Published

12 months ago

December 25, 2024

Alice Rush

A global treaty on plastics, which is being touted as the most important environmental treaty since the 2015 Paris Agreement, is set to be negotiated in South Korea over the next week.

At the fifth and final scheduled session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution (INC-5), member countries hope to finalise and approve the text of the “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution”.

A successful treaty could have important implications for climate change.

The production, use and disposal of plastics is responsible for around 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and they are typically made from fossil fuels. Plastics production is expected to be one of the leading drivers of oil demand growth over the coming years.

Measures to reduce plastics use will be a key part of the agenda, as around 90% of emissions from plastics come from production. The negotiations will see countries discuss setting targets, accountability and transparency measures.

Carbon Brief analysis shows that without any agreement to cut plastic production, emissions from plastics could consume half of the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

One expert tells Carbon Brief that the best outcome possible for the negotiations is to ratify a global target to limit plastics production, coupled with legally binding national targets.

However, she warns that oil-producing countries are likely to veto any such proposal.

Below, Carbon Brief presents five key charts showing why the plastics treaty matters for climate change.

Plastics currently cause triple the emissions of aviation
Plastics will drive up oil demand over the coming decades
Plastics could use up half the remaining carbon budget for 1.5C by 2050
A plastics treaty could curb future plastics emissions
Could the plastics sector become net-zero by 2050?
Methodology

1. Plastics currently cause triple the emissions of aviation

Greenhouse gas emissions in 2023, in billion tonnes of CO2e. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of Karali et al (2024), the OECD and the UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2024).

Plastics are a versatile and durable material that have revolutionised industries from fashion to medicine. However, they also cause serious environmental problems.

The most commonly discussed downside of the widespread global use of plastic is the ecosystem damage caused by waste. Even if disposed of safely, the production and disposal of plastics produce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

Carbon Brief calculations suggest that plastic lifecycles generated more than 2.7bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2023 – around 5% of global emissions. This is roughly three times more than the emissions produced by aviation, as shown in the graphic above.

Around 90% of emissions from plastics come from production – the process of extracting fossil fuels and converting them into plastics. The world produces around 400m tonnes of plastics every year and this number is expected to grow over the coming decades.

Most plastics are made from fossil fuels, using oil, coal or gas converted into feedstock chemicals. Extracting the fossil fuels needed from underground is directly associated with greenhouse gas emissions, for example due to leaky mines, wells and pipes that contribute to rising methane emissions.

Overall, extracting oil, gas and coal from the ground accounts for around one-fifth of plastics production emissions.

The rest of the emissions associated with plastics production come from the processes required to first convert the fossil fuels into plastics. The fossil fuels are refined to produce petrochemical feedstocks, such as ethane and naphtha.

In one of the most emissions-intensive steps of the process, these feedstocks are broken apart in a high-pressure steam cracker to produce chemicals called monomers. Finally, the monomers are joined into chains called polymers, which are used to construct plastics.

Steam flows out of various parts of Dow Chemical's plants, with the Lippendorf power plant in the background. — Steam flows out of various parts of Dow Chemical’s plants, with the Lippendorf power plant in the background. Credit: Jan Woitas / dpa picture alliance / Alamy Stock Photo

The remaining plastic emissions – which account for around 10% of the total – are emitted when materials are disposed of. One study finds that in this “end-of-life” stage, only around 9% of all plastics ever have been recycled, while 79% ended up in landfill and 12% were incinerated.

2. Plastics will drive up oil demand over the coming decades

Annual growth in oil demand, in millions of barrels. Source: IEA Oil 2024 report

The world’s consumption of oil is currently around 100m barrels per day. According to an International Energy Agency (IEA) special report, around half of the oil produced globally is currently used to fuel road transport – and this is being squeezed by the rising popularity of electric vehicles (EVs).

Along with renewables substituting for oil-fired electricity generation and increasingly efficient engines, EVs are the major driver of expectations that global oil demand could soon peak.

Petrochemicals feedstocks – chemical substances derived from fossil fuels that can then be used to make products such as plastics, rubbers and fertilisers – are widely seen as the last growth market for global oil demand. As such, the future of the $700bn plastics production industry is a key concern of the fossil-fuel industry.

Currently, only 14m barrels per day are used as a petrochemical feedstock – the majority of which is used to produce plastics. But the IEA expects this to grow further in the coming years, even as demand in other sectors falls.

The figure above shows projected annual growth in oil demand from petrochemical feedstocks (red) and other sectors, such as road transport and aviation (blue), up to 2030, according to the IEA’s Oil 2024 report.

Numbers above zero indicate an increase in oil demand compared to the previous year, while numbers below zero mean a decrease.

3. Plastics could use up half the remaining carbon budget for 1.5C by 2050

Annual lifecycle greenhouse gas emission, in billions of tonnes of CO2e. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of Karali et al (2024), OECD, Cabernard et al (2021) and the UNEP Emissions Gap Report (2024).

To have a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, humanity can only emit a further 200bn tonnes of CO2, according to the latest estimate from the emissions gap report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Unless there is a change in current trends, plastics production is expected to use up a significant proportion of this carbon budget.

A landmark 2024 report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) outlines two scenarios for plastics growth between now and 2050. Under its “conservative growth scenario”, the report says that plastics production will grow by 2.5% per year, based on projections of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Meanwhile, an alternative scenario is defined by a much more rapid 4% per year growth scenario, based on projections from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM)

Carbon Brief finds that, under the conservative growth scenario, annual “lifecycle” emissions from plastics could double by 2050, reaching 5.2GtCO2e. Under this scenario, plastics production, use and disposal would cumulatively emit 104GtCO2e between 2024 and 2050, consuming more than half of the remaining carbon budget.

Under the rapid growth scenario, cumulative emissions would be 130GtCO2e – or around 65% of the remaining carbon budget.

The rise in annual emissions from plastics, including all stages from fossil-fuel extraction to plastics disposal, are shown above. The black line indicates historical emissions, while the dark blue line shows the conservative growth scenario from the LBNL report, originally taken from the OECD.

4. A treaty could curb future plastics emissions

Annual lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, in billions of tonnes of CO2e. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of Karali et al (2024), OECD, Cabernard et al (2021) and Rwanda/Peru 40×40 proposal from INC-4 negotiations.

At the negotiations in South Korea, countries will attempt to ratify a legally binding agreement on curbing plastics pollution.

Daniela Duran Gonzalez is a senior legal campaigner focused on the plastics treaty at the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL). She tells Carbon Brief that when discussing emissions from plastics at INC-5, experts usually focus on limiting production because plastics production is “challenging to decarbonise”.

At the negotiations, countries will consider a global target to limit plastics production, Duran explains. She likens this to the Paris Agreement 1.5C warming limit, arguing that “it gives us a north star, but it doesn’t provide any enforceable obligation to any country to actually achieve it”.

If it is agreed, the treaty could stipulate different ways to achieve this overall target. The first option, which Duran says is “very vague”, is for countries to all work towards the target at their own discretion, without any targets set.

Another method with more accountability would be for countries to set their own voluntary, non-legally binding and non-enforceable measures – similar to the climate pledges (“nationally determined contributions”) that countries submit under the Paris Agreement.

The most enforceable method on the table would be to set legally binding targets for each country, Duran explains. She says this could work in a similar way to the Montreal Protocol, which successfully cut global emissions of substances that deplete the ozone later.

To set targets, countries would need to agree on a baseline year to measure against, a goal and a deadline for the goal to be met.

For example, at the last set of negotiations (INC-4) earlier this year in Ottawa, Rwanda and Peru put forward a global target for a 40% reduction on 2025 levels by 2040. Under this scenario, plastics would emit 52GtCO2e by 2050.

Others have suggested a cap on plastic production at 2025 levels – a scenario that would see the production, use and disposal of plastics emit 76bn tonnes of CO2e by 2050. These scenarios are shown in light blue and blue on the graph above.

In early November, Ecuadorian ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso – chair of the INC – developed and submitted his non-paper three to the committee for the talks. This document set out his proposed basis for the negotiations.

Under the proposal, a single party would be able to veto any decision, similar to the process under the UN climate regime. WWF warns that this “can result in a stagnant and dead treaty, incapable of adapting to changing developments and circumstances in the future”.

Developed countries have already been accused of bowing to pressure from lobbyists seeking to avoid any caps on plastics production at the international negotiations. According to CIEL analysis, at the last set of talks, 196 fossil fuel and industry lobbyists registered, up from the 143 who registered at the previous discussions in Nairobi.

Duran tells Carbon Brief that plastics production is an “existential” issue for Gulf countries, whose economies currently rely on continued oil and gas extraction.

As a result, she says that these countries likely will not be “negotiating in good faith” at the INC-5 and “will never accept a treaty that has any mention of plastic production, because it’s their lifeline”. She argues for other countries to “overcome this idea of universal ratification” to ensure a “good” treaty.

According to expert interviews conducted by the University of Portsmouth, crucial outcomes from the negotiations include deciding on a voting mechanism as a backup if consensus cannot be reached.

(The UN climate regime must take all decisions by consensus because rules on how it makes decisions – including voting – were never agreed.)

5. Could the plastics sector become net zero by 2050?

Carbon content flows for the proposed ‘circular carbon’ net-zero plastics sector pathway in the year 2050, million tonnes of carbon (MtC). TWh = terawatt hour. Source: Based on Meys et al (2021)

INC-5 negotiations could lead to a reduction in plastics production, which could be key to limiting emissions from the industry. However, decarbonising the production, use and disposal of plastics could also help to bring down the carbon footprint of the sector.

One way to reduce emissions is to recycle plastics. Only 9% of plastics that have ever been produced have been recycled. However, the present-day number is likely higher, as recycling rates around the world are rising.

A report by the IEA says that most plastics recycling today is physical or “mechanical”. This involves grinding down plastics without changing their chemical structure, but can lead to the quality of plastics degrading over time.

Meanwhile, chemical recycling is becoming more popular, it says. This involves breaking down the plastics back into small chemical sections called monomers, which can be used to make new plastics. This method generally produces a higher-quality plastic, but it can be more energy intensive, resulting in higher emissions.

Another option is to switch from using petrochemical feedstocks, which are derived from fossil fuels, to using alternative feedstocks.

Bio-based feedstocks, such as starch, can also be used to produce plastics. These biological materials draw down carbon as they grow and also do not have the emissions associated with fossil fuel extraction.

Meanwhile, carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) can be used to draw down CO2 from chemical plants before it enters the atmosphere. The captured CO2 can be combined with hydrogen to generate synthetic feedstocks. Using renewable energy to produce the hydrogen for this process can help to keep the materials’ carbon footprint low.

The IEA report says that the “use of alternative feedstocks, including bio-based feedstock, remains a niche industry due to a considerable cost gap and competing demand with other sectors”.

A 2021 study explores four pathways through which the global plastics industry could reach net-zero by 2050. These are: a recycling pathway; a CCUS pathway; a biomass pathway; and a circular carbon pathway that combines the three approaches in an “optimal” way.

The combined pathway, shown above, is the only scenario that reaches net-zero emissions.

The chart shows the flow of carbon (in million tonnes) through the full lifecycle of plastics under a net-zero scenario in the year 2050. The width of each arrow corresponds to the amount of carbon flowing. In this scenario, around 38% of plastic feedstocks would be made from biomass, 17% from synthetic feedstocks, 44% from recycling and less than 1% from fossil fuels. This scenario would require an effective recycling rate of around 61%, with only 5% of plastics going to landfill and 34% ending up in the atmosphere through incineration.

However, the authors highlight how challenging it would be to fully decarbonise plastics, if production levels continue to rise.

Cutting emissions while production increases would require a significant uptick in the rate of plastics recycling, they note – and the feasibility of fully decarbonising plastics production will be limited by the amount of renewable energy and biomass available to the sector.

In the scenario above, the plastics sector would require 9,900 terawatt hours of renewable electricity (more than global renewable generation in 2023 or 14% of renewables generation under IEA net-zero scenario in 2050), and 19.3 exajoules of biomass (11% of “untapped” biomass potential in 2050).

Duran tells Carbon Brief that, while the INC-5 can talk about limiting production levels, it has not “entered into the discussion of decarbonising the petrochemical industry”.

She says that there are many reasons for this, including political factors and the uncertainty around measures such as CCUS. However, she also says that “decarbonisation is an issue of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)”.

She explains that the UNFCCC cannot make rulings on plastics production, but can set out frameworks for the transparency and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions caused by plastic production.

Methodology

The Carbon Brief analysis on the lifecycle greenhouse emissions in this article is based on using the production-related emissions figures from the LBNL study (Karali et al., 2024), and combining this with an estimate of the end of life emissions from OECD data.

In order to make these datasets compatible, it is assumed that the percentage share of emissions from end of life, calculated from OECD data, remains constant at 10.8% and then this is applied to the production-related emissions from LBNL.

Due to differences in methodology, scope and poor availability of detailed data, generally, there are varying estimates of the climate impact from plastics. This analysis uses the values from LBNL study because it is the most recent and comprehensive evaluation of the climate impact from plastics, as confirmed by an expert that Carbon Brief spoke to.

However, the emissions measured in that study are higher than commonly cited estimates from the OECD, which suggests that production emissions in 2019 are around 28% lower than the LBNL estimate. This highlights the large uncertainty in measuring the climate impact of plastic, but the LBNL study authors also note that their higher estimate is “due to the increased level of granularity in modelling production processes, technologies and routes”. Their study also has no “by-product’ assumption”, which they say leads to an underestimation of the climate impact of plastics in other studies if they do not attribute emissions by mass across all the products of a given chemical process.

Historical data for plastics emissions is taken from a combination of LBNL, OECD and Cabernard et al (2021). Due to differences in methodology and uncertainty in the data, these different datasets do not match exactly and, therefore, have been scaled based on overlapping years to ensure that they are aligned with the values from the LBNL.

In order to model future emissions in a consistent manner, a constant emissions intensity per tonne of plastic produced from the LBNL study is used (4.9tCO2e per tonne of plastic, excluding end-of-life emissions) and applied to the production projections for each of the three scenarios presented (2.5% growth, cap at 2025 levels, 40% reduction from 2025 levels by 2040).

The baseline plastics-production projections are taken from the LBNL study, which uses OECD projections of plastics demand under a 2.5% growth scenario and assumes that annual plastics production matches annual demand. The projected end-of-life emissions from plastics are then calculated by using the assumed constant percentage share of emissions (10.8%) from end of life, as per above. For the 40% reduction scenario, it is assumed that production levels continue to reduce at the same rate between 2040 and 2050.

The post Five charts: Why a UN plastics treaty matters for climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Five charts: Why a UN plastics treaty matters for climate change

Greenhouse Gases

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Published

20 hours ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

By Elissa Tennant

Healthy forests are a key part of the climate puzzle — and they’ve been a big part of our advocacy in 2025!

In January of this year, CCL volunteers sent 7,100 messages to Congress urging them to work together to reduce wildfire risk. Soon after, the Fix Our Forests Act was introduced in the House as H.R. 471 and passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 279–141.

At our Conservative Climate Conference and Lobby Day in March, we raised the Fix Our Forests Act as a secondary ask in 47 lobby meetings on Capitol Hill. The next month, an improved version of the bill was then introduced in the Senate as S. 1462 and referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee.

The bill was scheduled for a committee vote in October. CCLers placed more than 2,000 calls to senators on the committee and generated a flurry of local media in their states before the vote. In October, the bill passed the Senate Agriculture Committee with strong bipartisan support.

It’s clear that this legislation has momentum! As the Fix Our Forests Act now awaits a floor vote in the Senate, let’s take a look back at our 2025 advocacy efforts to advance this bill — and why it’s so important.

Protecting forests and improving climate outcomes

Wildfires are getting worse. In the U.S., the annual area burned by wildfires has more than doubled over the past 30 years. In California alone, the acreage burned by wildfires every year has more than tripled over the past 40 years.

American forests currently offset 12% of our annual climate pollution, with the potential to do even more. We need to take action to reduce wildfire, so forests can keep doing their important work pulling climate pollution out of the atmosphere.

The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act:

Protects America’s forests by supporting time-tested tools, like prescribed fire and reforestation, that make our forests healthy and able to better withstand and recover from severe wildfire and other extreme weather.
Protects communities across the nation by reducing wildfire risks to people, homes, and water supplies and adopting new technologies.
Protects livelihoods by supporting rural jobs and recreation areas and sustaining the forests that house and feed us.

CCL supports this bill alongside many organizations including American Forests, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Western Fire Chiefs Association, The Federation of American Scientists and more.

A deeper dive into our efforts

All year long, CCL’s Government Relations staff has been in conversation with congressional offices to share CCL’s perspective on the legislation and understand the opportunities and challenges facing the bill. Our Government Relations team played a key role in helping us understand when and how to provide an extra grassroots push to keep the bill moving.

Starting Sept. 9 through the committee vote, CCLers represented by senators on the Senate Agriculture Committee made 2,022 calls to committee members in support of FOFA. CCL also signed a national coalition letter to Senate leadership in support of the bill, joining organizations like the American Conservation Coalition Action, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and more.

In October, we launched a local media initiative in support of FOFA, focused on states with senators on the Agriculture Committee. Volunteers published letters to the editor and op-eds in California, Minnesota, Colorado, and more. In one state, the senator’s office saw a CCLer’s op-ed in the local newspaper, and reached out to schedule a meeting with those volunteers to discuss the bill! CCL’s Government Relations team joined in to make the most of the conversation.

As soon as the committee vote was scheduled for October 21, our Government Relations staff put out a call for volunteers to generate local endorsement letters from trusted messengers. CCL staff prepared short endorsement letter templates for each state that chapters could personalize and submit to their senator’s office. Each version included clear instructions, contact info, and space for volunteers to add their local context, like a short story or relevant example of how wildfires have impacted their area.

Then, CCL state coordinators worked with the CCL chapters in their states to make sure they prepared and sent the signed letters to the appropriate senate office, and to alert CCL’s Government Affairs staff so they could follow up and keep the conversation going on Capitol Hill.

Individually, our voices as climate advocates struggle to break through and make change. But it’s this kind of coordinated nationwide effort, with well-informed staff partnering with motivated local volunteers, that makes CCL effective at moving the needle in Congress.

On October 21, the Fix Our Forests Act officially passed the Senate Agriculture Committee with a vote of 18-5.

Building on the momentum

After committee passage, FOFA is now waiting to be taken up by the full Senate for a floor vote. It’s not clear yet if it will move as a standalone bill or included in a package of other legislation.

But to continue building support, we spent a large portion of our Fall Conference training our volunteers on the latest information about the bill, and we included FOFA as a primary ask in our Fall Lobby Week meetings.

Volunteers are now messaging all senators in support of FOFA. If you haven’t already, add your voice by sending messages to your senators about this legislation. With strategy, organization, and a group of dedicated people, we can help pass the Fix Our Forests Act, reducing wildfire risk and helping forests remove more climate pollution.

Help us keep the momentum going! Write to your Senator in support of the Fix Our Forests Act.

The post Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025 appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Greenhouse Gases

DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out

Published

1 day ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week

Deadly floods in Asia

MOUNTING DEVASTATION: The Associated Press reported that the death toll from catastrophic floods in south-east Asia had reached 1,500, with Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand most affected and hundreds still missing. The newswire said “thousands” more face “severe” food and clean-water shortages. Heavy rains and thunderstorms are expected this weekend, it added, with “saturated soil and swollen rivers leaving communities on edge”. Earlier in the week, Bloomberg said the floods had caused “at least $20bn in losses”.

CLIMATE CHANGE LINKS: A number of outlets have investigated the links between the floods and human-caused climate change. Agence France-Presse explained that climate change was “producing more intense rain events because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and warmer oceans can turbocharge storms”. Meanwhile, environmental groups told the Associated Press the situation had been exacerbated by “decades of deforestation”, which had “stripped away natural defenses that once absorbed rainfall and stabilised soil”.

‘NEW NORMAL’: The Associated Press quoted Malaysian researcher Dr Jemilah Mahmood saying: “South-east Asia should brace for a likely continuation and potential worsening of extreme weather in 2026 and for many years.” Al Jazeera reported that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies had called for “stronger legal and policy frameworks to protect people in disasters”. The organisation’s Asia-Pacific director said the floods were a “stark reminder that climate-driven disasters are becoming the new normal”, the outlet said.

Around the world

REVOKED: The UK and Netherlands withdrew $2.2bn of financial backing from a controversial liquified natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique, Reuters reported. The Guardian noted that TotalEnergies’ “giant” project stood accused of “fuelling the climate crisis and deadly terror attacks”.
REVERSED: US president Donald Trump announced plans to “significantly weaken” Biden-era fuel efficiency requirements for cars, the New York Times said.
RESTRICTED: EU leaders agreed to ban the import of Russian gas from autumn 2027, the Financial Times reported. Meanwhile, Reuters said it is “likely” the European Commission will delay announcing a plan on auto sector climate targets next week, following pressure to “weaken” a 2035 cut-off for combustion engines.
RETRACTED: An influential Nature study that looked at the economic consequences of climate change has been withdrawn after “criticism from peers”, according to Bloomberg. [The research came second in Carbon Brief’s ranking of the climate papers most covered by the media in 2024.]
REBUKED: The federal government of Canada faced a backlash over an oil pipeline deal struck last week with the province of Alberta. CBC News noted that First Nations chiefs voted “unanimously” to demand the withdrawal of the deal and Canada’s National Observer quoted author Naomi Klein as saying that the prime minister was “completely trashing Canada’s climate commitments”.
RESCHEDULED: The Indonesian government has cancelled plans to close a coal plant seven years early, Bloomberg reported. Meanwhile, Bloomberg separately reported that India is mulling an “unprecedented increase” in coal-power capacity that could see plants built “until at least 2047”.

$518 billion a year

The projected coastal flood damages for the Asia-Pacific region by 2100 if current policies continue, according to a Scientific Reports study covered this week by Carbon Brief.

Latest climate research

More than 100 “climate-sensitive rivers” worldwide are experiencing “large and severe changes in streamflow volume and timing” | Environmental Research Letters
Africa’s forests have switched from a carbon sink into a source | Scientific Reports
Increasing urbanisation can “substantially intensify warming”, contributing up to 0.44C of additional temperature rise per year through 2060 | 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

A new target for developed nations to triple adaptation finance by 2035, agreed at the COP30 climate summit, would not cover more than a third of developing countries’ estimated needs, Carbon Brief analysis showed. The chart above compares a straight line to meeting the adaptation finance target (blue), alongside an estimate of countries’ adaptation needs (grey), which was calculated using figures from the latest UN Environmental Programme adaptation gap report, which were based on countries’ UN climate plans (called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs).

Spotlight

Inclusivity at the IPCC

This week, Carbon Brief speaks to an IPCC lead author researching ways to improve the experience of global south scientists taking part in producing the UN climate body’s assessments.

Hundreds of climate scientists from around the world met in Paris this week to start work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) newest set of climate reports.

The IPCC is the UN body responsible for producing the world’s most authoritative climate science reports. Hundreds of scientists from across the globe contribute to each “assessment cycle”, which sees researchers aim to condense all published climate science over several years into three “working group” reports.

The reports inform the decisions of governments – including at UN climate talks – as well as the public understanding of climate change.

The experts gathering in Paris are the most diverse group ever convened by the IPCC.

Earlier this year, Carbon Brief analysis found that – for the first time in an IPCC cycle – citizens of the global south make up 50% of authors of the three working group reports. The IPCC has celebrated this milestone, with IPCC chair Prof Jim Skea touting the seventh assessment report’s (AR7’s) “increased diversity” in August.

But some IPCC scientists have cautioned that the growing involvement of global south scientists does not translate into an inclusive process.

“What happens behind closed doors in these meeting rooms doesn’t necessarily mirror what the diversity numbers say,” Dr Shobha Maharaj, a Trinidadian climate scientist who is a coordinating lead author for working group two (WG2) of AR7, told Carbon Brief.

Global south perspective

Motivated by conversations with colleagues and her own “uncomfortable” experience working on the small-islands chapter of the sixth assessment cycle (AR6) WG2 report, Maharaj – an adjunct professor at the University of Fiji – reached out to dozens of fellow contributors to understand their experience.

The exercise, she said, revealed a “dominance of thinking and opinions from global north scientists, whereas the global south scientists – the scientists who were people of colour – were generally suppressed”.

The perspectives of scientists who took part in the survey and future recommendations for the IPCC are set out in a peer-reviewed essay – co-authored by 20 researchers – slated for publication in the journal PLOS Climate. (Maharaj also presented the findings to the IPCC in September.)

The draft version of the essay notes that global south scientists working on WG2 in AR6 said they confronted a number of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) issues, including “skewed” author selection, “unequal” power dynamics and a “lack of respect and trust”. The researchers also pointed to logistical constraints faced by global south authors, such as visa issues and limited access to journals.

The anonymous quotations from more than 30 scientists included in the essay, Maharaj said, are “clear data points” that she believes can advance a discussion about how to make academia more inclusive.

“The literature is full of the problems that people of colour or global south authors have in academia, but what you don’t find very often is quotations – especially from climate scientists,” she said. “We tend to be quite a conservative bunch.”

Road to ‘improvement’

Among the recommendations set out in the essay are for DEI training, the appointment of a “diversity and inclusion ombudsman” and for updated codes of conduct.

Marharaj said that these “tactical measures” need to occur alongside “transformative approaches” that help “address value systems, dismantle power structures [and] change the rules of participation”.

With drafting of the AR7 reports now underway, Maharaj said she is “hopeful” the new cycle can be an improvement on the last, pointing to a number of “welcome” steps from the IPCC.

This includes holding the first-ever expert meeting on DEI this autumn, new mechanisms where authors can flag concerns and the recruitment of a “science and capacity officer” to support WG2 authors.

The hope, Maharaj explained, is to enhance – not undermine – climate science.

“The idea here was to move forward and to improve the IPCC, rather than attack it,” she said. “Because we all love the science – and we really value what the IPCC brings to the world.”

Watch, read, listen

BROKEN PROMISES: Climate Home News spoke to communities in Nigeria let down by the government’s failure to clean up oil spills by foreign companies.

‘WHEN A ROAD GOES WRONG’: Inside Climate News looked at how a new road from Brazil’s western Amazon to Peru has become a “conduit for rampant deforestation and illegal gold mining”.

SHADOWY COURTS: In the Guardian, George Monbiot lamented the rise of investor-state dispute settlements, which he described as “undemocratic offshore tribunals” that are already having a “chilling effect” on countries’ climate ambitions.

Coming up

1-12 December: UN Environment Assembly 7, Nairobi, Kenya
7 December: Hong Kong legislative elections
11 December: Falkland Islands legislative assembly elections

Pick of the jobs

Greenpeace International, engagement manager – climate and energy | Salary: Unknown. Location: Various
The Energy, newsletter editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Australia (remote)
University of Groningen, PhD position in motivating people to contribute to societal transitions | Salary: €3,059-€3,881 per month. Location: Groningen, the Netherlands

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 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out

Greenhouse Gases

Cropped 3 December 2025: Extreme weather in Africa; COP30 roundup; Saudi minister interview

Published

3 days ago

December 3, 2025

Alice Rush

We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

Key developments

COP30 roundup

FOOD OFF THE MENU: COP30 wrapped up in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém, with several new announcements for forest protection, but with experts saying that food systems were seemingly “erased” from official negotiations, Carbon Brief reported. Other observers told the Independent that the lack of mention of food in some of the main negotiated outcomes was “surprising” and “deeply disappointing”. The outlet noted that smallholder farmers spend an “estimated 20 to 40% of their annual income on adaptive measures…despite having done next to nothing to contribute to the climate crisis”.

‘BITTERSWEET’: Meanwhile, Reuters said that the summit’s outcomes for trees and Indigenous peoples were “unprecedented”, but “bittersweet”. It noted that countries had “unlocked billions in new funds for forests” through the Tropical Forest Forever Facility. (For more on that fund, see Carbon Brief’s explainer.) However, the newswire added, “nations failed to agree on a plan to keep trees standing as they have repeatedly promised to do in recent summits”. Mongabay noted that pledges to the new forest fund totalled “less than a quarter of the $25bn initially required for a full-scale rollout”.

‘MIXED OUTCOMES’: A separate piece in Mongabay said that COP30 “delivered mixed outcomes” for Indigenous peoples. One positive outcome was a “historic pledge to recognise Indigenous land tenure rights over 160m hectares” of tropical forest land, the outlet said. This was accompanied by a monetary pledge of $1.8bn to support “Indigenous peoples, local and Afro-descendant communities in securing land rights over the next five years”, it added. However, Mongabay wrote, there were some “major disappointments” around the summit’s outcomes, particularly around the absence of mention of critical minerals and fossil-fuel phaseout in the final texts.

Africa on edge

SOMALIA DROUGHT: Somalia officially declared a drought emergency last month “after four consecutive failed rainy seasons left millions at risk of hunger and displacement”, allAfrica reported, with 130,000 people in “immediate life-threatening need”. According to Al Jazeera, more than 4.5 million people “face starvation”, as “failed rains and heat devastated” the country, with displaced communities also “escaping fighting” in their villages and aid cuts impacting relief. Down to Earth, meanwhile, covered an Amnesty International report that demonstrated that Somalia failed to “implement a functional social-security system for the marginalised, particularly those negatively affected by drought”.

COCOA CRASH: Ivory Coast’s main cocoa harvest is expected to “decline sharply for [the] third consecutive year” due to erratic rainfall, crop disease, ageing farms and poor investment, Reuters reported. Africa Sustainability Matters observed that the delayed implementation of the EU’s deforestation law – announced last week – could impact two million smallholder farmers, who may see “delays in certification processes ripple through payment cycles and export volumes”. Meanwhile, SwissInfo reported that the “disconnect between high global cocoa prices and the price paid to farmers” is leading to “unprecedented cocoa smuggling” in Ghana.

‘FERTILISER CRISIS’: Nyasa Times reported that, “for the first time”, Malawian president Peter Mutharika admitted that the country is “facing a planting season…for which his government is dangerously unprepared”. According to the paper, Mutharika acknowledged that the country is “heading into the rains without adequate fertiliser and with procurement dangerously behind schedule” at a meeting with the International Monetary Fund’s Africa director. “We are struggling with supplies… We are not yet ready in terms of fertiliser,” Mutharika is quoted as saying, with the paper adding that his administration is “overwhelmed” by a fertiliser crisis.

News and views

PLANT TALKS COLLAPSE: “Decade-long” talks aimed at negotiating new rules for seed-sharing “collapsed” after week-long negotiations in Lima, Euractiv reported. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture allows “any actor to access seed samples of 64 major food crops stored in public gene banks”, but “virtually no money flows back to countries that conserve and share seed diversity”, the outlet said. Observers “criticised the closed-door nature of the final talks”, which attempted to postpone a decision on payments until 2027, it added.

UNSUSTAINABLE: The UK food system is driving nature loss and deepening climate change, according to a new WWF report. The report analysed the impacts on nature, climate and people of 10 UK retailers representing 90% of the domestic grocery market. Most of the retailers committed in 2021 to halving the environmental impact of the UK grocery market by 2030. However, the report found that the retailers are “a long way off” on reducing their emissions and sourcing products from deforestation-free areas.

GREY CARBON: A “flurry” of carbon-credit deals “covering millions of hectares of landmass” across Africa struck by United Arab Emirates-based firm Blue Carbon on the sidelines of COP28 “have gone nowhere”, according to a joint investigation by Agence-France Presse and Code for Africa. In Zimbabwe – where the deal included “about 20% of the country’s landmass” – national climate change authorities said that the UAE company’s memorandum of understanding “lapsed without any action”. AFP attempted multiple ways to contact Blue Carbon, but received no reply. Meanwhile, research covered by New Scientist found that Africa’s forests “are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb”.

UK NATURE: The UK government released an updated “environmental improvement plan” to help England “meet numerous legally binding goals” for environmental restoration, BusinessGreen reported. The outlet added that it included measures such as creating “wildlife-rich habitats” and boosting tree-planting. Elsewhere, a study covered by the Times found that England and Wales lost “almost a third of their grasslands” in the past 90 years. The main causes of grassland decline were “increased mechanisation on farms, new agrochemicals and crop-growing”, the Times said.

IN DANGER: The Trump administration proposed changes to the US Endangered Species Act that “could clear the way for more oil drilling, logging and mining” in key species habitats, reported the New York Times. This act is the “bedrock environmental law intended to prevent animal and plant extinctions”, the newspaper said, adding that one of the proposals could make it harder to protect species from future threats, such as the effects of climate change. It added: “Environmental groups are expected to challenge the proposals in court once they are finalised.”

‘ALREADY OVERSTRETCHED’: Producing enough food to feed the world’s growing population by 2050 “will place additional pressure on the world’s already overstretched” resources, according to the latest “state of the world’s land and water resources” report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The report said that degradation of agricultural lands is “creating unprecedented pressure on the world’s agrifood systems”. It also found that urban areas have “more than doubled in size in just two decades”, consuming 24m hectares “of some of the most fertile croplands” in the process.

Spotlight

Saudi minister interviewed

During the second week of COP30 in Belém, Carbon Brief’s Daisy Dunne conducted a rare interview with a Saudi Arabian minister.

Dr Osama Faqeeha is deputy environment minister for Saudi Arabia and chief adviser to the COP16 presidency on desertification.

Carbon Brief: Thank you very much for agreeing to this interview. You represent the Saudi Arabia COP16 presidency on desertification. What are your priorities for linking desertification, biodiversity and climate change at COP30?

Dr Osama Faqeeha: First of all, our priority is to really highlight the linkages – the natural linkage – between land, climate and biodiversity. These are all interconnected, natural pillars for Earth. We need to pursue actions on the three together. In this way, we can achieve multiple goals. We can achieve climate resilience, we can protect biodiversity and we can stop land degradation. And this will really give us multiple benefits – food security, water security, climate resilience, biodiversity and social goals.

CB: Observers have accused Saudi Arabia, acting on behalf of the Arab group, of blocking an ambitious outcome on a text on synergies between climate change and biodiversity loss, under the item on cooperation with international organisations. [See Carbon Brief’s full explanation.] What is your response?

OF: We support synergies in the action plans. We support synergies in the financial flows. We support synergies in the political [outcome]. What we don’t support is trying to reduce all of the conventions. We don’t support dissolving the conventions. We need a climate convention, we need a biodiversity convention and we need a desertification convention. There was this incident, but the discussion continued after that and has been clarified. We support synergies. We oppose dissolution. This way we dilute the issues. No. This is a challenge. But we don’t have to address them separately. We need to address them in a comprehensive way so that we can really have a win-win situation.

CB: But as the president of the COP16 talks on desertification, surely more close work on the three Rio conventions would be a priority for you?

OF: First of all, we have to realise the convention is about land. Preventing land degradation and combating drought. These are the two major challenges.

CB: We’re at COP30 now and we’re at a crucial point in the negotiations where a lot of countries have been calling for a roadmap away from fossil fuels. What is Saudi Arabia’s position on agreeing to a roadmap away from fossil fuels?

OF: I think the issue is the emissions, it’s not the fuel. And our position is that we have to cut emissions regardless. In Saudi Arabia, in our nationally determined contribution [NDC], we doubled [the 2030 emissions reductions target] – from 130MtCO2 to 278MtCO2 – on a voluntary basis. So we are very serious about cutting emissions.

CB: The presidency said that some countries see the fossil-fuel roadmap as a red line. Is Saudi Arabia seeing a fossil-fuel roadmap as a red line for agreement in the negotiations?

OF: I think people try to put pressure on the negotiation to go in one way or another. And I think we should avoid that because, trying to demonise a country, that’s not good. Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Paris Agreement. Saudi Arabia made the Paris Agreement possible. We are committed to the Paris Agreement.

[Carbon Brief obtained the “informal list” of countries that opposed a fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30, which included Saudi Arabia.]

CB: You mention that you feel sometimes the media demonises Saudi Arabia. So could you clarify, what do you hope to be Saudi Arabia’s role in guiding the negotiations to conclusion here at this COP?

OF: I think we have to realise that there is common but differentiated responsibilities. We have developed countries and developing countries. We have to realise that this is very well established in the convention. We can reach the same end point, but with different pathways. And this is what the negotiation is all about. It’s not one size fits all. What works with a certain country may not work with another country. So, I think people misread the negotiations. We, as Saudi Arabia, officially announced that we will reach carbon neutrality by 2060 – and we are putting billions and billions of dollars to reach this goal. But it doesn’t mean that we agree on everything. On every idea. We agree to so many things, you never hear that. Saudi Arabia agrees on one thousand points and we disagree on one point, then suddenly it becomes the news. Now, why does the media do that? Maybe that gives them more attention. I don’t know. But all I can tell you is that Saudi Arabia is part of the process. Saudi Arabia is making the process work.

This interview has been edited for length.

Watch, read, listen

NEW CHALLENGE: CNN discussed the environmental impacts of AI usage and how scientists are using it to conserve biodiversity.

AMAZON COP: In the Conversation, researchers argued that hosting COP30 in the Amazon made the “realities of climate and land-use change jarringly obvious” and Indigenous voices “impossible to ignore”.

DUBIOUS CLAIMS: DeSmog investigated an EU-funded “campaign blitz” that “overstated the environmental benefits of eating meat and dairy, while featuring bizarre and misleading claims”.

WASP’S NEST: In a talk for the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, Prof Seirian Sumner explained the “natural capital” of wasps and why it is important to “love the unlovable parts of nature”.

New science

Climate change can “exacerbate” the abundance and impacts of plastic pollution on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems | Frontiers in Science
The North Sea region accounts for more than 20% of peatland-related emissions within the EU, UK, Norway and Iceland, despite accounting for just 4% of the region’s peatland area | Nature Communications
Economic damages from climate-related disasters in the Brazilian Amazon rose 370% over 2000-22, with farming experiencing more than 60% of total losses | Nature Communications