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.
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
In 2026, the dangers of fossil fuel dependence have been laid bare like never before. The illegal invasion of Iran has brought pain and destruction to millions across the Middle East and triggered a global energy crisis impacting us all. Communities in the Pacific have been hit especially hard by rising fuel prices, and Australians have seen their cost-of-living woes deepen.
Such moments of crisis and upheaval can lead to positive transformation. But only when leaders act with courage and foresight.
There is no clearer statement of a government’s plans and priorities for the nation than its budget — how it plans to raise money, and what services, communities, and industries it will invest in.
As we count down the days to the 2026-27 Federal Budget, will the Albanese Government deliver a budget for our times? One that starts breaking the shackles of fossil fuels, accelerates the shift to clean energy, protects nature, and sees us work together with other countries towards a safer future for all? Or one that doubles down on coal and gas, locks in more climate chaos, and keeps us beholden to the whims of tyrants and billionaires.
Here’s what we think the moment demands, and what we’ll be looking out for when Treasurer Jim Chalmers steps up to the dispatch box on 12 May.
1. Stop fuelling the fire
2. Make big polluters pay
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
4. Build the industries of the future
5. Build community resilience
6. Be a better neighbour
7. Protect nature
1. Stop fuelling the fire
In mid-April, Pacific governments and civil society met to redouble their efforts towards a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. Moving beyond coal, oil and gas is fundamental to limiting warming to 1.5°C — a survival line for vulnerable communities and ecosystems. And as our Head of Pacific, Shiva Gounden, explained, it is “also a path of liberation that frees us from expensive, extractive and polluting fossil fuel imports and uplifts our communities”.
Pacific countries are at the forefront of growing global momentum towards a just transition away from fossil fuels, and it is way past time for Australia to get with the program. It is no longer a question of whether fossil fuel extraction will end, but whether that end will be appropriately managed and see communities supported through the transition, or whether it will be chaotic and disruptive.
So will this budget support the transition away from fossil fuels, or will it continue to prop up coal and gas?
When it comes to sensible moves the government can make right now, one stands out as a genuine low hanging fruit. Mining companies get a full rebate of the excise (or tax) that the rest of us pay on diesel fuel. This lowers their operating costs and acts as a large, ongoing subsidy on fossil fuel production — to the tune of $11 billion a year!
Greenpeace has long called for coal and gas companies to be removed from this outdated scheme, and for the billions in savings to be used to support the clean energy transition and to assist communities with adapting to the impacts of climate change. Will we see the government finally make this long overdue change, or will it once again cave to the fossil fuel lobby?
2. Make big polluters pay
While our communities continue to suffer the escalating costs of climate-fuelled disasters, our Government continues to support a massive expansion of Australia’s export gas industry. Gas is a dangerous fossil fuel, with every tonne of Australian gas adding to the global heating that endangers us all.
Moreover, companies like Santos and Woodside pay very little tax for the privilege of digging up and selling Australians’ natural endowment of fossil gas. Remarkably, the Government currently raises more tax from beer than from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) — the main tax on gas profits.
Momentum has been building to replace or supplement the PRRT with a 25% tax on gas exports. This could raise up to $17 billion a year — funds that, like savings from removing the diesel tax rebate for coal and gas companies, could be spent on supporting the clean energy transition and assisting communities with adapting to worsening fires, floods, heatwaves and other impacts of climate change.
As politicians arrive in Canberra for budget week, they will be confronted by billboards calling for a fair tax on gas exports. The push now has the support of dozens of organisations and a growing number of politicians. Let’s hope the Treasurer seizes this rare window for reform.
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
As the price of petrol and diesel rises, electric vehicles (EVs) are helping people cut fuel use and save money. However, while EV sales have jumped since the invasion of Iran sent fuel prices rising, they still only make up a fraction of total new car sales. This budget should help more Australians switch to electric vehicles and, even more importantly, enable more Australians to get around by bike, on foot, and on public transport. This means maintaining the EV discount, investing in public and active transport, and removing tax breaks for fuel-hungry utes and vans.
Millions of Australians already enjoy the cost-saving benefits of rooftop solar, batteries, and getting off gas. This budget should enable more households, and in particular those on lower incomes, to access these benefits. This means maintaining the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and building on the Household Energy Upgrades Fund.
4. Build the industries of the future
If we’re to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to be building the clean industries of the future.
No state is more pivotal to Australia’s energy and industrial transformation than Western Australia. The state has unrivaled potential for renewable energy development and for replacing fossil fuel exports with clean exports like green iron. Such industries offer Western Australia the promise of a vibrant economic future, and for Australia to play an outsized positive role in the world’s efforts to reduce emissions.
However, realising this potential will require focussed support from the Federal Government. Among other measures, Greenpeace has recommended establishing the Australasian Green Iron Corporation as a joint venture between the Australian and Western Australian governments, a key trading partner, a major iron ore miner and steel makers. This would unite these central players around the complex task of building a large-scale green iron industry, and unleash Western Australia’s potential as a green industrial powerhouse.
5. Build community resilience
Believe it or not, our Government continues to spend far more on subsidising fossil fuel production — and on clearing up after climate-fuelled disasters — than it does on helping communities and industries reduce disaster costs through practical, proven methods for building their resilience.
Last year, the Government estimated that the cost of recovery from disasters like the devastating 2022 east coast floods on 2019-20 fires will rise to $13.5 billion. For contrast, the Government’s Disaster Ready Fund – the main national source of funding for disaster resilience – invests just $200 million a year in grants to support disaster preparedness and resilience building. This is despite the Government’s own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) estimating that for every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, there is a $9.60 return on investment.
By redirecting funds currently spent on subsidising fossil fuel production, the Government can both stop incentivising climate destruction in the first place, and ensure that Australian communities and industries are better protected from worsening climate extremes.
No communities have more to lose from climate damage, or carry more knowledge of practical solutions, than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The budget should include a dedicated First Nations climate adaptation fund, ensuring First Nations communities can develop solutions on their own terms, and access the support they need with adapting to extreme heat, coastal erosion and other escalating challenges.
6. Be a better neighbour
The global response to climate change depends on the adequate flow of support from developed economies like Australia to lower income nations with shifting to clean energy, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage.
Such support is vital to building trust and cooperation, reducing global emissions, and supporting regional and global security by enabling countries to transition away from fossil fuels and build greater resilience.
Despite its central leadership role in this year’s global climate negotiations, our Government is yet to announce its contribution to international climate finance for 2025-2030. Greenpeace recommends a commitment of $11 billion for this five year period, which is aligned with the global goal under the Paris Agreement to triple international climate finance from current levels.
This new commitment should include additional funding to address loss and damage from climate change and a substantial contribution to the Pacific Resilience Facility, ensuring support is accessible to countries and communities that need it most. It should also see Australia get firmly behind the vision of a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.
7. Protect nature
There is no safe planet without protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity that sustain us and regulate our climate.
Last year the Parliament passed important and long overdue reforms to our national environment laws to ensure better protection for our forests and other critical ecosystems. However, the Government will need to provide sufficient funding to ensure the effective implementation of these reforms.
Greenpeace has recommended $500 million over four years to establish the National Environment Agency — the body responsible for enforcing and monitoring the new laws — and a further $50 million to Environment Information Australia for providing critical information and tools.
Further resourcing will also be required to fulfil the crucial goal of fully protecting 30% of Australian land and seas by 2030. This should include $1 billion towards ending deforestation by enabling farmers and loggers to retool away from destructive practices, $2 billion a year for restoring degraded lands, $5 billion for purchasing and creating new protected areas, and $200 million for expanding domestic and international marine protected areas.
Conclusion
This is not the first time that conflict overseas has triggered an energy crisis, or that a budget has been preceded by a summer of extreme weather disasters, highlighting the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels. What’s different in 2026 is the availability of solutions. Renewable energy is now cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Global momentum is firmly behind the transition away from fossil fuels. The Albanese Government, with its overwhelming majority, has the chance to set our nation up for the future, or keep us stranded in the past. Let’s hope it makes some smart choices.
The 2026 budget test: Will Australia break free from fossil fuels?
Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economies
In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
-
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way -
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry
Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energy
The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org global campaign to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all
The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Computer models that use artificial intelligence (AI) cannot forecast record-breaking weather as well as traditional climate models, according to a new study.
It is well established that AI climate models have surpassed traditional, physics-based climate models for some aspects of weather forecasting.
However, new research published in Science Advances finds that AI models still “underperform” in forecasting record-breaking extreme weather events.
The authors tested how well both AI and traditional weather models could simulate thousands of record-breaking hot, cold and windy events that were recorded in 2018 and 2020.
They find that AI models underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events.
A study author tells Carbon Brief that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI weather forecasts
Extreme weather events, such as floods, heatwaves and storms, drive hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year through the destruction of cropland, impacts on infrastructure and the loss of human life.
Many governments have developed early warning systems to prepare the general public and mobilise disaster response teams for imminent extreme weather events. These systems have been shown to minimise damages and save lives.
For decades, scientists have used numerical weather prediction models to simulate the weather days, or weeks, in advance.
These models rely on a series of complex equations that reproduce processes in the atmosphere and ocean. The equations are rooted in fundamental laws of physics, based on decades of research by climate scientists. As a result, these models are referred to as “physics-based” models.
However, AI-based climate models are gaining popularity as an alternative for weather forecasting.
Instead of using physics, these models use a statistical approach. Scientists present AI models with a large batch of historical weather data, known as training data, which teaches the model to recognise patterns and make predictions.
To produce a new forecast, the AI model draws on this bank of knowledge and follows the patterns that it knows.
There are many advantages to AI weather forecasts. For example, they use less computing power than physics-based models, because they do not have to run thousands of mathematical equations.
Furthermore, many AI models have been found to perform better than traditional physics-based models at weather forecasts.
However, these models also have drawbacks.
Study author Prof Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the research institute for statistics and information science at the University of Geneva, tells Carbon Brief that AI models “depend strongly on the training data” and are “relatively constrained to the range of this dataset”.
In other words, AI models struggle to simulate brand new weather patterns, instead tending forecast events of a similar strength to those seen before. As a result, it is unclear whether AI models can simulate unprecedented, record-breaking extreme events that, by definition, have never been seen before.
Record-breaking extremes
Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as the climate warms. Record-shattering extremes – those that break existing records by large margins – are also becoming more regular.
For example, during a 2021 heatwave in north-western US and Canada, local temperature records were broken by up to 5C. According to one study, the heatwave would have been “impossible” without human-caused climate change.
The new study explores how accurately AI and physics-based models can forecast such record-breaking extremes.
First, the authors identified every heat, cold and wind event in 2018 and 2020 that broke a record previously set between 1979 and 2017. (They chose these years due to data availability.) The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to identify these records.
This produced a large sample size of record-breaking events. For the year 2020, the authors identified around 160,000 heat, 33,000 cold and 53,000 wind records, spread across different seasons and world regions.
For their traditional, physics-based model, the authors selected the High RESolution forecast model from the Integrated Forecasting System of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. This is “widely considered as the leading physics-based numerical weather prediction model”, according to the paper.
They also selected three “leading” AI weather models – the GraphCast model from Google Deepmind, Pangu-Weather developed by Huawei Cloud and the Fuxi model, developed by a team from Shanghai.
The authors then assessed how accurately each model could forecast the extremes observed in the year 2020.
Dr Zhongwei Zhang is the lead author on the study and a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He tells Carbon Brief that many AI weather forecast models were built for “general weather conditions”, as they use all historical weather data to train the models. Meanwhile, forecasting extremes is considered a “secondary task” by the models.
The authors explored a range of different “lead times” – in other words, how far into the future the model is forecasting. For example, a lead time of two days could mean the model uses the weather conditions at midnight on 1 January to simulate weather conditions at midnight on 3 January.
The plot below shows how accurately the models forecasted all extreme events (left) and heat extremes (right) under different lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy.
The chart on the left shows how two of the AI models (blue and green) performed better than the physics-based model (black) when forecasting all weather across the year 2020.
However, the chart on the right illustrates how the physics-based model (black) performed better than all three AI models (blue, red and green) when it came to forecasting heat extremes.
The authors note that the performance gap between AI and physics-based models is widest for lower lead times, indicating that AI models have greater difficulty making predictions in the near future.
They find similar results for cold and wind records.
In addition, the authors find that AI models generally “underpredict” temperature during heat records and “overpredict” during cold records.
The study finds that the larger the margin that the record is broken by, the less well the AI model predicts the intensity of the event.
‘Warning shot’
Study author Prof Erich Fischer is a climate scientist at ETH Zurich and a Carbon Brief contributing editor. He tells Carbon Brief that the result is “not unexpected”.
He adds that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
The analysis, he continues, is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI models are likely to continue to improve, but scientists should “not yet” fully replace traditional forecasting models with AI ones, according to Fischer.
He explains that accurate forecasts are “most needed” in the runup to potential record-breaking extremes, because they are the trigger for early warning systems that help minimise damages caused by extreme weather.
Leonardo Olivetti is a PhD student at Uppsala University, who has published work on AI weather forecasting and was not involved in the study.
He tells Carbon Brief that “many other studies” have identified issues with using AI models for “extremes”, but this paper is novel for its specific focus on extremes.
Olivetti notes that AI models are already used alongside physics-based models at “some of the major weather forecasting centres around the world”. However, the study results suggest “caution against relying too heavily on these [AI] models”, he says.
Prof Martin Schultz, a professor in computational earth system science at the University of Cologne who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the results of the analysis are “very interesting, but not too surprising”.
He adds that the study “justifies the continued use of classical numerical weather models in operational forecasts, in spite of their tremendous computational costs”.
Advances in forecasting
The field of AI weather forecasting is evolving rapidly.
Olivetti notes that the three AI models tested in the study are an “older generation” of AI models. In the last two years, newer “probabilistic” forecast models have emerged that “claim to better capture extremes”, he explains.
The three AI models used in the analysis are “deterministic”, meaning that they only simulate one possible future outcome.
In contrast, study author Engelke tells Carbon Brief that probabilistic models “create several possible future states of the weather” and are therefore more likely to capture record-breaking extremes.
Engelke says it is “important” to evaluate the newer generation of models for their ability to forecast weather extremes.
He adds that this paper has set out a “protocol” for testing the ability of AI models to predict unprecedented extreme events, which he hopes other researchers will go on to use.
The study says that another “promising direction” for future research is to develop models that combine aspects of traditional, physics-based weather forecasts with AI models.
Engelke says this approach would be “best of both worlds”, as it would combine the ability of physics-based models to simulate record-breaking weather with the computational efficiency of AI models.
Dr Kyle Hilburn, a research scientist at Colorado State University, notes that the study does not address extreme rainfall, which he says “presents challenges for both modelling and observing”. This, he says, is an “important” area for future research.
The post Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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