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
Four Ugandan farmers filed a case with London’s High Court on Tuesday, aiming to stop the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) from starting to operate by asking the court to apply Uganda’s laws against the project’s UK-registered company.
The controversial 1,443-kilometre (897-mile) pipeline, majority-owned by French energy company TotalEnergies, aims to carry crude from Ugandan fields for export through neighbouring Tanzania. About 80% has been built so far, according to its developers.
The pipeline’s first oil exports are expected as soon as October, according to its developers, and the campaign group Avaaz, which is backing the farmers’ crowdfunded lawsuit, called it “one final chance to stop one of the worst oil pipelines on the planet”.
The claim, filed by London law firm Leigh Day, argues that EACOP Ltd’s role in developing and operating the pipeline breaches Ugandan laws that protect citizens’ right to a clean and healthy environment.
-
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
The farmers and their lawyers will argue that a UK-based entity linked to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline has breached Ugandan law and construction should halt -
French court rules Total must revise climate plan to account for all emissions
Oil and gas giant TotalEnergies has been given six months by a court to publish a more robust climate plan -
Uganda cites contentious IEA fossil fuel scenario backed by Trump administration
Critics of the African nation’s oil ambitions say referencing the International Energy Agency’s most pessimistic scenario for climate action is a risky policy
One of the claimants, Racheal Tugume, told a press conference she had been displaced from her land due to the pipeline’s construction, which she said had damaged local rivers, wildlife and ecosystems that communities depend on for their livelihoods just as erratic weather linked to climate change takes an increasing toll.
“I am very happy that there are people in countries like the UK who are listening to us, who are behind us and who have come to support us,” Tugume said, adding that she hoped the case would bring justice to communities affected by the pipeline.
Ugandan law in UK court
While the pipeline is a joint venture led by TotalEnergies, with smaller stakes owned by Ugandan, Tanzanian and Chinese national oil firms, it is operated by EACOP Ltd, a company registered to an office in London’s Canary Wharf financial district.
EACOP Ltd did not respond to a request for comment.
The claim appears to be the first attempt to have Uganda’s climate and environmental protections enforced in a foreign court, partly reflecting concerns over whether cases challenging the multibillion-dollar pipeline would get a fair trial in Uganda.
Ugandans living near new oil pipeline let down by compensation programmes
Concerns about access to a fair hearing are among the issues the court will consider when deciding if it should take on the case, said Matthew Renshaw, partner at Leigh Day.
Renshaw said that precedents including the Nigerian oil pollution case against Shell have shown that claims against British-registered companies for harms overseas can be successfully fought in UK courts.
“We are proud to represent the four brave principled individuals,” Renshaw said.
Constitutional protections
The pipeline project has already been subject to repeated lawsuits in several countries, none of which have succeeded. A climate lawsuit filed in Uganda more than a decade ago by a group of young people has yet to conclude. Another at the East African Court of Justice, brought by campaign groups against Uganda and Tanzania, was rejected on procedural grounds last November.
A separate ongoing lawsuit in TotalEnergies’ home country of France – a refiled version of an earlier failed claim – cannot stop EACOP going ahead, but it does seek damages from TotalEnergies for affected communities.
With the newly launched case, Leigh Day’s legal adviser Marc Willers said the claim draws on specific Ugandan laws in a bid to stop EACOP’s operations.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
These include the Ugandan constitution, a 2019 environmental law and the National Climate Change Act 2021, which gives Ugandans the right to bring a case before a court in circumstances where anyone or any entity threatens the country’s ability to mitigate climate change.
Stopping a “carbon bomb”
The pipeline, which will link Uganda’s Lake Albert oil fields to Africa’s east coast in Tanzania, has already displaced thousands of people and cuts through the Lake Victoria basin, one of East Africa’s major freshwater systems and a critical water source for around 40 million people.
According to the BankTrack non-profit, when the pipeline is at peak production, it will carry 216,000 barrels of crude oil per day and release over 33 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Over its full lifetime of 25 years, it is estimated to release about 379 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain including construction, refining and product use.
A May 2026 report from Earth Insight also warns that the pipeline and related infrastructure could affect 158 wetlands in Uganda, 11 rivers, 44 protected areas and seven key biodiversity areas while disrupting about 2,000 square km of protected wildlife habitats.
This is why the primary focus of the UK court case is to stop the operation of the pipeline in its tracks, Leigh Day’s Willers said, calling it a “carbon bomb” that would worsen the world’s climate crisis.
Long wait for first hearing
While the purpose of the case is to stop the pipeline from launching operations, Renshaw said it could take about 12 months before the case gets a first hearing and about 18 months before it goes to trial.
Billions unlocked as Green Climate Fund agrees to spend more and save less
The farmers are, however, seeking an injunction to stop EACOP Ltd from proceeding with operations. In the event that shipments begin, the lawsuit will still seek to stop the pipeline from then on, Renshaw said.
“We will be doing what we can to expedite matters but it is possible that EACOP will have started operating the pipeline before the claim is heard. If that is the case, the claim would intend to halt operations from that point. For example, the pipeline may operate for just one year rather than 30-plus, resulting in far less harm,” he said.
The post Ugandan farmers launch UK court case against East African oil pipeline appeared first on Climate Home News.
Ugandan farmers launch UK court case against East African oil pipeline
Climate Change
Cited 7 July 2026: ‘Impossible’ heat | Global ocean record | Climate change and the ozone hole
Welcome to Cited, your essential guide to new climate research.
In the news
‘HEAT ALERT’: At least 25 people died as a “heat dome” smothered the eastern half of the US, reported the Guardian, with more than 20 states under “stifling temperatures more than 100F (38C)”. More than 140 million people were under heat alerts, the outlet said, with dead bodies found in “homes with no air conditioning, outside their residences, on the street and in parked cars”. Analysis by World Weather Attribution (WWA) found that the combined heat and humidity would have been “virtually impossible” without human-caused warming, reported the New York Times.
‘MORTALITY WILL RISE FURTHER’: Meanwhile, extreme heat continued to hit Europe, with Le Monde reporting on temperatures of 40C in France, Portugal and Spain again this past weekend, alongside “devastating” wildfires. Public Health France doubled its preliminary estimate of the “excess deaths” from the extreme heat in late June, from 1,000 to more than 2,000, according to the Guardian. The higher figure was still “probably an underestimate”, the agency said. Analysis published by Carbon Brief put the figure at 2,700 heat-related deaths. A WWA attribution study, covered by Carbon Brief, found that Europe’s June heatwave would have been “virtually impossible” even 50 years ago.
‘BOOST TO GLOBAL TEMPERATURES’: The UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) “raised its forecast for the rapid emergence of a strong El Niño in the coming months, warning that the phenomenon is likely to drive global temperatures higher”, reported Reuters. A WMO scientist told the newswire that “El Niño conditions have emerged in the equatorial Pacific and there is a remarkable agreement between forecast models that this will be a strong El Niño”.
Research picks
Extremes
- The annual season when “intense” tropical cyclones occur has lengthened by 10-14 days per decade across the world since the 1980s | Nature Communications
- There is an “increasing” and “overlooked” global threat from glacial outburst floods from small lakes | Nature Sustainability
- Female smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa experience crops losses 2-2.5 times greater than male smallholders in periods of extreme heat | Nature Sustainability
Policy
- The summaries for policymakers in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mitigation reports over 2001-22 “have not yet become more solution-oriented while abiding by their policy-neutrality principle” | npj Climate Action
- Two-thirds of countries address inequality in their national pledges under the Paris Agreement – particularly in “countries with lower levels of human development and greater income inequality” | Climate and Development
- To “future proof” the Paris Agreement’s “well-below 2C” limit, it should be interpreted as a median “peak warming” of 1.6-1.8C, rather than a 66-90% chance of staying below 2C | Nature Climate Change
Land sink
- From 2001 to 2015, northern Eurasia absorbed about 0.47bn tonnes of carbon each year – around one-third of the total global land carbon sink | Global Biogeochemical Cycles
- Model simulations of potential land-use carbon emissions out to 2100 show that “deforestation and forest regrowth dominate variability” of emissions, with policy timing and ambition “exerting strong control” | Nature Communications
- Tropical forests are facing an increase in areas that exceed critical temperatures where their “photosynthetic system breaks down” | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Captured
On 21 June, global average sea surface temperature (SST) reached a record high for the day of the year, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). Daily SST for the global ocean, excluding polar regions, reached 20.86C on 21 June, exceeding the 20.83C reached on the same day in both 2023 and 2024, the C3S said. Global SST has remained at record levels for every day since. The conditions “could indicate the beginning of a new phase, leading, once more, to uncharted territory”, said C3S director Carlo Buontempo.
56 hours and 30 hours
The amount of time that the average lifespan of tropical cyclones in the north-east and north-west Pacific has shortened, respectively, over 1982-2024, according to a study in npj Climate and Atmospheric Science. This shorter lifespan “compresses the time available for weather forecasting and disaster preparedness”, the authors said.
Spotlight
The ozone hole and climate change
As a new “thought experiment” asks whether the hole in the ozone layer could, theoretically, have been identified decades before it was discovered, Carbon Brief explores the interactions between climate change and the ozone hole.
It is now more than 40 years since the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, detailed in the journal Nature in 1985.
A study more than a decade earlier had predicted that chlorine-based substances – such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – could lead to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere.
So, in theory, how early could the ozone hole have been detected?
New research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, explored this very question.
Study co-author Prof Susan Solomon from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a leading atmospheric scientist. In the late 1980s, Solomon and colleagues identified the mechanism behind how CFCs were causing ozone depletion.
The new study is a “thought experiment”, Solomon told Carbon Brief, asking when scientists could have discovered the ozone hole had they had access to modern satellite observations.
“We found that depletion could have been detected as early as 1957 in the tropical upper stratosphere, where natural variability is especially small,” explained Solomon.
This would have been before the use of CFCs became widespread, Solomon added. Instead, early ozone depletion was caused by carbon tetrachloride, a chemical used as a cleaning agent, as well as in fire extinguishers and for producing refrigerants.
For many decades, the ozone hole and global warming have often been confused by the public and the media, Solomon explained:
“It’s common to imagine that because ozone is so important at shielding us from the UV [ultraviolet] light that causes skin cancer, then having less ozone must mean the Earth would warm up.”
For example, in a 1995 editorial, the Los Angeles Times congratulated the Nobel prize-winning chemists who identified the threat of CFCs to the ozone layer. The newspaper noted that these processes “threaten calamitous global warming by damaging the Earth’s protective layer of ozone”.
However, said Solomon, “the Earth is warmed much more by visible light – UV doesn’t really contribute, so ozone depletion doesn’t cause significant warming”.
Regional impacts
The depletion of ozone actually has a very small cooling effect at the Earth’s surface. But this is more than outweighed by the warming impact of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.
This warming impact means that efforts to reverse ozone depletion have had a beneficial impact on the climate.
The Montreal Protocol, a 1987 international agreement to phase out CFCs, “has played – and is playing – a very substantial role in safeguarding climate too”, said Solomon:
“It turns out that the CFCs and their replacement gases HCFCs [hydrochlorofluorocarbons] are strong greenhouse gases, so phasing out their production has not only avoided a lot of ozone depletion that would otherwise have occurred, it also had a big influence on global warming.”
HCFCs were considered as “transitional substitutes” for CFCs – they still damaged ozone, but to a lesser extent – until ozone-safe alternatives were commercially available.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are not ozone depleting, began to be used widely in the 1990s. However, HFCs are also potent greenhouse gases. HFCs and similar replacements are now being phased out under the 2016 Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.
While the ozone hole itself has only a very small impact on global temperatures, it does have a clear impact on the regional climate over Antarctica.
Prof David Thompson from Colorado State University, working with colleagues including Solomon, has published research demonstrating that “changes in southern-hemisphere winds linked to the stratospheric ozone losses extend all the way down to the ground in some seasons”, explained Solomon.
This has “reduc[ed] warming that would have occurred in interior Antarctica and enhanc[ed] warming in the Antarctic Peninsula region”, she said.
The knock-on impacts include “wind changes [that] actually extend beyond Antarctica to the mid-latitudes of the southern hemisphere, where they even affect rainfall”, she added.
Preprints to watch
Carbon Brief’s pick of new papers under review
- The drying impact over Africa from using stratospheric aerosol injections to stabilise global temperatures would only be minimised “when combined with a strong decarbonisation effort” | Earth System Dynamics
- The El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Indian Ocean Dipole could “shape” the playing conditions at the Rugby World Cup 2027 in Australia | Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science
- A “strong” weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) would “profoundly alter the climate-carbon cycle system”, underscoring the “importance of explicitly accounting for AMOC risks in long-term climate assessments” | Earth System Dynamics
Noticeboard
- 6 July-25 September: Registration open for experts to review the first-order draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group I report
- 7-15 July: UN High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, New York
- 19 July: Application deadline for a postdoctoral scholar in transdisciplinary climate research at Penn State University, US | Salary: unknown
- 22 July: Application deadline for PhD project on “climate change impacts on the Antarctic coastal ocean carbon sink” at the University of East Anglia, UK
- 26 July: Application deadline for PhD projects on “AI for land-atmosphere feedbacks during hydroclimatic extremes” at the Helmholtz School for Integrated Data Science in Environmental & Life Sciences, Germany
- 29 July: Application deadline for an assistant professor in Earth and environmental geosciences (palaeoclimatology) at Colgate University, US | Salary: $97,500-101,500
- 31 July: Application deadline for PhD project on Arctic Ocean methane oxidation at Stockholm University, Sweden
Cited is researched and written by Cecilia Keating, Robert McSweeney, Ayesha Tandon, Daisy Dunne and Dr Giuliana Viglione.
Please send tips, feedback and upcoming climate research to cited@carbonbrief.org
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cited email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post Cited 7 July 2026: ‘Impossible’ heat | Global ocean record | Climate change and the ozone hole appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Cited 7 July 2026: ‘Impossible’ heat | Global ocean record | Climate change and the ozone hole
In June 2026, a record-breaking heatwave swept across Europe, with France among the first and hardest hit countries.
In a new analysis, we estimate that the extreme conditions caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths in France.
We also show how France’s extreme temperatures in June exceeded projections from climate models.
Our findings illustrate the human toll of extreme weather as the world warms.
We also highlight the challenges in projecting the magnitude of future heatwaves and their impacts on people.
Outpacing projections
For most of this century, Europe has seen summer heat extremes that outpace projections from climate models.
Several different factors likely explain this trend, including reductions in planet-cooling aerosols as nations have cleaned up their air pollution, as well as changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, which models struggle to represent.
In June 2026, daily high temperatures averaged across France reached 36.9C, shattering the previous June record set in 2022 by 2.4C.
[For more on the impacts and coverage of Europe’s June heatwave, see Carbon Brief’s explainer.]
The rise in observed temperatures in France has outpaced projections made by climate models, with June maximum temperatures more in line with what was expected for the 2070s.
This is illustrated in the figure below, which shows how France’s average maximum daily high temperature for June recorded in 2026 (black line) compares to climate model projections (blue and orange lines).
Counting the death toll of climate change
The downstream impacts of these extreme temperatures are lethal.
Scientists are able to estimate the death toll of high temperatures in many locations, depending on the availability of mortality and climate data.
There are several ways to do this.
One option is to examine death certificates to see which deaths have been directly recorded by physicians as related to heat. However, there is strong evidence that this method significantly undercounts heat-related deaths, as most death certificates do not consider environmental factors such as heat when diagnosing the cause of death.
Alternatively, it is possible to calculate the rate of total (“all-cause”) mortality in a given time period relative to previous time periods – for example, by comparing the total number of deaths in June 2026 compared to the average of previous Junes. This “excess deaths” figure can be used as an estimate of the deaths from a heat wave.
Using this approach, Public Health France attributed around 2,000 deaths in France to the extreme heat in the week of 22-28 June.
Finally, scientists can use long-term data on overall mortality and correlate changes in mortality with changes in temperature to understand the statistical relationship between the two.
Research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2025 that used this third approach found that mortality rates in France increase rapidly in cold or hot conditions as daily maximum temperatures depart further from approximately 20C.
This pattern of a U-shaped response of mortality to temperature – shown in the figure below – is very consistent across time periods and regions around the world.
To calculate the death toll of the June 2026 heatwave in France, we compared observed temperatures over 12-29 June to their baseline average over 1980-2025.
The difference between these two temperatures helps us understand how many more people died than they would have in the absence of such extreme conditions.
Over 12-29 June, we found that France has experienced around 2,700 heat-related deaths above the average baseline. Day-to-day heat-related mortality rates rose from less than 100 to almost 300 on the hottest days of 24 and 25 June.
This is shown in the graph below, which illustrates the cumulative total heat-related deaths seen in France over the two-and-a-half week period. The inset shows how heat-related deaths fluctuated on a day-to-day basis during this time.
Recent analysis by World Weather Attribution has already shown that human-caused climate change increased the frequency and intensity of the June heat wave across Europe.
Meanwhile, previous research has shown there is substantial evidence that heat-related mortality in Europe has already been elevated by greenhouse gas emissions.
As a result, we can be confident that at least some of the more than 2,700 deaths already seen in France are directly due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Calculating climate risk
In April, the UN-led body responsible for coordinating the work of climate modelling centres – the Coupled Modelling Intercomparison Project (CMIP) – unveiled a set of seven new emissions scenarios.
These are designed to replace the previous scenarios that have been used by scientists to understand how the climate might change in the future. They will feed into the upcoming seven assessment report (AR7) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The range of future emissions in the new CMIP scenarios is smaller, with scenarios of very high or very low emissions no longer on the table.
The retirement of the very-high emissions scenario – known as “RCP8.5” – led to certain commentators in the media and in politics, including US president Donald Trump, arguing that the risks of climate change had been “overstated”.
[For more on false and misleading claims around the new emissions scenarios, see Carbon Brief’s factcheck.]
Our analysis of June’s heat-related deaths in France suggests that, even if the most severe emissions pathways are no longer needed, climate impacts are taking a heavy toll on society.
Moreover, the temperatures seen in France show that climate models continue to underpredict the magnitude of heatwaves for a particular level of global warming.
This is because greenhouse gas emissions are only a first step in estimating the impacts of climate change.
The second step is converting emissions to changes in the climate at both the global and local levels – or hazards. This includes heatwaves, flash floods and droughts.
The third step is to determine how changes in the hazards will affect local populations. This can be determined by calculating people’s exposure and vulnerability to hazards.
Substantial uncertainty persists at every stage of this sequence.
For example, scientists do not know exactly how the global climate will react to ever-rising greenhouse gas emissions – nor the extent to which global temperature increases will drive local climate hazards. We also do not know how climate change at a local level impacts human health outcomes.
Managing the future of heat risk
Almost all heat-related deaths are preventable.
Adaptation options, such as air conditioning, heat action plans and social support for isolated people, will be crucial as the climate moves away from the typical conditions that people are used to.
Our previous research showed that France made a lot of progress reducing heat-related mortality after the deadly 2003 summer heatwave by taking many of these actions.
Adaptation can reduce deaths, but it cannot eliminate the risk created by continued warming.
Without a move away from fossil fuels, future heatwaves will keep testing the limits of public health systems and more people will die.
The post Guest post: France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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 Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测