070 target is going to be.’”
Rogelj agrees that, while net-negative targets could have an important role to play in addressing climate change, there is a risk they could be a distraction unless coupled with more near-term action. He tells Carbon Brief:
“Any long-term target without a near-term plan is not credible.”
The post Explainer: Why some countries are aiming for ‘net-negative’ emissions appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Explainer: Why some countries are aiming for ‘net-negative’ emissions
In 2026, the dangers of fossil fuel dependence have been laid bare like never before. The illegal invasion of Iran has brought pain and destruction to millions across the Middle East and triggered a global energy crisis impacting us all. Communities in the Pacific have been hit especially hard by rising fuel prices, and Australians have seen their cost-of-living woes deepen.
Such moments of crisis and upheaval can lead to positive transformation. But only when leaders act with courage and foresight.
There is no clearer statement of a government’s plans and priorities for the nation than its budget — how it plans to raise money, and what services, communities, and industries it will invest in.
As we count down the days to the 2026-27 Federal Budget, will the Albanese Government deliver a budget for our times? One that starts breaking the shackles of fossil fuels, accelerates the shift to clean energy, protects nature, and sees us work together with other countries towards a safer future for all? Or one that doubles down on coal and gas, locks in more climate chaos, and keeps us beholden to the whims of tyrants and billionaires.
Here’s what we think the moment demands, and what we’ll be looking out for when Treasurer Jim Chalmers steps up to the dispatch box on 12 May.
1. Stop fuelling the fire
2. Make big polluters pay
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
4. Build the industries of the future
5. Build community resilience
6. Be a better neighbour
7. Protect nature
1. Stop fuelling the fire
In mid-April, Pacific governments and civil society met to redouble their efforts towards a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. Moving beyond coal, oil and gas is fundamental to limiting warming to 1.5°C — a survival line for vulnerable communities and ecosystems. And as our Head of Pacific, Shiva Gounden, explained, it is “also a path of liberation that frees us from expensive, extractive and polluting fossil fuel imports and uplifts our communities”.
Pacific countries are at the forefront of growing global momentum towards a just transition away from fossil fuels, and it is way past time for Australia to get with the program. It is no longer a question of whether fossil fuel extraction will end, but whether that end will be appropriately managed and see communities supported through the transition, or whether it will be chaotic and disruptive.
So will this budget support the transition away from fossil fuels, or will it continue to prop up coal and gas?
When it comes to sensible moves the government can make right now, one stands out as a genuine low hanging fruit. Mining companies get a full rebate of the excise (or tax) that the rest of us pay on diesel fuel. This lowers their operating costs and acts as a large, ongoing subsidy on fossil fuel production — to the tune of $11 billion a year!
Greenpeace has long called for coal and gas companies to be removed from this outdated scheme, and for the billions in savings to be used to support the clean energy transition and to assist communities with adapting to the impacts of climate change. Will we see the government finally make this long overdue change, or will it once again cave to the fossil fuel lobby?
2. Make big polluters pay
While our communities continue to suffer the escalating costs of climate-fuelled disasters, our Government continues to support a massive expansion of Australia’s export gas industry. Gas is a dangerous fossil fuel, with every tonne of Australian gas adding to the global heating that endangers us all.
Moreover, companies like Santos and Woodside pay very little tax for the privilege of digging up and selling Australians’ natural endowment of fossil gas. Remarkably, the Government currently raises more tax from beer than from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) — the main tax on gas profits.
Momentum has been building to replace or supplement the PRRT with a 25% tax on gas exports. This could raise up to $17 billion a year — funds that, like savings from removing the diesel tax rebate for coal and gas companies, could be spent on supporting the clean energy transition and assisting communities with adapting to worsening fires, floods, heatwaves and other impacts of climate change.
As politicians arrive in Canberra for budget week, they will be confronted by billboards calling for a fair tax on gas exports. The push now has the support of dozens of organisations and a growing number of politicians. Let’s hope the Treasurer seizes this rare window for reform.
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
As the price of petrol and diesel rises, electric vehicles (EVs) are helping people cut fuel use and save money. However, while EV sales have jumped since the invasion of Iran sent fuel prices rising, they still only make up a fraction of total new car sales. This budget should help more Australians switch to electric vehicles and, even more importantly, enable more Australians to get around by bike, on foot, and on public transport. This means maintaining the EV discount, investing in public and active transport, and removing tax breaks for fuel-hungry utes and vans.
Millions of Australians already enjoy the cost-saving benefits of rooftop solar, batteries, and getting off gas. This budget should enable more households, and in particular those on lower incomes, to access these benefits. This means maintaining the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and building on the Household Energy Upgrades Fund.
4. Build the industries of the future
If we’re to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to be building the clean industries of the future.
No state is more pivotal to Australia’s energy and industrial transformation than Western Australia. The state has unrivaled potential for renewable energy development and for replacing fossil fuel exports with clean exports like green iron. Such industries offer Western Australia the promise of a vibrant economic future, and for Australia to play an outsized positive role in the world’s efforts to reduce emissions.
However, realising this potential will require focussed support from the Federal Government. Among other measures, Greenpeace has recommended establishing the Australasian Green Iron Corporation as a joint venture between the Australian and Western Australian governments, a key trading partner, a major iron ore miner and steel makers. This would unite these central players around the complex task of building a large-scale green iron industry, and unleash Western Australia’s potential as a green industrial powerhouse.
5. Build community resilience
Believe it or not, our Government continues to spend far more on subsidising fossil fuel production — and on clearing up after climate-fuelled disasters — than it does on helping communities and industries reduce disaster costs through practical, proven methods for building their resilience.
Last year, the Government estimated that the cost of recovery from disasters like the devastating 2022 east coast floods on 2019-20 fires will rise to $13.5 billion. For contrast, the Government’s Disaster Ready Fund – the main national source of funding for disaster resilience – invests just $200 million a year in grants to support disaster preparedness and resilience building. This is despite the Government’s own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) estimating that for every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, there is a $9.60 return on investment.
By redirecting funds currently spent on subsidising fossil fuel production, the Government can both stop incentivising climate destruction in the first place, and ensure that Australian communities and industries are better protected from worsening climate extremes.
No communities have more to lose from climate damage, or carry more knowledge of practical solutions, than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The budget should include a dedicated First Nations climate adaptation fund, ensuring First Nations communities can develop solutions on their own terms, and access the support they need with adapting to extreme heat, coastal erosion and other escalating challenges.
6. Be a better neighbour
The global response to climate change depends on the adequate flow of support from developed economies like Australia to lower income nations with shifting to clean energy, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage.
Such support is vital to building trust and cooperation, reducing global emissions, and supporting regional and global security by enabling countries to transition away from fossil fuels and build greater resilience.
Despite its central leadership role in this year’s global climate negotiations, our Government is yet to announce its contribution to international climate finance for 2025-2030. Greenpeace recommends a commitment of $11 billion for this five year period, which is aligned with the global goal under the Paris Agreement to triple international climate finance from current levels.
This new commitment should include additional funding to address loss and damage from climate change and a substantial contribution to the Pacific Resilience Facility, ensuring support is accessible to countries and communities that need it most. It should also see Australia get firmly behind the vision of a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.
7. Protect nature
There is no safe planet without protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity that sustain us and regulate our climate.
Last year the Parliament passed important and long overdue reforms to our national environment laws to ensure better protection for our forests and other critical ecosystems. However, the Government will need to provide sufficient funding to ensure the effective implementation of these reforms.
Greenpeace has recommended $500 million over four years to establish the National Environment Agency — the body responsible for enforcing and monitoring the new laws — and a further $50 million to Environment Information Australia for providing critical information and tools.
Further resourcing will also be required to fulfil the crucial goal of fully protecting 30% of Australian land and seas by 2030. This should include $1 billion towards ending deforestation by enabling farmers and loggers to retool away from destructive practices, $2 billion a year for restoring degraded lands, $5 billion for purchasing and creating new protected areas, and $200 million for expanding domestic and international marine protected areas.
Conclusion
This is not the first time that conflict overseas has triggered an energy crisis, or that a budget has been preceded by a summer of extreme weather disasters, highlighting the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels. What’s different in 2026 is the availability of solutions. Renewable energy is now cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Global momentum is firmly behind the transition away from fossil fuels. The Albanese Government, with its overwhelming majority, has the chance to set our nation up for the future, or keep us stranded in the past. Let’s hope it makes some smart choices.
The 2026 budget test: Will Australia break free from fossil fuels?
Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economies
In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
-
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way -
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry
Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energy
The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org global campaign to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all
The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Computer models that use artificial intelligence (AI) cannot forecast record-breaking weather as well as traditional climate models, according to a new study.
It is well established that AI climate models have surpassed traditional, physics-based climate models for some aspects of weather forecasting.
However, new research published in Science Advances finds that AI models still “underperform” in forecasting record-breaking extreme weather events.
The authors tested how well both AI and traditional weather models could simulate thousands of record-breaking hot, cold and windy events that were recorded in 2018 and 2020.
They find that AI models underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events.
A study author tells Carbon Brief that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI weather forecasts
Extreme weather events, such as floods, heatwaves and storms, drive hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year through the destruction of cropland, impacts on infrastructure and the loss of human life.
Many governments have developed early warning systems to prepare the general public and mobilise disaster response teams for imminent extreme weather events. These systems have been shown to minimise damages and save lives.
For decades, scientists have used numerical weather prediction models to simulate the weather days, or weeks, in advance.
These models rely on a series of complex equations that reproduce processes in the atmosphere and ocean. The equations are rooted in fundamental laws of physics, based on decades of research by climate scientists. As a result, these models are referred to as “physics-based” models.
However, AI-based climate models are gaining popularity as an alternative for weather forecasting.
Instead of using physics, these models use a statistical approach. Scientists present AI models with a large batch of historical weather data, known as training data, which teaches the model to recognise patterns and make predictions.
To produce a new forecast, the AI model draws on this bank of knowledge and follows the patterns that it knows.
There are many advantages to AI weather forecasts. For example, they use less computing power than physics-based models, because they do not have to run thousands of mathematical equations.
Furthermore, many AI models have been found to perform better than traditional physics-based models at weather forecasts.
However, these models also have drawbacks.
Study author Prof Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the research institute for statistics and information science at the University of Geneva, tells Carbon Brief that AI models “depend strongly on the training data” and are “relatively constrained to the range of this dataset”.
In other words, AI models struggle to simulate brand new weather patterns, instead tending forecast events of a similar strength to those seen before. As a result, it is unclear whether AI models can simulate unprecedented, record-breaking extreme events that, by definition, have never been seen before.
Record-breaking extremes
Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as the climate warms. Record-shattering extremes – those that break existing records by large margins – are also becoming more regular.
For example, during a 2021 heatwave in north-western US and Canada, local temperature records were broken by up to 5C. According to one study, the heatwave would have been “impossible” without human-caused climate change.
The new study explores how accurately AI and physics-based models can forecast such record-breaking extremes.
First, the authors identified every heat, cold and wind event in 2018 and 2020 that broke a record previously set between 1979 and 2017. (They chose these years due to data availability.) The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to identify these records.
This produced a large sample size of record-breaking events. For the year 2020, the authors identified around 160,000 heat, 33,000 cold and 53,000 wind records, spread across different seasons and world regions.
For their traditional, physics-based model, the authors selected the High RESolution forecast model from the Integrated Forecasting System of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. This is “widely considered as the leading physics-based numerical weather prediction model”, according to the paper.
They also selected three “leading” AI weather models – the GraphCast model from Google Deepmind, Pangu-Weather developed by Huawei Cloud and the Fuxi model, developed by a team from Shanghai.
The authors then assessed how accurately each model could forecast the extremes observed in the year 2020.
Dr Zhongwei Zhang is the lead author on the study and a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He tells Carbon Brief that many AI weather forecast models were built for “general weather conditions”, as they use all historical weather data to train the models. Meanwhile, forecasting extremes is considered a “secondary task” by the models.
The authors explored a range of different “lead times” – in other words, how far into the future the model is forecasting. For example, a lead time of two days could mean the model uses the weather conditions at midnight on 1 January to simulate weather conditions at midnight on 3 January.
The plot below shows how accurately the models forecasted all extreme events (left) and heat extremes (right) under different lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy.
The chart on the left shows how two of the AI models (blue and green) performed better than the physics-based model (black) when forecasting all weather across the year 2020.
However, the chart on the right illustrates how the physics-based model (black) performed better than all three AI models (blue, red and green) when it came to forecasting heat extremes.
The authors note that the performance gap between AI and physics-based models is widest for lower lead times, indicating that AI models have greater difficulty making predictions in the near future.
They find similar results for cold and wind records.
In addition, the authors find that AI models generally “underpredict” temperature during heat records and “overpredict” during cold records.
The study finds that the larger the margin that the record is broken by, the less well the AI model predicts the intensity of the event.
‘Warning shot’
Study author Prof Erich Fischer is a climate scientist at ETH Zurich and a Carbon Brief contributing editor. He tells Carbon Brief that the result is “not unexpected”.
He adds that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
The analysis, he continues, is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI models are likely to continue to improve, but scientists should “not yet” fully replace traditional forecasting models with AI ones, according to Fischer.
He explains that accurate forecasts are “most needed” in the runup to potential record-breaking extremes, because they are the trigger for early warning systems that help minimise damages caused by extreme weather.
Leonardo Olivetti is a PhD student at Uppsala University, who has published work on AI weather forecasting and was not involved in the study.
He tells Carbon Brief that “many other studies” have identified issues with using AI models for “extremes”, but this paper is novel for its specific focus on extremes.
Olivetti notes that AI models are already used alongside physics-based models at “some of the major weather forecasting centres around the world”. However, the study results suggest “caution against relying too heavily on these [AI] models”, he says.
Prof Martin Schultz, a professor in computational earth system science at the University of Cologne who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the results of the analysis are “very interesting, but not too surprising”.
He adds that the study “justifies the continued use of classical numerical weather models in operational forecasts, in spite of their tremendous computational costs”.
Advances in forecasting
The field of AI weather forecasting is evolving rapidly.
Olivetti notes that the three AI models tested in the study are an “older generation” of AI models. In the last two years, newer “probabilistic” forecast models have emerged that “claim to better capture extremes”, he explains.
The three AI models used in the analysis are “deterministic”, meaning that they only simulate one possible future outcome.
In contrast, study author Engelke tells Carbon Brief that probabilistic models “create several possible future states of the weather” and are therefore more likely to capture record-breaking extremes.
Engelke says it is “important” to evaluate the newer generation of models for their ability to forecast weather extremes.
He adds that this paper has set out a “protocol” for testing the ability of AI models to predict unprecedented extreme events, which he hopes other researchers will go on to use.
The study says that another “promising direction” for future research is to develop models that combine aspects of traditional, physics-based weather forecasts with AI models.
Engelke says this approach would be “best of both worlds”, as it would combine the ability of physics-based models to simulate record-breaking weather with the computational efficiency of AI models.
Dr Kyle Hilburn, a research scientist at Colorado State University, notes that the study does not address extreme rainfall, which he says “presents challenges for both modelling and observing”. This, he says, is an “important” area for future research.
The post Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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