Fossil fuel companies are aiming to profit from a new United Nations’ carbon market by selling carbon credits linked to gas-fired power plants they have already built.
At the Cop28 climate summit last December, governments agreed to set up a new global carbon credit market under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement – and a host of fossil fuel firms and their middlemen are now trying to cash in by making their projects eligible for trading.
Developers applied for thousands of projects to be transferred over from the old discredited Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the new market that will be established, before the deadline of January 1 this year.
Most of these projects are for renewable energy – which, while good for the climate, have stirred debate. Critics argue that they do not need additional funding from selling carbon credits because they are profitable without it.
However, more controversial are ten projects Climate Home News has identified, based largely in Asia, which backed the construction of power plants that run on natural gas, one of the fossil fuels governments agreed to transition away from at Cop28.
If approved by their host nations, the projects would transfer more than 10 million old gas-linked credits – equivalent to the reduction of 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions a year – to the new Paris carbon market.
“These projects are entirely inappropriate,” said Carbon Market Watch researcher Jonathan Crook. “Some were registered as far back as 2009. It’s unreasonable to assume they expected to rely on revenue from a new market mechanism in 2024 – not to mention that these projects may lock in fossil fuel emissions and infrastructure for years to come, among other issues.”
Clean, cheap or fair – which countries should pump the last oil and gas?
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market was set up in 2021 in a bid to ensure that carbon credits deliver on the emissions reductions they have promised and have a positive impact for the climate. In its categorisation of different types of carbon credit, offsets issued for gas-fired power plants are given the worst ranking.
Similarly, BeZero, a ratings agency for carbon credit projects, looked at three of the CDM gas projects that have applied for transfer to the new market. It gave them a ‘C’ grade, meaning they “provide a very low likelihood” of reducing emissions by as much as they claim.
It cited the “minimal impact” of carbon credit revenues on the project’s overall financial situation and the risk of methane leaks from gas infrastructure that would make the projects more polluting than asserted.
Chinese gas-fired plant
The biggest project is a gas-fired power plant built by China’s state-owned oil and gas company CNOOC and Japanese conglomerate Mitsubishi in 2010 in the province of Fujian, China, just across the sea from Taiwan.
To fire the plant’s four turbines, CNOOC and Mitsubishi imported gas from an Indonesian gas field called Tangguh, which they both had stakes in, through the CNOOC-owned Fujian gas import terminal.
In addition to the income they received from selling the gas, importing it through the terminal and then selling the electricity it produced, they also submitted an application to the CDM to develop and sell carbon credits linked to the plant.
By their own calculations, the plant would emit 2.3 million tonnes of CO2 a year when fully operational. But if they didn’t build it, they said the electricity would come from coal, emitting over 5.3 million tonnes of CO2 a year. So they claimed credits for reducing the amount of CO2 that would have entered the atmosphere by an annual 3 million tonnes.
Justifying this assumption, they said that oil was too expensive and zero-carbon alternatives were not viable as an alternative. Most of Fujian’s hydropower potential had already been tapped, while wind power was “just start-up” and “of seasonal nature”, they added. They did not even mention solar power – now the cheapest electricity source.
However, coal’s main competitors in the province are not gas but nuclear and hydro, power sources that do not emit greenhouse gases. Wind power has also grown rapidly in the province since the gas-fired plant was built.
Lauri Myllyvirta, a senior fellow with the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Climate Home: “The premise that power generation growth would come from coal if a new fossil gas plant wasn’t built was never true and certainly is not true today.”
Mitsubishi withdrew from the carbon credit project in 2022. While CNOOC remains involved, the main project participant is now a company called Europe New Energy Investment Capital, run by a Chinese citizen called Dongquan Yang.
A spokesperson for CNOOC said the project “is out of the scope of CNOOC Limited’s business operations”. Asked how that was compatible with CNOOC Fujian Gas Power Co., Ltd being listed as an authorised participant, the spokesperson did not reply.
Indian carbon-credit developer
Fossil fuel firms are not the only ones trying to monetise carbon offsets from existing gas power plants. Documents show that Indian company EnKing – which has since changed its name to EKI Energy Services Ltd and claims to be the world’s biggest developer of carbon credits – is involved in three of the Indian gas power projects identified.
Last August, Climate Home revealed that EnKing vastly overestimated the benefits of carbon offsets linked to cookstoves in rural India and helped sell those junk credits to oil and gas giant Shell.
Cooking the books: cookstove offsets produce millions of fake emission cuts
Working with fossil fuel companies, EnKing used a methodology (AM0025), under the old Clean Development Mechanism, to derive credits from the building of gas-fired power plants in India.
The successor to this methodology is still technically up and running – but Verra, one of the main international carbon credit verifiers, has declared it inactive due to lack of use.
According to Crook of Carbon Market Watch, it is “extremely unlikely” that this type of methodology will be applicable under Article 6.4, which will govern the new UN carbon market when it launches. EnKing did not reply to a request for comment.
‘Not good practice’
To oversee the new carbon market, governments have agreed to set up an Article 6.4 supervisory body, made up of government climate negotiators. But the rules agreed for it so far offer little power to reject old CDM credits from gas-fired power plants.
The host countries of those projects – including China and India – could refuse to authorise them, but they could still be sold, branded as “mitigation contribution units” under Article 6.4.
These are a lower class of carbon credit agreed at Cop27 which do not require authorisation by the host country as it does not need to do a “corresponding adjustment” for them, which means wiping the credits’ emissions reductions from its accounts.
Carbon credits talks collapse at Cop28 over integrity concerns
Mitigation contribution units cannot be counted towards national emissions goals set under the UN climate process, but they can be bought by companies and used for other purposes. That means the firms trying to sell carbon credits from old gas power stations just need to find buyers to make a profit.
Crook said such deals “wouldn’t be good practice”. “Retiring these credits paradoxically rewards fossil fuel companies for locking in emissions,” he added.
The post Fossil fuel firms seek UN carbon market cash for old gas plants appeared first on Climate Home News.
Fossil fuel firms seek UN carbon market cash for old gas plants
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.
The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.
In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.
The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:
“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”
In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).
Spreadsheet error
The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.
The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.
These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.
Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.
In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.
This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.
At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.
In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.
Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.
Paper trail
The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.
The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.
A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.
However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.
It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.
(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)
After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”
The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.
related
Analysis: EVs are now nine times cheaper than petrol or diesel to drive in the UK
CCC: Heathrow expansion could push flights to ‘80% of UK emissions by 2050’
Revealed: England’s June 2026 heatwave sparked record demand for ambulances
Factcheck: Reform UK’s 45 false or misleading claims about climate and energy
The post Factcheck: UK Conservatives double the ‘cost of net-zero’ after spreadsheet blunder appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-uk-conservatives-double-the-cost-of-net-zero-after-spreadsheet-blunder