Heat pumps are an alternative to gas boilers and wood stoves for indoor heating.
They now feature in most proposals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by mid-century in order to meet the globally agreed aim of avoiding dangerous climate change.
For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says with high confidence that net-zero energy systems will include the electrification of heating “rely[ing] substantially on heat pumps” – with a possible exception only for extreme climates.
Heat pumps significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions from building heat and are the “central technology in the global transition to secure and sustainable heating”, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Heat pumps are also a mature technology and are very popular in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, where they are the dominant heating technology. For the first time in 2022, heat pumps outsold gas boilers in the US – and they continued to do so in 2023.
Yet, in major economies such as the UK and Germany, heat pumps are the subject of hostile and misleading reporting across many mainstream media outlets.
Here, Carbon Brief factchecks 18 of the most common and persistent myths about heat pumps.
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps don’t work in existing buildings.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps only work in highly insulated buildings.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps only work with underfloor heating.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps won’t work in flats.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps don’t work when it’s cold.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps will always need a backup heating system to keep you warm.‘
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps won’t keep you warm.’
- INCOMPLETE: ‘You will freeze during a power cut and be better off with a gas boiler.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps are noisy.’
- INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps cost more to run and will increase heating bills.’
- FALSE. ‘Turning gas to electricity to heat via a heat pump is less efficient than burning gas in a boiler.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps will never offset the carbon emissions resulting from making them.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps devalue properties.’
- INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps are unaffordable.’
- INCOMPLETE: ‘The grid cannot cope with heat pumps.’
- INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps don’t work with microbore piping.’
- FALSE: ‘Heat pumps don’t last long.’
- INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps are new and untested technology.’
1. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps don’t work in existing buildings.’
In a recent survey in the UK, 20% of respondents said they believed that heat pumps only work in newer homes. In 2023, the Daily Telegraph even published an article with the headline: “Heat pumps won’t work in old homes, warns Bosch.”
In reality, millions of buildings of all ages have been fitted with heat pumps around the world. In fact, the UK government’s boiler upgrade scheme, which offers grants to households replacing boilers with heat pumps, only funds work in existing homes.
After conducting several case studies of old homes with “air-source” heat pumps – those that draw energy from the outside air – public body Historic England concluded in a report last year that these “work well in a range of different historic building types and uses”.
The UK government-funded “electrification of heat” project took this a step further, stating that “there is no property type or architectural era that is unsuitable for a heat pump”.
Results from the project also indicate that there is no significant variation in performance based on house age.
These findings are not exclusive to the UK. Research organisation the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany carried out extensive field testing and monitoring of heat pumps in existing buildings and concluded that they worked reliably and without problems.
2. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps only work in highly insulated buildings.’
A common – but false – claim is that heat pumps require extremely well insulated buildings to perform properly. For example, Mattie Brignal, senior money reporter at the Daily Telegraph, wrote in October 2023 that good insulation was “crucial” for heat pumps to work:
“Effective insulation is crucial for heat pumps to function optimally because the devices operate at lower temperatures than gas boilers.”
“Heat pumps will never work in Britain,” he claimed, partly because of the UK’s poorly insulated housing. It is indeed true that the UK has one of the worst housing stocks in Europe when it comes to insulation, as data from smart thermostat company tado shows.
Heat pumps can work in any building if sized, designed and installed correctly. Many uninsulated homes and buildings are already heated to comfortable temperatures with heat pumps, as shown across multiple case studies, including an uninsulated stone church.
A building loses heat through the walls, the windows and the roof when it is colder outside than inside, as shown by the stylised arrows in the figure below. The upper panels show an outdoor temperature of 10C, coloured purple, and an indoor temperature of 20C, coloured red.
Without insulation, shown in the left-hand panels, heat loss is higher – indicated by the larger arrows – and the heat input must similarly be increased, in order to maintain a steady indoor temperature.
At lower outside temperatures – shown in the lower panels – more heat is being lost, for a given level of home insulation. Yet as long as the heat input from a heating system is equal to the heat loss, the building will still retain its indoor temperature.
This means that for a poorly insulated home, a larger heat pump is needed, just as a larger gas boiler would be needed to reach the required heat input. For any home, the system is usually designed for the coldest day of the year.
Field research from Germany confirms this stylised representation. One of the longest running field studies of heat pumps in renovated properties shows that extensive renovations and insulation upgrades are not necessary to install a heat pump. Good fabric efficiency will keep running costs down, but this is also true for homes heated by gas and oil boilers.
Heat pumps do usually operate at lower “flow temperatures” to maximise efficiency, which means the water pumped to the radiators in a house will have a temperature closer to 50C or below. Although gas boilers also operate more efficiently at lower flow temperatures, they are typically set to provide water at much higher temperatures of 70C or more.
This means the radiators connected to a heat pump system will be cooler, potentially requiring larger radiators or underfloor heating to achieve the same indoor temperature. Research shows, however, that radiators are often oversized to begin with – and that, as a result, not all radiators may need to be replaced.
Moreover, the market already offers high-temperature heat pumps that can reach flow temperatures of 65C and higher. These can be operated with existing radiators.
Furthermore, the UK government’s electrification of heat UK demonstration project showed that the efficiency of high-temperature heat pumps nears that of standard heat pumps, because they only need to run at higher flow temperatures on the coldest days.
3. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps only work with underfloor heating.’
In a recent survey commissioned by the energy supplier Good Energy, 15% of respondents said they believed heat pumps would require underfloor heating.
This is incorrect. Heat pumps work very well with radiators, too, although the lower flow temperature required by underfloor heating means this radiant heating can make heat pumps work more efficiently.
In some cases, the radiators may need upgrading. However, it has been common practice in recent years for heating installers to oversize radiators to apply large safety margins for providing sufficient heat.
If insulation is installed at a later date, the original radiators will also be larger than required. Some radiators may, therefore, need to be replaced to install a heat pump, but this will depend on the property.
Plenty of properties listed on open-source platform Heat Pump Monitor, which allows individuals to upload key information about their own installations, have heat pumps and old radiators, but no underfloor heating.
Similarly, many properties in the Electrification of Heat project had radiators.
4. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps won’t work in flats.’
The Daily Telegraph reported in October 2023 that “many flats are unsuitable for heat pumps”.
Similarly, in August 2023, the Daily Mail reported the comments of Climate Change Committee chief executive Chris Stark saying it is “very difficult” to install heat pumps in flats.
Finding space for the outside units of air-source heat pumps can indeed be a challenge, when it comes to multi-apartment buildings. Solutions for this problem exist, however, as documented in case studies of blocks of flats using a variety of heat pump technologies including ground, air- and water-source heat pumps.
In the UK, Kensa Contracting has successfully installed ground-source heat pumps in high-rise buildings with hundreds of flats, for example. In this case, a shared “ground loop” circulates water to gather warmth from beneath the ground and this is piped into individual flats via a small, in-home unit, which brings the water up to temperature.
Air-to-air heat pumps – similar to air conditioning units – are also an option for flats.
5. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps don’t work when it’s cold.’
A common criticism of heat pumps is that they purportedly do not work in cold weather. For example, Scottish businessman and Labour peer Lord Haughey was quoted last year in the Times saying that heat pumps cannot cope with the cold climate in Scotland. This story was also widely reported in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express.
However, the Nordic region – particularly Sweden, Finland and Norway – suggests otherwise. These three countries have the highest heat pump sales per 1,000 households on the continent. Sweden, Norway and Finland also have the coldest climates in Europe.
In all three countries, there are now more than 40 heat pumps per 100 households, more than in any other country in the world. Heat pump installations started to pick up 20 years ago and have significantly reduced carbon emissions in those countries.
Indeed, European countries with the coldest winters have the highest rates of heat pump sales, as shown in the figure below.
Some also raise questions about how well heat pumps perform when temperatures drop below freezing. For example, climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark claimed in the Daily Telegraph in January 2024 that “heat pumps seem destined to make us freeze” and that “there is no point in telling us we’ve got to get to net-zero if you can’t tell us how we cope when we reach sub-zero”.
Real-world evidence contradicts such claims. Various field studies have collected performance data of heat pumps, for example on air-source heat pumps in Switzerland, Germany, the UK, the US, Canada and China.
Indeed, heat pumps remain more than twice as efficient as gas boilers, even at temperatures well below freezing, according to peer-reviewed analysis by the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP).
The analysis found that while the coefficient of performance (COP), which is a measure of how efficiently a heat pump operates, declines as outside temperature falls, it remains high.
The COP compares the amount of energy put into a heating system with the amount that it puts out as useful heat, to warm the home. A COP of 1 means that each unit of energy used to run the system returns 1 unit of heat – corresponding to 100% efficiency.
Fossil fuel boilers are never 100% efficient because some of the heat is lost with flue gases. Instead, gas boilers typically operate at around 85% efficiency, equivalent to a COP of 0.85.
In contrast, heat pumps use electricity to gather extra heat from the outside air or ground, meaning they typically generate at least 2 units of heat for each unit of input. This means they can have a COP of 2 or above, meaning they are 200%, 300% or even more efficient.
As the graph below shows, even on the coldest winter days when temperatures drop to as low as -20C, a standard air-source heat pump can still operate with a COP of around 2. This is significantly higher than fossil fuel and electric boilers, which operate at COPs of less than or equal to 1, respectively.
For locations with regular frigid temperatures, cold-climate heat pumps are available on the market today. These heat pumps use refrigerants that have a lower boiling point than standard models and are suitable for winters down to -26C.
However, for very cold temperatures far below freezing (-20C or below), systems with some form of backup may be needed. In the Nordic countries this is common.
Ground-source heat pumps may also be useful in colder climates, because the ground retains heat over winter and very rarely reaches such low temperatures as the air.
6. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps will always need a backup heating system to keep you warm.‘
It is often claimed that heat pumps require a secondary heating system to provide backup.
For example, a 2023 Daily Mail article reported the experience of one homeowner who had installed backup oil-fired heating to “kick in during winter when the [heat] pumps don’t work efficiently”, while another said they needed backup to make their home “cosy again”.
Yet some 79% of the homes monitored under the UK’s electrification of heat project have no backup heating system and use a heat pump to provide all of their hot water and space heating needs.
(Some homes involved in the project trialled “hybrid” heating systems, with heat pumps providing heating and a gas boiler providing hot water and extra heating capacity.)
As explained above, a complementary heat source might be needed in very cold climates where winter temperatures routinely fall below -20C. But, generally, this does not apply to the UK and other temperate countries.
7. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps won’t keep you warm.’
A variation on the false claim that heat pumps are unable to operate in cold climates is the similarly inaccurate idea that they will not be able to keep homes sufficiently warm.
“You can’t find an engineer prepared to install one of the devices in your home because, in all honesty, they know it wouldn’t actually keep you warm,” claimed Ross Clark in the Daily Telegraph last year.
There is no evidence to support the claim that heat pumps will not keep homes warm. If designed and installed correctly, heat pumps can provide the same levels of comfort as a fossil fuel heating system, or more.
In a survey carried out in the UK on behalf of charity Nesta, more than 80% of people stated that they are satisfied with the ability of their heat pump to provide space and hot water heating. This is a satisfaction level similar to households with gas boilers, Nesta said.
Evidence from other countries provides further support. Some 81% of respondents to a pan-European survey in 2022 indicated that their level of comfort had improved after getting a heat pump.
8. INCOMPLETE: ‘You will freeze during a power cut and be better off with a gas boiler.’
In another article attacking heat pumps, published in January 2024, climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark warned in the Daily Telegraph that “a power cut lasting more than a few hours will be a very serious matter for communities, which face being totally cut off, shivering”.
Similarly, the Daily Express states heat pump owners have been issued a “horror warning over blackouts”. It quotes Erica Malkin from the Stove Industry Alliance who instead suggests “having a wood-burning stove would certainly mean that people have the ability to heat their homes in the event of a blackout”.
It is correct that a heat pump will not work during a power cut. But the same is the case for gas boilers, which require electricity for controls and to pump hot water through your radiators.
Boiler Central, an online boiler sales company, states on its website that “most” boilers are unable to function without power, such that power cuts render them “temporarily useless”:
“Most modern boilers are reliant on electricity to function, so when the power goes out, your boiler will not be able to heat your home. Without electricity, most of the main components like the thermostat, central heating pumps, and valves will have no power therefore causing your boiler not working properly, rendering your boiler temporarily useless.”
It is also worth noting that the UK’s power grid is very reliable. Most customers only experience a few minutes of outages each year, as data by the energy regulator Ofgem indicates. The same is true in Germany and most other developed countries.
(In the US, power outages are significantly longer – lasting a total of 5 hours on average in 2022 – mainly caused by falling trees.)
9. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps are noisy.’
Another of the false arguments frequently thrown at heat pumps is the idea that they are “too loud” to be installed in many homes – or that the noise they create is a nuisance.
For example, the Daily Telegraph reported – inaccurately – in November 2023 that “heat pumps are too loud to be installed in millions of homes in England under the government’s noise guidelines”.
This headline was contradicted by the experts cited in the article. Consultants Apex Acoustics, who led the research, released a statement saying that the headline claim was “an exaggeration” and that, contrary to the article, noise issues were not “insurmountable”. It said:
“The headline claims heat pumps are ‘too noisy’ for millions of British homes. This is an exaggeration. While noise is a valid concern with heat pumps that needs to be addressed, technology improvements and proper installation can mitigate noise issues in most homes. The article presents noise as an insurmountable problem, which is not the case.”
The Daily Telegraph article also claims there will be a “rise in noise complaints” as more heat pumps are installed.
In reality, UK data shows noise complaints about heat pumps are very low. There are only around 100 noise complaints for every 300,000 installations – a rate of 0.03% – according to a survey by noise experts cited in a research paper by Apex Acoustics.
Government-commissioned research confirms this. It says there is a “low incidence of ASHP [air-source heat pump] noise complaints” and adds: “These arose due to poor quality installations, including location and proximity factors.”
Concluding its response to the Daily Telegraph, Apex Acoustics states that “the article spins isolated concerns and worst-case scenarios into an exaggerated narrative against heat pumps”.
It is true that air-source heat pumps generate a certain degree of noise, due to the fan that circulates ambient air around the outdoor unit. But they can be very quiet and “sound emissions from heat pumps were not reported as noticeable” by the majority of respondents in the study commissioned by the UK government.
In the UK there are strict noise limits on heat pumps. The legal noise limit for heat pumps in the UK is 42 decibels. It is measured from the nearest neighbouring property and means the noise limit at the boundary to a neighbour’s property is 42 decibels. This is a similar volume to a refrigerator.
Ground-source heat pumps create no noise outside of the home, given that there is no fan unit required. Inside a home, ground-source heat pumps do not make more noise than a standard fridge or freezer, says a review by the Federation of Master Builders.
10. INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps cost more to run and will increase heating bills.’
One of the most widespread lines of attack against heat pumps is that they are expensive to run. On the contrary, thanks to their high efficiency, well-designed systems can save UK households hundreds of pounds a year, even though electricity is more expensive than gas.
They offer even greater relative savings in other countries, where electricity prices compared to gas prices are lower.
In a YouTube video from the “Skill Builder” channel, watched more than 2.2m times, presenter Roger Bisby claims “when you look at people’s fuel bills, running a heat pump is roughly three times more expensive than running a gas boiler”. This statement is false.
The running costs of heat pumps relative to gas boilers depend on energy prices and the efficiency of the heat pump installation.
It is a fact that electricity prices are higher than gas prices. Under the UK energy price cap as of March 2024, each unit of electricity is four times more expensive than gas.
However, heat pumps use about 3-5 times less energy compared to a gas boiler. This is because a heat pump turns one unit of electricity into 2.5-5 units of heat.
This efficiency is measured by the seasonal coefficient of performance (SCoP). The SCoP provides a metric to measure the efficiency of a heat pump over the course of a year, rather than the COP which relates to a single moment in time. It measures the total amount of heat produced in a year, compared with the total amount of electricity consumed.
For example, a SCoP of three indicates that for every unit of electricity consumed in a year, the heat pump provides three units of heat. A SCoP of 4 means that the heat pump delivers four times more heat than the electricity input.
In addition, if the heat pump is also used to produce hot water, households can save £110 per year by disconnecting from the gas grid and no longer paying the gas “standing charge”.
In a household paying standard unit prices under the March 2024 UK energy price cap, a heat pump with a SCoP of more than 3 will achieve cost parity with the running costs of an 85% efficient gas boiler.
Under the electrification of heat project, the central estimate (median) SCoP was 2.9. At this level of efficiency, the yearly heating costs to run a heat pump on the current standard tariff would be £25 higher than an 85% gas boiler. Yet much higher heat pump efficiencies can and have been achieved.
HeatGeek, an organisation that trains heat pump installers, reports that installations by those it has trained achieve SCoPs of 4. With a SCoP of 4, households on a standard tariff would save 25% on their heating bills compared to an average gas boiler.
This may change depending on how prices develop in the future, but government estimates suggest that unit prices for electricity will fall relative to those for gas. In other words, the relative running costs of heat pumps will improve versus gas boilers, if those projections are broadly correct.
In the meantime, heat pump users can lower their operating costs through using dedicated tariffs. Some energy companies offer time-varying prices. For example, Octopus Energy’s “Agile” tariff averaged 17 pence per kilowatt hour (p/kWh) over December 2023 to February 2024. This was significantly below the price cap of 27p/kWh from January to March and 25 p/kWh from April to June 2024.
Octopus also offers a special heat pump tariff called “Octopus Cosy”. From 1 April 2024, this will cost 19.6p/kWh, according to Octopus Energy.
Energy supplier OVO also offers a new heat pump tariff of 15p/kWh, called “Heat Pump Plus”, which reduces the unit price by 44% compared to the price cap. (Note that the OVO offering is contingent on working with heat pump accreditation scheme Heat Geek that only covers part of the market.)
OVO also states that, currently, the offering is limited to the first 100 customers who sign up. Whether or not the OVO offering will be available in the future and, if so, in what form is uncertain.
For a UK home on a given energy tariff, the running costs for a heat pump fall as the system gets more efficient (higher SCoP). This is illustrated in the figure below, showing that a home with a heat pump on the standard tariff for April to June 2024 would have lower running costs than for an 85% gas boiler if the SCoP is 3 or above.
The equivalent figures under a range of different energy tariffs are shown by the curved lines. While the figure includes a line for a 92% efficient gas boiler – the rating given on the label of many modern condensing boilers – data from real homes suggests 85% is more typical.
This analysis shows that homes heated with gas boilers could cut their heating bills in half with a heat pump, if they use the Octopus Agile or OVO tariffs, and if their heat pumps have SCoPs of 4.0 and 3.7, respectively.
11. FALSE. ‘Turning gas to electricity to heat via a heat pump is less efficient than burning gas in a boiler.’
A common misunderstanding is that it would be more efficient to burn gas in a domestic gas boiler, rather than converting it into electricity at a power station and using the electricity to run a heat pump instead.
For example, Conservative MP John Redwood tweeted in March 2024 that this would mean “we end up burning more gas in a power station instead of in gas boilers”.
This is false. A standard 300% efficient heat pump (SCoP of 3) would be able to deliver the same amount of warmth as an average gas boiler while cutting gas demand by two-fifths, even if running on 100% gas-fired electricity.
In a more realistic scenario taking into account the way the UK actually generates electricity, the same heat pump would cut gas demand – and the resulting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – by at least three-quarters over the next 15 years.
The late Prof Sir David MacKay, former chief scientific adviser to the then-Department of Energy and Climate Change, explained this clearly back in 2008, in his celebrated book “Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air”:
“Heat pumps are superior in efficiency to condensing boilers, even if the heat pumps are powered by electricity from a power station burning natural gas.”
This is because a heat pump with a SCoP of 3 uses one unit of electricity to make three of heat. As a result, burning one unit of gas in a power plant at 48.3% average efficiency and taking into account the 8% of electricity lost during transmission results in 1.3 units of heat from a heat pump.
In comparison, a gas boiler in the UK typically operates at 85% efficiency, as shown by the grey area in the left-hand bars in the chart below. This means one unit of gas for heating (left column) results in 0.85 units of heat (second from left).
As a result, a 300% efficient heat pump (second column from right, SCoP 3), even if running 100% on gas-generated electricity (rightmost column), needs about two-fifths less gas to make the same amount of heat (“saving”, yellow hatching).
In reality, instead of running on 100% gas-fired electricity, heat pumps would run on the current electricity mix. In the UK, the share of fossil fuels (black) in total electricity generation was 33% in 2023, as shown in the figure below.
It is also important to note that the share of gas generation in the electricity mix will decline over the coming years. This means that a heat pump would cut CO2 emissions by 77-86% over 15 years compared with a gas boiler, based on UK government guidance.
12. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps will never offset the carbon emissions resulting from making them.’
As with electric vehicles, solar panels or wind turbines, the factories making heat pumps need raw materials and energy, which lead to CO2 emissions.
This results in another common misunderstanding that the CO2 saved by the heat pump during operation will be cancelled out by the emissions created during manufacturing.
A typical response on Twitter when posting about heat pumps is along these lines: “Ripping out a perfectly well functioning gas boiler before the end of its natural life and replacing it with a heat pump is misguided. It won’t reduce much carbon.”
The perception that it makes sense to use a gas boiler until the end of its life before installing a heat pump is widespread. It is based on the belief that the “embodied” carbon emissions of a heat pump are higher than any carbon savings during operation.
Despite the intuitive appeal of this belief, detailed analysis shows it is incorrect. In fact, replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump would save 25-28 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) over a 15-year period, a reduction of more than three-quarters.
According to one peer-reviewed study, it takes 1,563kg of CO2 equivalent (kgCO2e) to manufacture a domestic heat pump. This figure – 1.6tCO2e – can be compared with annual per capita emissions in the UK of 5.6tCO2e in 2023.
The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) has provided new guidance on embodied carbon, which gives a similar result. Using the CIBSE figures, for a heat pump with a capacity of 7 kilowatts (kW), we can assume embodied carbon of around 1,500kgCO2e – slightly more than 200kgCO2e per kW of capacity.
Now let us compare this to a typical gas boiler. Embodied emissions of the boiler are ignored in the calculation of gas boiler emissions, as we assume the gas boiler is already in place. What we are interested in is how quickly a heat pump install will offset its embodied carbon.
The central estimate for annual gas consumption per household is 12,100 kilowatt hours (kWh), excluding the 2.4% of gas used for cooking. Per kWh of gas used, the boiler emits 183gCO2 based on the UK government’s green book guidance. That is 2,209kgCO2e per year. If we assume the gas boiler runs for another 15 years, it will result in total operational emissions of 33,134kgCO2e.
For comparison, a heat pump has significantly lower operational emissions. Using the more conservative “marginal” emission factors from green book guidance and a SCoP of three, the total operational emissions over 15 years from 2023-2037 are expected to be 6,153kgCO2e.
(Using marginal emission factors assume the heat pump is powered by the marginal source of electricity, which is the last power plant that needs to be switched on to meet overall demand. At present, this is usually a gas plant.)
For average green book emission factors, the heat pump would emit 3,242kgCO2e. Using CIBSE figures for the embodied carbon in its manufacture, the total emissions associated with the new heat pump over 15 years would reach 7,653kgCO2e for marginal and 4,742kgCO2e for average emission factors.
This is a saving of 25,481-28,392kgCO2e compared with the gas boiler (25-28tCO2e).
Overall then, replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump would cut emissions by 77-86%, including the embodied emissions from manufacturing the heat pump. This means the heat pump would offset its embodied carbon after 13 months.
Even under the unrealistic and extreme assumption that manufacturing a heat pump entails 10 times more embodied carbon than thought, it would still generate emissions savings of 36-45% over 15 years when replacing a gas boiler.
Additionally, the emissions estimate for gas excludes upstream emissions associated with gas extraction, processing and transport. Applying a higher estimate of 210kgCO2e/kWh to account for the upstream emissions results in higher carbon savings of 80-87% for a heat pump, compared to an existing gas boiler.
In conclusion: the embodied emissions from a heat pump are offset after a few months. Over the lifetime of the appliance, heat pumps save considerable amounts of carbon emissions compared to a gas boiler.
13. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps devalue properties.’
A common myth suggests that installing a heat pump will devalue your property. For example, an article in the Daily Express from 2022 suggested that “homeowners who are forced to rip out their gas boiler and replace it with eco-friendly heat pumps will see the value of the home collapse”.
The evidence suggests the opposite: heat pumps increase the value of properties. Research from the US found that “residences with an air source heat pump enjoy a 4.3–7.1% (or $10,400–17,000) price premium on average”.
UK research has shown that a heat pump could add between 1.7% and 3.0% to the value of an average home. Estate agent Savills also reports that buyers pay a premium for homes with heat pumps.
Based on the average UK house price in December 2023, some £285,000, this implies a price premium of £4,800-£8,600, which amounts to a significant proportion of the cost of installing a heat pump in the first place.
14. INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps are unaffordable.’
The upfront cost of heat pumps is a frequently cited issue with the technology.
For example, the Daily Telegraph said in a September 2023 article:
“The main barrier to installing these devices for most homes is the disproportionately large upfront cost when compared to traditional heating systems.”
Similarly, yet another Ross Clark comment for the Daily Telegraph – under the headline “The great heat pump hype is almost dead” – said they were “horrendously expensive to install”.
It is true that heat pumps are more expensive to buy than gas boilers.
In 2023, the average installation cost of an air source heat pump in the UK was £12,368, according to MCS data. This compares with £2,500-3,000 for a gas boiler, according to the UK government. A recent report by the National Audit Office concluded that heat pumps have seen a 6% real-terms cost reduction compared to 2021.
The UK government offers subsidies for heat pumps of £7,500 per installation under the boiler upgrade scheme. This is an increase from the previous level of £5,000, leading to a surge in interest, as shown in the figure below.
(The number of applications for heat pump vouchers in January 2024 was 39% higher than a year earlier, the government says.)
Some companies now offer heat pumps for less than £3,000 after the grant, a cost similar to a new gas boiler.
Most forecasts are for heat pump installation costs to decline in the future, according to a systematic review of the evidence by the UK Energy Research Centre. The majority of forecasts suggest a reduction in total installed costs of around 20-25% by 2030, it found.
Crucially, while heat pumps currently have relatively high upfront costs, they are expected to be the most cost-effective way to decarbonise heating.
15. INCOMPLETE: ‘The grid cannot cope with heat pumps.’
Another common myth about heat pumps – as for electric vehicles – is that their widespread adoption would be catastrophic for the electricity grid.
For example, the Daily Express published an article in 2022 titled: “Heat pump hell: Owners sent horror warning over boiler alternatives amid blackout threat.”
The article cites Erica Malkin from the Stove Industry Alliance, the trade association for UK stove manufacturers, installers and retailers. She claimed that the grid may not be able to cope with heat pumps and there could be power outages if they are widely rolled out.
Similarly, a February 2024 comment for the Sunday Telegraph by omnipresent climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark asked “at a time when politicians want millions more of us to be driving electric cars and heating our homes with heat pumps…how will we keep the lights on?”
Clark also claimed that the plan to electrify heating and transport will “put us all in the dark” and that “the UK is much closer to blackouts than anyone dares to admit”.
In an unrealistic scenario where all UK homes switched to heat pumps overnight, in many areas the electricity grid would indeed struggle. Yet the transition to heat pumps will take decades, not just a couple of years.
This gives the electricity network companies, the future system operator, the energy suppliers and the energy regulator Ofgem time to adjust.
In its latest assessment of UK infrastructure needs, official government advisor the National Infrastructure Commission points to the rapid transformation of the power system in the past. This suggests the UK can build the infrastructure needed to electrify heating within the timescales required, it says.
Moreover, although not widely known, UK electricity demand has fallen by 18% over the last two decades. This has created some space on the grid for demand growth.
The factors driving the drop include product energy efficiency regulations, energy-efficient lighting – which has cut peak demand by the equivalent of roughly two nuclear plants alone – environmentally conscious consumers and economic restructuring, including offshoring energy-intensive industries.
National Grid is well aware of the needed investment in the grid and is planning for heat pumps (and electric vehicles) to be connected. It says it is confident that electrification of home heating can be delivered in the UK.
Distribution network operators, who manage local grids and transmit electricity to individual customers, started to develop heat pump strategies a few years ago.
The amount of unused grid capacity in the distribution grid varies by area. In some parts of the country, there is no need for grid upgrades.
Research carried out on behalf of the UK government found that in rural areas of Scotland, 36-59% of the grid would require upgrades if all heating was electrified.
More recent research predicts that peak heat demand from heat pumps will be 8% lower than for gas heating, because heat pumps are designed to deliver heat consistently over longer periods rather than in short bursts.
In addition, it found that the maximum “heat ramp rate” – the speed at which heating loads increase prior to peak periods – will be 67% lower compared to gas heating.
An important solution for minimising the required grid investments and consumer costs is demand flexibility, or the ability to shift demand to periods when electricity is cheap and the pressure on the grid is lower.
It has been demonstrated that heat pumps can provide demand flexibility to support the grid. This can mean heating buildings slightly before peak periods and ramping down heat pump output during the peak, without a noticeable loss in comfort. It can also mean using “heat batteries” and thermal storage to absorb cheaper electricity when available.
The question of energy system reliability under a net-zero pathway has been looked at extensively by the Committee on Climate Change and the Royal Society. Those assessments found that with an appropriate technology mix, it is possible to electrify much of the UK’s heating at the same time as ensuring reliability of supply.
16. INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps don’t work with microbore piping.’
The Daily Express reported in 2021 that “any homes with microbore pipework looking to install a heat pump…could result in huge costs and major disruption to installing additional equipment. All pipework throughout the properties might also need replacing.”
The article was based on comments from the Heating and Hot Water Industry Council, which, among other organisations, represents boiler companies.
Microbore pipework is a smaller type of pipework often used in homes to transport hot water to radiators. It is a generic term for pipes which measure under 15mm in diameter and are usually made of either plastic or copper.
The lower diameter means it is harder to run hot water around the system quickly.
Heat pump heating systems typically use higher flow rates, in combination with lower flow temperatures, in order to maximise efficiency.
As a result, microbore piping is not ideal for heat pumps. Yet it can still be possible to keep some microbore pipes and still install a heat pump, as explained by Heat Geek.
There are even examples of homes with microbore piping that have had heat pumps installed successfully. Heat pump installer Aira explains how a home with microbore can still benefit from a heat pump, with the right adjustments.
In conclusion, it is correct that microbore pipes are not always ideal for heat pumps. But it is incorrect to say that heat pumps will not work with microbore piping.
17. FALSE: ‘Heat pumps don’t last long.’
Despite persistent claims to the contrary on social media, heat pumps can last a couple decades or even longer. The UK government assumes a lifetime of 20 years in its official impact assessment for heat pump subsidies.
Analysis of field data from the US, collected between 2001 and 2007 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, concluded that air-to-air heat pumps last on average 15 years – and since then, the quality of the technology has improved.
18. INCOMPLETE: ‘Heat pumps are new and untested technology.’
In a February 2024 article about Scotland’s plans to roll out heat pumps, the Herald reported that the GMB trade union had tabled a motion at the Scottish Labour Party conference against “forcing onto households untested systems such as heat pumps”.
(The “b” in GMB historically stood for “boilermakers”.)
Heat pumps are, however, a very mature technology and have been around for more than 100 years. The first heat pump as we know it today was built by Austrian engineer Peter von Rittinger in 1856. Heat pumps were installed in peoples’ homes many decades ago.
A heat pump was installed in the City Hall of Zurich in 1938 and was not replaced until 2001. The first heat pump in the UK was installed in Norwich in 1945 by John Sumner, the city electrical engineer for Norwich.
Across the world, there are close to 200m heat pumps in operation today.
The post Factcheck: 18 misleading myths about heat pumps appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Drought and heatwaves occurring together – known as “compound” events – have “surged” across the world since the early 2000s, a new study shows.
Compound drought and heat events (CDHEs) can have devastating effects, creating the ideal conditions for intense wildfires, such as Australia’s “Black Summer” of 2019-20 where bushfires burned 24m hectares and killed 33 people.
The research, published in Science Advances, finds that the increase in CDHEs is predominantly being driven by events that start with a heatwave.
The global area affected by such “heatwave-led” compound events has more than doubled between 1980-2001 and 2002-23, the study says.
The rapid increase in these events over the last 23 years cannot be explained solely by global warming, the authors note.
Since the late 1990s, feedbacks between the land and the atmosphere have become stronger, making heatwaves more likely to trigger drought conditions, they explain.
One of the study authors tells Carbon Brief that societies must pay greater attention to compound events, which can “cause severe impacts on ecosystems, agriculture and society”.
Compound events
CDHEs are extreme weather events where drought and heatwave conditions occur simultaneously – or shortly after each other – in the same region.
These events are often triggered by large-scale weather patterns, such as “blocking” highs, which can produce “prolonged” hot and dry conditions, according to the study.
Prof Sang-Wook Yeh is one of the study authors and a professor at the Ewha Womans University in South Korea. He tells Carbon Brief:
“When heatwaves and droughts occur together, the two hazards reinforce each other through land-atmosphere interactions. This amplifies surface heating and soil moisture deficits, making compound events more intense and damaging than single hazards.”
CDHEs can begin with either a heatwave or a drought.
The sequence of these extremes is important, the study says, as they have different drivers and impacts.
For example, in a CDHE where the heatwave was the precursor, increased direct sunshine causes more moisture loss from soils and plants, leading to a drought.
Conversely, in an event where the drought was the precursor, the lack of soil moisture means that less of the sun’s energy goes into evaporation and more goes into warming the Earth’s surface. This produces favourable conditions for heatwaves.
The study shows that the majority of CDHEs globally start out as a drought.
In recent years, there has been increasing focus on these events due to the devastating impact they have on agriculture, ecosystems and public health.
In Russia in the summer of 2010, a compound drought-heatwave event – and the associated wildfires – caused the death of nearly 55,000 people, the study notes.
The record-breaking Pacific north-west “heat dome” in 2021 triggered extreme drought conditions that caused “significant declines” in wheat yields, as well as in barley, canola and fruit production in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, says the study.
Increasing events
To assess how CDHEs are changing, the researchers use daily reanalysis data to identify droughts and heatwaves events. (Reanalysis data combines past observations with climate models to create a historical climate record.) Then, using an algorithm, they analyse how these events overlap in both time and space.
The study covers the period from 1980 to 2023 and the world’s land surface, excluding polar regions where CDHEs are rare.
The research finds that the area of land affected by CDHEs has “increased substantially” since the early 2000s.
Heatwave-led events have been the main contributor to this increase, the study says, with their spatial extent rising 110% between 1980-2001 and 2002-23, compared to a 59% increase for drought-led events.
The map below shows the global distribution of CDHEs over 1980-2023. The charts show the percentage of the land surface affected by a heatwave-led CDHE (red) or a drought-led CDHE (yellow) in a given year (left) and relative increase in each CDHE type (right).
The study finds that CDHEs have occurred most frequently in northern South America, the southern US, eastern Europe, central Africa and south Asia.
Threshold passed
The authors explain that the increase in heatwave-led CDHEs is related to rising global temperatures, but that this does not tell the whole story.
In the earlier 22-year period of 1980-2001, the study finds that the spatial extent of heatwave-led CDHEs rises by 1.6% per 1C of global temperature rise. For the more-recent period of 2022-23, this increases “nearly eightfold” to 13.1%.
The change suggests that the rapid increase in the heatwave-led CDHEs occurred after the global average temperature “surpasse[d] a certain temperature threshold”, the paper says.
This threshold is an absolute global average temperature of 14.3C, the authors estimate (based on an 11-year average), which the world passed around the year 2000.
Investigating the recent surge in heatwave-leading CDHEs further, the researchers find a “regime shift” in land-atmosphere dynamics “toward a persistently intensified state after the late 1990s”.
In other words, the way that drier soils drive higher surface temperatures, and vice versa, is becoming stronger, resulting in more heatwave-led compound events.
Daily data
The research has some advantages over other previous studies, Yeh says. For instance, the new work uses daily estimations of CDHEs, compared to monthly data used in past research. This is “important for capturing the detailed occurrence” of these events, says Yeh.
He adds that another advantage of their study is that it distinguishes the sequence of droughts and heatwaves, which allows them to “better understand the differences” in the characteristics of CDHEs.
Dr Meryem Tanarhte is a climate scientist at the University Hassan II in Morocco, and Dr Ruth Cerezo Mota is a climatologist and a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Both scientists, who were not involved in the study, agree that the daily estimations give a clearer picture of how CDHEs are changing.
Cerezo-Mota adds that another major contribution of the study is its global focus. She tells Carbon Brief that in some regions, such as Mexico and Africa, there is a lack of studies on CDHEs:
“Not because the events do not occur, but perhaps because [these regions] do not have all the data or the expertise to do so.”
However, she notes that the reanalysis data used by the study does have limitations with how it represents rainfall in some parts of the world.
Compound impacts
The study notes that if CDHEs continue to intensify – particularly events where heatwaves are the precursors – they could drive declining crop productivity, increased wildfire frequency and severe public health crises.
These impacts could be “much more rapid and severe as global warming continues”, Yeh tells Carbon Brief.
Tanarhte notes that these events can be forecasted up to 10 days ahead in many regions. Furthermore, she says, the strongest impacts can be prevented “through preparedness and adaptation”, including through “water management for agriculture, heatwave mitigation measures and wildfire mitigation”.
The study recommends reassessing current risk management strategies for these compound events. It also suggests incorporating the sequences of drought and heatwaves into compound event analysis frameworks “to enhance climate risk management”.
Cerezo-Mota says that it is clear that the world needs to be prepared for the increased occurrence of these events. She tells Carbon Brief:
“These [risk assessments and strategies] need to be carried out at the local level to understand the complexities of each region.”
The post Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes
Greenhouse Gases
DeBriefed 6 March 2026: Iran energy crisis | China climate plan | Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ wind turbine
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Energy crisis
ENERGY SPIKE: US-Israeli attacks on Iran and subsequent counterattacks across the Middle East have sent energy prices “soaring”, according to Reuters. The newswire reported that the region “accounts for just under a third of global oil production and almost a fifth of gas”. The Guardian noted that shipping traffic through the strait of Hormuz, which normally ferries 20% of the world’s oil, “all but ground to a halt”. The Financial Times reported that attacks by Iran on Middle East energy facilities – notably in Qatar – triggered the “biggest rise in gas prices since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine”.
‘RISK’ AND ‘BENEFITS’: Bloomberg reported on increases in diesel prices in Europe and the US, speculating that rising fuel costs could be “a risk for president Donald Trump”. US gas producers are “poised to benefit from the big disruption in global supply”, according to CNBC. Indian government sources told the Economic Times that Russia is prepared to “fulfil India’s energy demands”. China Daily quoted experts who said “China’s energy security remains fundamentally unshaken”, thanks to “emergency stockpiles and a wide array of import channels”.
‘ESSENTIAL’ RENEWABLES: Energy analysts said governments should cut their fossil-fuel reliance by investing in renewables, “rather than just seeking non-Gulf oil and gas suppliers”, reported Climate Home News. This message was echoed by UK business secretary Peter Kyle, who said “doubling down on renewables” was “essential” amid “regional instability”, according to the Daily Telegraph.
China’s climate plan
PEAK COAL?: China has set out its next “five-year plan” at the annual “two sessions” meeting of the National People’s Congress, including its climate strategy out to 2030, according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post. The plan called for China to cut its carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 17% from 2026 to 2030, which “may allow for continued increase in emissions given the rate of GDP growth”, reported Reuters. The newswire added that the plan also had targets to reach peak coal in the next five years and replace 30m tonnes per year of coal with renewables.
ACTIVE YET PRUDENT: Bloomberg described the new plan as “cautious”, stating that it “frustrat[es] hopes for tighter policy that would drive the nation to peak carbon emissions well before president Xi Jinping’s 2030 deadline”. Carbon Brief has just published an in-depth analysis of the plan. China Daily reported that the strategy “highlights measures to promote the climate targets of peaking carbon dioxide emissions before 2030”, which China said it would work towards “actively yet prudently”.
Around the world
- EU RULES: The European Commission has proposed new “made in Europe” rules to support domestic low-carbon industries, “against fierce competition from China”, reported Agence France-Presse. Carbon Brief examined what it means for climate efforts.
- RECORD HEAT: The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said there is a 50-60% chance that the El Niño weather pattern could return this year, amplifying the effect of global warming and potentially driving temperatures to “record highs”, according to Euronews.
- FLAGSHIP FUND: The African Development Bank’s “flagship clean energy fund” plans to more than double its financing to $2.5bn for African renewables over the next two years, reported the Associated Press.
- NO WITHDRAWAL: Vanuatu has defied US efforts to force the Pacific-island nation to drop a UN draft resolution calling on the world to implement a landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on climate, according to the Guardian.
98
The number of nations that submitted their national reports on tackling nature loss to the UN on time – just half of the 196 countries that are part of the UN biodiversity treaty – according to analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- Sea levels are already “much higher than assumed” in most assessments of the threat posed by sea-level rise, due to “inadequate” modelling assumptions | Nature
- Accelerating human-caused global warming could see the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit crossed before 2030 | Geophysical Research Letters covered by Carbon Brief
- Future “super El Niño events” could “significantly lower” solar power generation due to a reduction in solar irradiance in key regions, such as California and east China | Communications Earth & Environment
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 fell to 54% below 1990 levels, the baseline year for its legally binding climate goals, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. Over the same period, data from the World Bank shows that the UK’s economy has expanded by 95%, meaning that emissions have been decoupling from growth.
Spotlight
Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ community wind turbine
Following the recent launch of the UK government’s local power plan, Carbon Brief visits one of the country’s community-energy success stories.
The Lawrence Weston housing estate is set apart from the main city of Bristol, wedged between the tree-lined grounds of a stately home and a sprawl of warehouses and waste incinerators. It is one of the most deprived areas in the city.
Yet, just across the M5 motorway stands a structure that has brought the spoils of the energy transition directly to this historically forgotten estate – a 4.2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine.
The turbine is owned by local charity Ambition Lawrence Weston and all the profits from its electricity sales – around £100,000 a year – go to the community. In the UK’s local power plan, it was singled out by energy secretary Ed Miliband as a “pioneering” project.
‘Sustainable income’
On a recent visit to the estate by Carbon Brief, Ambition Lawrence Weston’s development manager, Mark Pepper, rattled off the story behind the wind turbine.
In 2012, Pepper and his team were approached by the Bristol Energy Cooperative with a chance to get a slice of the income from a new solar farm. They jumped at the opportunity.
“Austerity measures were kicking in at the time,” Pepper told Carbon Brief. “We needed to generate an income. Our own, sustainable income.”
With the solar farm proving to be a success, the team started to explore other opportunities. This began a decade-long process that saw them navigate the Conservative government’s “ban” on onshore wind, raise £5.5m in funding and, ultimately, erect the turbine in 2023.
Today, the turbine generates electricity equivalent to Lawrence Weston’s 3,000 households and will save 87,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) over its lifetime.
‘Climate by stealth’
Ambition Lawrence Weston’s hub is at the heart of the estate and the list of activities on offer is seemingly endless: birthday parties, kickboxing, a library, woodworking, help with employment and even a pop-up veterinary clinic. All supported, Pepper said, with the help of a steady income from community-owned energy.
The centre itself is kitted out with solar panels, heat pumps and electric-vehicle charging points, making it a living advertisement for the net-zero transition. Pepper noted that the organisation has also helped people with energy costs amid surging global gas prices.
Gesturing to the England flags dangling limply on lamp posts visible from the kitchen window, he said:
“There’s a bit of resentment around immigration and scarcity of materials and provision, so we’re trying to do our bit around community cohesion.”
This includes supper clubs and an interfaith grand iftar during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Anti-immigration sentiment in the UK has often gone hand-in-hand with opposition to climate action. Right-wing politicians and media outlets promote the idea that net-zero policies will cost people a lot of money – and these ideas have cut through with the public.
Pepper told Carbon Brief he is sympathetic to people’s worries about costs and stressed that community energy is the perfect way to win people over:
“I think the only way you can change that is if, instead of being passive consumers…communities are like us and they’re generating an income to offset that.”
From the outset, Pepper stressed that “we weren’t that concerned about climate because we had other, bigger pressures”, adding:
“But, in time, we’ve delivered climate by stealth.”
Watch, read, listen
OIL WATCH: The Guardian has published a “visual guide” with charts and videos showing how the “escalating Iran conflict is driving up oil and gas prices”.
MURDER IN HONDURAS: Ten years on from the murder of Indigenous environmental justice advocate Berta Cáceres, Drilled asked why Honduras is still so dangerous for environmental activists.
TALKING WEATHER: A new film, narrated by actor Michael Sheen and titled You Told Us To Talk About the Weather, aimed to promote conversation about climate change with a blend of “poetry, folk horror and climate storytelling”.
Coming up
- 8 March: Colombia parliamentary election
- 9-19 March: 31st Annual Session of the International Seabed Authority, Kingston, Jamaica
- 11 March: UN Environment Programme state of finance for nature 2026 report launch
Pick of the jobs
- London School of Economics and Political Science, fellow in the social science of sustainability | Salary: £43,277-£51,714. Location: London
- NORCAP, innovative climate finance expert | Salary: Unknown. Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
- WBHM, environmental reporter | Salary: $50,050-$81,330. Location: Birmingham, Alabama, US
- Climate Cabinet, data engineer | Salary: hourly rate of $60-$120 per hour. Location: Remote anywhere in the US
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 6 March 2026: Iran energy crisis | China climate plan | Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ wind turbine appeared first on Carbon Brief.
China’s leadership has published a draft of its 15th five-year plan setting the strategic direction for the nation out to 2030, including support for clean energy and energy security.
The plan sets a target to cut China’s “carbon intensity” by 17% over the five years from 2026-30, but also changes the basis for calculating this key climate metric.
The plan continues to signal support for China’s clean-energy buildout and, in general, contains no major departures from the country’s current approach to the energy transition.
The government reaffirms support for several clean-energy industries, ranging from solar and electric vehicles (EVs) through to hydrogen and “new-energy” storage.
The plan also emphasises China’s willingness to steer climate governance and be seen as a provider of “global public goods”, in the form of affordable clean-energy technologies.
However, while the document says it will “promote the peaking” of coal and oil use, it does not set out a timeline and continues to call for the “clean and efficient” use of coal.
This shows that tensions remain between China’s climate goals and its focus on energy security, leading some analysts to raise concerns about its carbon-cutting ambition.
Below, Carbon Brief outlines the key climate change and energy aspects of the plan, including targets for carbon intensity, non-fossil energy and forestry.
Note: this article is based on a draft published on 5 March and will be updated if any significant changes are made in the final version of the plan, due to be released at the close next week of the “two sessions” meeting taking place in Beijing.
- What is China’s 15th five-year plan?
- What does the plan say about China’s climate action?
- What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?
- Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?
- What does the plan signal about coal?
- How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years?
- What else does the plan cover?
What is China’s 15th five-year plan?
Five-year plans are one of the most important documents in China’s political system.
Addressing everything from economic strategy to climate policy, they outline the planned direction for China’s socio-economic development in a five-year period. The 15th five-year plan covers 2026-30.
These plans include several “main goals”. These are largely quantitative indicators that are seen as particularly important to achieve and which provide a foundation for subsequent policies during the five-year period.
The table below outlines some of the key “main goals” from the draft 15th five-year plan.
| Category | Indicator | Indicator in 2025 | Target by 2030 | Cumulative target over 2026-2030 | Characteristic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic development | Gross domestic product (GDP) growth (%) | 5 | Maintained within a reasonable range and proposed annually as appropriate. | Anticipatory | |
| ‘Green and low-carbon | Reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP (%) | 17.7 | 17 | Binding | |
| Share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption (%) | 21.7 | 25 | Binding | ||
| Security guarantee | Comprehensive energy production capacity (100m tonnes of standard coal equivalent) |
51.3 | 58 | Binding |
Select list of targets highlighted in the “main goals” section of the draft 15th five-year plan. Source: Draft 15th five-year plan.
Since the 12th five-year plan, covering 2011-2015, these “main goals” have included energy intensity and carbon intensity as two of five key indicators for “green ecology”.
The previous five-year plan, which ran from 2021-2025, introduced the idea of an absolute “cap” on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, although it did not provide an explicit figure in the document. This has been subsequently addressed by a policy on the “dual-control of carbon” issued in 2024.
The latest plan removes the energy-intensity goal and elevates the carbon-intensity goal, but does not set an absolute cap on emissions (see below).
It covers the years until 2030, before which China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions. (Analysis for Carbon Brief found that emissions have been “flat or falling” since March 2024.)
The plans are released at the two sessions, an annual gathering of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). This year, it runs from 4-12 March.
The plans are often relatively high-level, with subsequent topic-specific five-year plans providing more concrete policy guidance.
Policymakers at the National Energy Agency (NEA) have indicated that in the coming years they will release five sector-specific plans for 2026-2030, covering topics such as the “new energy system”, electricity and renewable energy.
There may also be specific five-year plans covering carbon emissions and environmental protection, as well as the coal and nuclear sectors, according to analysts.
Other documents published during the two sessions include an annual government work report, which outlines key targets and policies for the year ahead.
The gathering is attended by thousands of deputies – delegates from across central and local governments, as well as Chinese Communist party members, members of other political parties, academics, industry leaders and other prominent figures.
What does the plan say about China’s climate action?
Achieving China’s climate targets will remain a key driver of the country’s policies in the next five years, according to the draft 15th five-year plan.
It lists the “acceleration” of China’s energy transition as a “major achievement” in the 14th five-year plan period (2021-2025), noting especially how clean-power capacity had overtaken fossil fuels.
The draft says China will “actively and steadily advance and achieve carbon peaking”, with policymakers continuing to strike a balance between building a “green economy” and ensuring stability.
Climate and environment continues to receive its own chapter in the plan. However, the framing and content of this chapter has shifted subtly compared with previous editions, as shown in the table below. For example, unlike previous plans, the first section of this chapter focuses on China’s goal to peak emissions.
| 11th five-year plan (2006-2010) | 12th five-year plan (2011-2015) | 13th five-year plan (2016-2020) | 14th five-year plan (2021-2025) | 15th five-year plan (2026-2030) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chapter title | Part 6: Build a resource-efficient and environmentally-friendly society | Part 6: Green development, building a resource-efficient and environmentally friendly society | Part 10: Ecosystems and the environment | Part 11: Promote green development and facilitate the harmonious coexistence of people and nature | Part 13: Accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development to build a beautiful China |
| Sections | Developing a circular economy | Actively respond to global climate change | Accelerate the development of functional zones | Improve the quality and stability of ecosystems | Actively and steadily advancing and achieving carbon peaking |
| Protecting and restoring natural ecosystems | Strengthen resource conservation and management | Promote economical and intensive resource use | Continue to improve environmental quality | Continuously improving environmental quality | |
| Strengthening environmental protection | Vigorously develop the circular economy | Step up comprehensive environmental governance | Accelerate the green transformation of the development model | Enhancing the diversity, stability, and sustainability of ecosystems | |
| Enhancing resource management | Strengthen environmental protection efforts | Intensify ecological conservation and restoration | Accelerating the formation of green production and lifestyles | ||
| Rational utilisation of marine and climate resources | Promoting ecological conservation and restoration | Respond to global climate change | |||
| Strengthen the development of water conservancy and disaster prevention and mitigation systems | Improve mechanisms for ensuring ecological security | ||||
| Develop green and environmentally-friendly industries |
Title and main sections of the climate and environment-focused chapters in the last five five-year plans. Source: China’s 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year plans.
The climate and environment chapter in the latest plan calls for China to “balance [economic] development and emission reduction” and “ensure the timely achievement of carbon peak targets”.
Under the plan, China will “continue to pursue” its established direction and objectives on climate, Prof Li Zheng, dean of the Tsinghua University Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development (ICCSD), tells Carbon Brief.
What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?
In the lead-up to the release of the plan, analysts were keenly watching for signals around China’s adoption of a system for the “dual-control of carbon”.
This would combine the existing targets for carbon intensity – the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP – with a new cap on China’s total carbon emissions. This would mark a dramatic step for the country, which has never before set itself a binding cap on total emissions.
Policymakers had said last year that this framework would come into effect during the 15th five-year plan period, replacing the previous system for the “dual-control of energy”.
However, the draft 15th five-year plan does not offer further details on when or how both parts of the dual-control of carbon system will be implemented. Instead, it continues to focus on carbon intensity targets alone.
Looking back at the previous five-year plan period, the latest document says China had achieved a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7%, just shy of its 18% goal.
This is in contrast with calculations by Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which had suggested that China had only cut its carbon intensity by 12% over the past five years.
At the time it was set in 2021, the 18% target had been seen as achievable, with analysts telling Carbon Brief that they expected China to realise reductions of 20% or more.
However, the government had fallen behind on meeting the target.
Last year, ecology and environment minister Huang Runqiu attributed this to the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather and trade tensions. He said that China, nevertheless, remained “broadly” on track to meet its 2030 international climate pledge of reducing carbon intensity by more than 65% from 2005 levels.
Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that the newly reported figure showing a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7% is likely due to an “opportunistic” methodological revision. The new methodology now includes industrial process emissions – such as cement and chemicals – as well as the energy sector.
(This is not the first time China has redefined a target, with regulators changing the methodology for energy intensity in 2023.)
For the next five years, the plan sets a target to reduce carbon intensity by 17%, slightly below the previous goal.
However, the change in methodology means that this leaves space for China’s overall emissions to rise by “3-6% over the next five years”, says Myllyvirta. In contrast, he adds that the original methodology would have required a 2% fall in absolute carbon emissions by 2030.
The dashed lines in the chart below show China’s targets for reducing carbon intensity during the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year periods, while the bars show what was achieved under the old (dark blue) and new (light blue) methodology.
The carbon-intensity target is the “clearest signal of Beijing’s climate ambition”, says Li Shuo, director at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s (ASPI) China climate hub.
It also links directly to China’s international pledge – made in 2021 – to cut its carbon intensity to more than 65% below 2005 levels by 2030.
To meet this pledge under the original carbon-intensity methodology, China would have needed to set a target of a 23% reduction within the 15th five-year plan period. However, the country’s more recent 2035 international climate pledge, released last year, did not include a carbon-intensity target.
As such, ASPI’s Li interprets the carbon-intensity target in the draft 15th five-year plan as a “quiet recalibration” that signals “how difficult the original 2030 goal has become”.
Furthermore, the 15th five-year plan does not set an absolute emissions cap.
This leaves “significant ambiguity” over China’s climate plans, says campaign group 350 in a press statement reacting to the draft plan. It explains:
“The plan was widely expected to mark a clearer transition from carbon-intensity targets toward absolute emissions reductions…[but instead] leaves significant ambiguity about how China will translate record renewable deployment into sustained emissions cuts.”
Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that this represents a “continuation” of the government’s focus on scaling up clean-energy supply while avoiding setting “strong measurable emission targets”.
He says that he would still expect to see absolute caps being set for power and industrial sectors covered by China’s emissions trading scheme (ETS). In addition, he thinks that an overall absolute emissions cap may still be published later in the five-year period.
Despite the fact that it has yet to be fully implemented, the switch from dual-control of energy to dual-control of carbon represents a “major policy evolution”, Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), tells Carbon Brief. He says that it will allow China to “provide more flexibility for renewable energy expansion while tightening the net on fossil-fuel reliance”.
Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?
“How quickly carbon intensity is reduced largely depends on how much renewable energy can be supplied,” says Yao Zhe, global policy advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, in a statement.
The five-year plan continues to call for China’s development of a “new energy system that is clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient” by 2030, with continued additions of “wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power”.
In line with China’s international pledge, it sets a target for raising the share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption to 25% by 2030, up from just under 21.7% in 2025.
The development of “green factories” and “zero-carbon [industrial] parks” has been central to many local governments’ strategies for meeting the non-fossil energy target, according to industry news outlet BJX News. A call to build more of these zero-carbon industrial parks is listed in the five-year plan.
Prof Pan Jiahua, dean of Beijing University of Technology’s Institute of Ecological Civilization, tells Carbon Brief that expanding demand for clean energy through mechanisms such as “green factories” represents an increasingly “bottom-up” and “market-oriented” approach to the energy transition, which will leave “no place for fossil fuels”.
He adds that he is “very much sure that China’s zero-carbon process is being accelerated and fossil fuels are being driven out of the market”, pointing to the rapid adoption of EVs.
The plan says that China will aim to double “non-fossil energy” in 10 years – although it does not clarify whether this means their installed capacity or electricity generation, or what the exact starting year would be.
Research has shown that doubling wind and solar capacity in China between 2025-2035 would be “consistent” with aims to limit global warming to 2C.
While the language “certainly” pushes for greater additions of renewable energy, Yao tells Carbon Brief, it is too “opaque” to be a “direct indication” of the government’s plans for renewable additions.
She adds that “grid stability and healthy, orderly competition” is a higher priority for policymakers than guaranteeing a certain level of capacity additions.
China continues to place emphasis on the need for large-scale clean-energy “bases” and cross-regional power transmission.
The plan says China must develop “clean-energy bases…in the three northern regions” and “integrated hydro-wind-solar complexes” in south-west China.
It specifically encourages construction of “large-scale wind and solar” power bases in desert regions “primarily” for cross-regional power transmission, as well as “major hydropower” projects, including the Yarlung Tsangpo dam in Tibet.
As such, the country should construct “power-transmission corridors” with the capacity to send 420 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from clean-energy bases in western provinces to energy-hungry eastern provinces by 2030, the plan says.
State Grid, China’s largest grid operator, plans to install “another 15 ultra-high voltage [UHV] transmission lines” by 2030, reports Reuters, up from the 45 UHV lines built by last year.
Below are two maps illustrating the interlinkages between clean-energy bases in China in the 15th (top) and 14th (bottom) five-year plan periods.
The yellow dotted areas represent clean energy bases, while the arrows represent cross-regional power transmission. The blue wind-turbine icons represent offshore windfarms and the red cooling tower icons represent coastal nuclear plants.
The 15th five-year plan map shows a consistent approach to the 2021-2025 period. As well as power being transmitted from west to east, China plans for more power to be sent to southern provinces from clean-energy bases in the north-west, while clean-energy bases in the north-east supply China’s eastern coast.
It also maps out “mutual assistance” schemes for power grids in neighbouring provinces.
Offshore wind power should reach 100GW by 2030, while nuclear power should rise to 110GW, according to the plan.
What does the plan signal about coal?
The increased emphasis on grid infrastructure in the draft 15th five-year plan reflects growing concerns from energy planning officials around ensuring China’s energy supply.
Ren Yuzhi, director of the NEA’s development and planning department, wrote ahead of the plan’s release that the “continuous expansion” of China’s energy system has “dramatically increased its complexity”.
He said the NEA felt there was an “urgent need” to enhance the “secure and reliable” replacement of fossil-fuel power with new energy sources, as well as to ensure the system’s “ability to absorb them”.
Meanwhile, broader concerns around energy security have heightened calls for coal capacity to remain in the system as a “ballast stone”.
The plan continues to support the “clean and efficient utilisation of fossil fuels” and does not mention either a cap or peaking timeline for coal consumption.
Xi had previously told fellow world leaders that China would “strictly control” coal-fired power and phase down coal consumption in the 15th five-year plan period.
The “geopolitical situation is increasing energy security concerns” at all levels of government, said the Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress in a note responding to the draft plan, adding that this was creating “uncertainty over coal reduction”.
Ahead of its publication, there were questions around whether the plan would set a peaking deadline for oil and coal. An article posted by state news agency Xinhua last month, examining recommendations for the plan from top policymakers, stated that coal consumption would plateau from “around 2027”, while oil would peak “around 2026”.
However, the plan does not lay out exact years by which the two fossil fuels should peak, only saying that China will “promote the peaking of coal and oil consumption”.
There are similarly no mentions of phasing out coal in general, in line with existing policy.
Nevertheless, there is a heavy emphasis on retrofitting coal-fired power plants. The plan calls for the establishment of “demonstration projects” for coal-plant retrofitting, such as through co-firing with biomass or “green ammonia”.
Such retrofitting could incentivise lower utilisation of coal plants – and thus lower emissions – if they are used to flexibly meet peaks in demand and to cover gaps in clean-energy output, instead of providing a steady and significant share of generation.
The plan also calls for officials to “fully implement low-carbon retrofitting projects for coal-chemical industries”, which have been a notable source of emissions growth in the past year.
However, the coal-chemicals sector will likely remain a key source of demand for China’s coal mining industry, with coal-to-oil and coal-to-gas bases listed as a “key area” for enhancing the country’s “security capabilities”.
Meanwhile, coal-fired boilers and industrial kilns in the paper industry, food processing and textiles should be replaced with “clean” alternatives to the equivalent of 30m tonnes of coal consumption per year, it says.
“China continues to scale up clean energy at an extraordinary pace, but the plan still avoids committing to strong measurable constraints on emissions or fossil fuel use”, says Joseph Dellatte, head of energy and climate studies at the Institut Montaigne. He adds:
“The logic remains supply-driven: deploy massive amounts of clean energy and assume emissions will eventually decline.”
How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years?
Meanwhile, clean-energy technologies continue to play a role in upgrading China’s economy, with several “new energy” sectors listed as key to its industrial policy.
Named sectors include smart EVs, “new solar cells”, new-energy storage, hydrogen and nuclear fusion energy.
“China’s clean-technology development – rather than traditional administrative climate controls – is increasingly becoming the primary driver of emissions reduction,” says ASPI’s Li. He adds that strengthening China’s clean-energy sectors means “more closely aligning Beijing’s economic ambitions with its climate objectives”.
Analysis for Carbon Brief shows that clean energy drove more than a third of China’s GDP growth in 2025, representing around 11% of China’s whole economy.
The continued support for these sectors in the draft five-year plan comes as the EU outlined its own measures intended to limit China’s hold on clean-energy industries, driven by accusations of “unfair competition” from Chinese firms.
China is unlikely to crack down on clean-tech production capacity, Dr Rebecca Nadin, director of the Centre for Geopolitics of Change at ODI Global, tells Carbon Brief. She says:
“Beijing is treating overcapacity in solar and smart EVs as a strategic choice, not a policy error…and is prepared to pour investment into these sectors to cement global market share, jobs and technological leverage.”
Dellatte echoes these comments, noting that it is “striking” that the plan “barely addresses the issue of industrial overcapacity in clean technologies”, with the focus firmly on “scaling production and deployment”.
At the same time, China is actively positioning itself to be a prominent voice in climate diplomacy and a champion of proactive climate action.
This is clear from the first line in a section on providing “global public goods”. It says:
“As a responsible major country, China will play a more active role in addressing global challenges such as climate change.”
The plan notes that China will “actively participate in and steer [引领] global climate governance”, in line with the principle of “common,but differentiated responsibilities”.
This echoes similar language from last year’s government work report, Yao tells Carbon Brief, demonstrating a “clear willingness” to guide global negotiations. But she notes that this “remains an aspiration that’s yet to be made concrete”. She adds:
“China has always favored collective leadership, so its vision of leadership is never a lone one.”
The country will “deepen south-south cooperation on climate change”, the plan says. In an earlier section on “opening up”, it also notes that China will explore “new avenues for collaboration in green development” with global partners as part of its “Belt and Road Initiative”.
China is “doubling down” on a narrative that it is a “responsible major power” and “champion of south-south climate cooperation”, Nadin says, such as by “presenting its clean‑tech exports and finance as global public goods”. She says:
“China will arrive at future COPs casting itself as the indispensable climate leader for the global south…even though its new five‑year plan still puts growth, energy security and coal ahead of faster emissions cuts at home.”
What else does the plan cover?
The impact of extreme weather – particularly floods – remains a key concern in the plan.
China must “refine” its climate adaptation framework and “enhance its resilience to climate change, particularly extreme-weather events”, it says.
China also aims to “strengthen construction of a national water network” over the next five years in order to help prevent floods and droughts.
An article published a few days before the plan in the state-run newspaper China Daily noted that, “as global warming intensifies, extreme weather events – including torrential rains, severe convective storms, and typhoons – have become more frequent, widespread and severe”.
The plan also touches on critical minerals used for low-carbon technologies. These will likely remain a geopolitical flashpoint, with China saying it will focus during the next five years on “intensifying” exploration and “establishing” a reserve for critical minerals. This reserve will focus on “scarce” energy minerals and critical minerals, as well as other “advantageous mineral resources”.
Dellatte says that this could mean the “competition in the energy transition will increasingly be about control over mineral supply chains”.
Other low-carbon policies listed in the five-year plan include expanding coverage of China’s mandatory carbon market and further developing its voluntary carbon market.
China will “strengthen monitoring and control” of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, the plan says, as well as implementing projects “targeting methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons” in sectors such as coal mining, agriculture and chemicals.
This will create “capacity” for reducing emissions by 30m tonnes of CO2 equivalent, it adds.
Meanwhile, China will develop rules for carbon footprint accounting and push for internationally recognised accounting standards.
It will enhance reform of power markets over the next five years and improve the trading mechanism for green electricity certificates.
It will also “promote” adoption of low-carbon lifestyles and decarbonisation of transport, as well as working to advance electrification of freight and shipping.
The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change?
Climate Impact Partners Unveils High-Quality Carbon Credits from Sabah Rainforest in Malaysia
DeBriefed 20 March 2026: Energy crisis deepens | Brazil’s new climate plan | New Zealand climate case
The Carbon Brief Quiz 2026
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility