There are days when the sulphur-like, toxic smell coming from the nearby oil facilities is so potent that Azuh Chinenye struggles to go outside her house early in the morning. “When you inhale, you as a person, your body system, and every other thing will change… you can’t stand the odour,” she said.
Chinenye lives in Oyigbo, a town less than 20 miles (32 km) from Port Harcourt, in the Niger Delta, the heart of Nigeria’s main oil-producing region.
Signs of the industry are everywhere in Oyigbo. Active flare stacks stand just metres from homes and businesses, whose walls are caked in soot. Close to a primary school, Climate Home News saw oil spilling from a corroded underground pipe.
The local oil field here was for many years owned and operated by Shell, until it was sold to a Nigerian firm for $533 million in early 2021. Since the sale, gas flaring has increased dramatically at Oyigbo, despite the new operator’s promise to “protect our planet” and the health of communities.
A local doctor and residents told Climate Home News that the opposite is happening in reality, as people struggle with the effects of noxious pollutants released by flaring at production facilities close to their homes.
Flaring worsens climate crisis
Fifteen times more gas was burned at the Oyigbo field in 2024 compared to 2020, according to an analysis of satellite data prepared for Climate Home News by SkyTruth, an environmental watchdog. This pattern is repeated at other fields previously owned by Shell across the Niger Delta, the data shows.
Flaring occurs when gas produced during oil drilling is burned off, instead of being utilised. The process releases vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, a potent planet-heating greenhouse gas, alongside toxic chemicals.
Failure to tackle gas flaring pushes global climate goals further out of reach, as cutting methane emissions from the oil and gas industry is widely seen by climate and energy experts as a quick win to slow global warming in the short term.
Shell claims to have significantly reduced its emissions and says it achieved zero routine flaring last year, but our analysis reveals that this was driven primarily by selling off high-emission assets – from the US to Nigeria – which are then free to continue polluting, albeit under different management.
After Shell divestments, flaring on the rise
A spokesperson for Shell told Climate Home News by email that, when the energy giant selects buyers for divestments, it assesses “a number of factors such as their financial strength, operating culture and environmental performance” and shares emissions reduction plans for the assets, where relevant.
But Shell does not monitor the performance of those assets once it has handed over control to the buyer, the spokesperson said, adding that regulation of operations by the new owner is carried out by governments.
After years of staying flat at the global level, flaring has risen again since 2023, including in Nigeria, where smaller home-grown firms have been ramping up production seeking to maximise oil revenues while lacking the expertise to prevent flaring, according to a World Bank report.
To understand more about how this wasteful and dangerous process continues to harm people’s lives, Climate Home News went to the Niger Delta, a part of the world unique for how many residents are forced to live in close proximity to flare stacks.
New owner promised sustainable production




“Gas flaring has increased in the years since Shell left,” said Chief Maduabuchi Felix Achiele, a community leader in Oyigbo. “In a week, we can observe two, three, four instances of flaring but when Shell was here, it was just once in a while.”
The field has been owned by Trans-Niger Oil and Gas (TNOG) since January 2021, along with the rest of the assets within the OML 17 oil block. The company that runs operations in the block – Lagos-based Heirs Energies – has boasted about turning an “underperforming asset” into an economic success after taking it over from Shell.
Heirs Energies said it has doubled production at OML 17 without that coming at the expense of environmental and climate integrity. “We can create a symmetry, a symbiotic relationship between oil and gas, the environment and people […] sustainability is infused in what we are doing,” its CEO Osayande Igiehon said in an interview late last year.
Heirs Energies announced an agreement with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to capture and monetise gas from OML 17 in December, though the company did not give a timeframe for when this project would be completed. Heirs failed to respond to questions sent by Climate Home News for this story.
On its website, the company says it is “committed to eliminating routine flaring and greenhouse gas emissions by 2025”. But the emissions figures and experience of the local community tell a radically different story.
Jump in flaring volumes
In OML 17, the vast oil block that covers much of the urban area of Port Harcourt and its surrounding towns like Oyigbo, gas flaring volumes grew sevenfold between 2020 – the last year of Shell’s involvement – and 2024, according to data presented to Climate Home News by SkyTruth.
To conduct this analysis, we tracked sales of onshore Nigerian assets, determined the location of each site using open source data, and then worked with SkyTruth to monitor flaring from these locations using data from the Earth Observation Group at the Colorado School of Mines.
Within OML 17, at Agbada, about a 30-minute drive north of Port Harcourt city centre, flaring doubled immediately after the sale in 2021. The following year, it almost doubled again and has remained close to that mark since. In Nkali, another asset within OML 17, flaring was nearly four times higher in the year after the sale.
While SkyTruth’s analysis was only able to use figures up to 2024, flaring remained high at these oil blocks throughout 2025, according to publicly available data from the NNPC.
This pattern can be seen in other oil blocks. Shell lost its right to operate OML 11 in August 2021, a block that spans the Ogoniland region. This helped the company to record a drop in emissions from both greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds, while flaring went up under the block’s new operator, a subsidiary of the government-owned NNPC.
“Catastrophic” for communities
Communities in Ogoniland are seeking reparations for the decades-long environmental devastation caused by oil drilling. When it took control of the assets in 2021, the NNPC said the firm’s operations would be driven by “a social contract that would put the people and environment of the Niger Delta above pecuniary considerations”. Nonetheless, gas flaring tripled between 2021 and 2024 across all OML 11 fields, according to the analysis prepared by SkyTruth.
It was a similar story at Nembe Creek, part of the OML 29 block sold by Shell to Nigerian firm Aiteo for $1.7bn in March 2015. That year, flaring rose by around a quarter and then doubled in 2016.
For blighted Niger Delta communities, oil spill clean-ups are another broken promise
Production at the facility fell dramatically following a huge oil spill in 2021 that dumped 20,000 barrels of oil per day into local creeks for a month. Gas flaring at Nembe Creek spiked again in 2024, to an annual volume 54% higher than in 2014, when Shell still ran the field. In June 2024, another spill forced Aiteo to halt production.
Andrew Baxter, senior director for business and energy transition at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), told Climate Home News: “Flaring and spills harm human health. Flaring is not just a climate menace, it’s catastrophic to the communities that live around these facilities.”
It also wastes energy, he said. “This is a depressing waste of resources when there are still significant challenges around energy access,” he added.
Q&A: “False” climate solutions help keep fossil fuel firms in business
Given the need to address climate change, it’s important that when majors sell fossil fuel assets, buyers have comparable green targets and operating standards, according to organisations like EDF.
Baxter argued that the way Shell managed its troubled oil operations in the Niger Delta over decades had limited its options when selling them on.
“When operators have a poor environmental record and substandard record of community engagement, it should come as little surprise when they cannot attract many interested buyers for those assets. This rule applies globally,” he said.
Big Oil’s “paper decarbonisation”
Between 2016 and 2023, more than 60% of Shell’s emissions reductions came from divestments. That matters because, despite these emissions no longer being Shell’s responsibility, they are still heating up the Earth’s climate.
Krista Halttunen, a visiting researcher at Imperial College London who focuses on the future of the oil industry, told Climate Home News that companies like Shell are practising “paper decarbonisation”, reducing emissions in their annual reports rather than the real world.
“This story shows the limits of company-driven emissions reduction,” she said. “Very few companies are reducing real-world emissions. Fossil fuel companies can’t meaningfully decarbonise without changing their business model, because their whole reason for being is digging up material that will add more carbon to the atmosphere.”
Shell did not reply to Climate Home News’ questions about how it had achieved its emission reductions.
It also appears that Shell’s achievement of reaching zero routine flaring in 2025 was achieved in large part through the sale of its Nigerian assets. In March of that year Shell sold its onshore Nigerian assets to a consortium of companies called Renaissance Africa. Earlier, in 2023, Shell had stated that its remaining Nigerian assets accounted for around half of total routine and non-routine flaring in its integrated gas and upstream facilities.
Removing Nigerian assets from its portfolio, whether in the Renaissance deal or earlier transactions, may have helped transform Shell’s flaring emissions, but for people living in the Niger Delta life has stayed the same.




“Flaring is not new in this community,” explained Theodore Ike Ogu, a 60-year-old smallholder farmer who lives in Oyigbo. “We are suffering and flaring is increasing.”
Here, temperatures regularly hover around 35 degrees Celsius during the day, with humidity often exceeding 50%. When the flares are going full blast, the heat for those living and working nearby can be unbearable, locals said. At night, when the town is quiet, the noise from the flares keeps people awake.
Chief Maduabuchi recalled that residents used to collect water during the rainy season to drink and wash. “You can’t even use it to wash because, as it comes down, it is dirty because of the smoke,” he complained.
Health risks from toxic chemicals
Gas flaring releases harmful chemicals, and numerous studies, including some conducted in the Niger Delta, have linked living close to flares with being more likely to contract forms of cancer and respiratory illnesses.
Complaints from local communities about health issues and unexplained deaths have been rising in oil-producing communities such as Oyigbo as gas flaring intensifies, according to Dr Bieye Renner Briggs, a Port Harcourt-based public health physician and environmental advocate.
While he cautions that a direct link has not yet been scientifically proven in the Niger Delta, Dr Briggs says the connection is “probable”, given similar findings in other oil regions worldwide. He recommended performing routine autopsies in the local communities to establish clear evidence of whether deaths are caused by gas flaring or oil pollution.


Dr Briggs warned that people living near flare sites face a wide range of serious health hazards, from hypertension and cardiomyopathy, which can increase the risk of heart failure, to asthma, chronic bronchitis and kidney disease.
Soot particles released by flaring represent a particularly acute health risk, he warned. These are small enough to bypass the body’s natural defences and enter the bloodstream, increasing the risk of cancers and other conditions, he told Climate Home News. “Everything a smoker will suffer and more is what somebody that is exposed to soot will suffer,” he said, noting that, unlike smokers, residents can do little to limit their constant exposure.
The oil companies contacted by Climate Home News for this article, including Shell, did not respond to requests for comment on the health effects of flaring.
“I have different health issues: incessant lung pains, at times a cough, all those things, catarrh,” said Theodore Ike Ogu, adding there are “so many things that we notice health-wise which we believe are due to flaring”.
Azuh Chinenye’s husband, Kelechi Prince Azuh, died in May last year after suffering from breathing difficulties and frequent asthma attacks. “He was 49 years old,” she said, fighting back tears. “You see his poster outside there and three of the children are in university. He didn’t even see them complete their first year.”




“Nowhere else to go”
Oil production, meanwhile, has increased at former Shell fields. Extracting oil from mature fields like those in Nigeria produces a significant amount of associated gas and, in the absence of funding and infrastructure to make use of this, it is often flared.
Last May, Heirs Energies CEO Igiehon told the Financial Times that Nigerian firms could build better relationships with locals, after years of tension with oil majors over frequent spills and the destruction of local livelihoods. “We’re able to move around unfettered because we have a robust relationship with the communities,” he argued.
The increase in flaring in blocks like OML 17 has tested that idea.
Colombia aims to launch fossil fuel transition platform at first global conference
“Shell was great,” said Chief Maduabuchi, who explained that the company provided healthcare and food to the local community. The new operator, he says, “only gives us a small amount of rice, unlike Shell which used to give us each 50kg”.
Asked why she has chosen to stay in Oyigbo after her husband’s death, Azuh Chinenye explains that it’s much cheaper to live here than in the centre of Port Harcourt. She uses her inhaler when she struggles to breathe and tries not to go outside when the soot gets bad.
“I can easily pack up, but this is my compound, this is my community, and there is nowhere else I will go,” she said.
Cover photo: A woman empties a plastic bowl filled with tapioca, which is derived from cassava paste, on sewn sacks laid on the ground close to a gas flaring furnace in Ughelli, Delta State, Nigeria September 17, 2020. (Photo: REUTERS/Afolabi Sotunde)
The post Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities appeared first on Climate Home News.
Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities
Climate Change
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
After a five-year long legal battle, the Constitutional Court of South Africa has blocked Shell and local partner Impact Africa’s permit to explore for oil and gas off the country’s East Coast, in a landmark victory for local communities and civil society.
“Today’s judgment makes me feel very happy and proud that the ocean is not for profit for mining companies,” said East Coast resident and environmental campaigner Siyabonga Ndovela.
The verdict culminates a years-long process in which non-profits Sustaining the Wild Coast, Natural Justice, Greenpeace Africa, and others took legal action against Shell, Impact Africa and the South African government for failing to consult affected communities – a legal requirement in the country.
The Constitutional Court ruled that Shell and Impact Africa had not complied with resource governance law, had failed to meaningfully conduct public consultation and had failed to consider the impact on climate change, cultural rights, livelihoods and ecological harm.
The ruling references last year’s landmark advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which states that countries have a legal duty to prevent and repair damage to the climate system. The South African judges argued climate change “transcends borders” and that states’ obligations “must be understood within the broader framework of international law.”
“This case must also be understood against the backdrop of well-documented struggles by coastal communities to protect their land, marine resources and ways of life in the face of extractive activities that they believe threaten their very existence,” wrote Justice Narandran Kollapen.
The Constitutional Court found that the exploration right had been unlawfully granted by the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources.The ruling upholds a 2022 regional court decision against Shell and overturns a 2024 appeal that allowed the company to conduct fresh public consultations under the original exploration right. Today’s decision means the right, initially granted in 2014, must be set aside.
Celebrating the decision, Sherelee Odyar, oil and gas campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home News that the court confirmed “serious failures” in the awarding of exploration rights to Shell and Impact Africa, which “can not simply be corrected later”.
The Wild Coast is a biodiversity hotspot which has been conserved over generations by coastal communities who rely on the ocean and land. “Our land and sea are central to our livelihoods and our way of life. Over generations we have conserved them, and they have conserved us,” reads the founding statement in the case.
A Shell spokesperson said it noted the ruling, responding that “we are committed to responsible offshore exploration, meaningful stakeholder engagement and environmental stewardship.”
The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.
“Renewed strength” for communities
The ruling adds to a series of legal challenges brought by civil society groups against oil companies and the government as South Africa has expanded oil and gas development since 2014 under Operation Phakisa, a plan aimed at “unlocking the economic potential of the oceans”.
On the West Coast, Walter Steenkamp, Chair of Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, which is involved in a separate ongoing legal action against TotalEnergies, said that “today’s court case gave me renewed strength.”
The case could also set a precedent for future oil developments, said Alessandro Mazzi, legal governance researcher at the University of Wageningen. He added that the verdict “sends a strong signal to investors that where projects affect people’s land, livelihoods and environment, meaningful consultation and genuine ecological assessment are an integral part of responsible investment”.
Janet Solomon, coordinator of advocacy group Oceans not Oil, said that the Court’s emphasis on democratic participation, culture, livelihoods and the health of future generations in handing down the verdict signals a shift in jurisprudence on environmental governance, saying that this focus “may prove to be the judgment’s most enduring legacy.”
The post South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right appeared first on Climate Home News.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Climate Change
Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?
China has published a new five-year plan for coal, the latest in a slew of important policy documents for the country’s energy transition.
The 15th five-year plan for the development of the coal industry was published by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA) on 10 August, covering the period 2026-2030.
This is a key period, covering the years building up to China’s pledge to peak its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions “before 2030”.
Government-affiliated organisations had previously mooted the possibility of coal consumption peaking before 2027.
However, the new plan does not set a specific, government-endorsed year for peaking coal consumption, instead including a broader goal to peak use of the fuel in this five-year period.
It also discusses the “green and low-carbon transition” of the coal industry, coal-related methane emissions and the “clean and efficient use” of the fuel.
But, in general, the plan emphasises the importance of coal in China’s energy system and focuses on the systems underpinning its production.
Analysts tell Carbon Brief that the plan confirms a “broader trend” – driven by the conflict in the Middle East – in which coal’s role in China as a “cheap and secure” source of energy is reinforced – instead of plotting a phase-down or transition for the industry.
Nevertheless, as the deadline for peaking CO2 emissions looms, the plan does warn the sector of the need to diversify into other industries – including clean energy and chemicals – as coal consumption peaks.
Below, Carbon Brief looks closer at what the plan means for China’s use of coal over the next five years and how it relates to wider climate targets.
What does the plan say about peaking coal?
Five-year plans are a key tool in Chinese governance, used to guide economic and social development across the economy.
The plan for coal is the latest topic-specific document to address climate and energy matters within the 15th five-year plan period of 2026-30. It is subordinate to the overarching 15th five-year plan, which covers China’s broad socio-economic strategy.
Other topic-specific plans for the period cover climate change, developing a “new-type energy system” and renewable energy, among other topics.
The coal plan opens by stating that coal is a “foundational [source of] energy” for China:
“[Coal is] vital to the national economy, people’s livelihoods and national energy security, and plays a crucial role in providing foundational support and systemic regulation within the energy supply system.”
However, the plan also covers the 15th five-year plan period (2026-2030), the final five-year period before China is expected to have peaked its carbon emissions.
The 15th five-year plan period marks a time of “significant transformation” for the coal industry, the plan says.
Policy documents issued in April 2026 called for the “strict control” of fossil fuels and created a framework for local governments to be graded on coal use in their region.
Coal has traditionally been the largest source of energy in China and is responsible for around 80% of its emissions.
But its role is gradually being superseded by non-fossil energy, which accounted for more than half of the country’s power mix in 2025. In the first half of 2026, coal supplied less than 50% of power generation, while its share of total energy consumption fell to 51.4%, as shown below.

The five-year plan for coal signals “continuity” of China’s aim of “safeguarding energy security while advancing the low-carbon transition”, says Kevin Tu, non-resident fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Another key factor behind the plan is concerns from policymakers around energy security, exacerbated by the conflict in the Middle East.
In an article published in early August, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily noted the “severe volatility” the war has created in energy markets, adding that “China’s energy system has withstood these shocks”.
It quoted NEA head Wang Hongzhi stating in a press conference that “coal is [China’s] greatest source of confidence in ensuring a stable energy supply”.
The conflict will “reinforce coal’s role in China’s energy system”, both as a source of energy and as a feedstock for commodities, Li Shuo, China climate hub director at the Asia Society Policy Institute, tells Carbon Brief.
The plan outlines a number of aims to be achieved by 2030, starting with a goal to “further strengthen” the coal industry’s “ability to be a ‘bottom-line guarantee’”.
The other targets in the plan, to be achieved by 2030, include:
- Peaking coal consumption;
- “Basically establishing” a modern coal-industrial system;
- Optimising the “layout” of coal production and development;
- Increasing the proportion of “high-quality, advanced” coal-production capacity;
- “Clearly improving” levels of “safe, green development” and “clean, efficient use” of coal;
- Increasing the share of coal produced by “large-scale, modernised coal mines” to 87%;
- Developing a diversified coal-based industrial structure;
- Improving mechanisms to ensure a “dynamic balance” between supply and demand.
The large share of China’s CO2 emissions that come from coal and China’s carbon-peaking and neutrality targets are not the main focus of the five-year plan.
“This is clearly neither a coal phase-out nor phase-down plan,” Tu tells Carbon Brief. He adds that it grants China “considerable flexibility…over the pace of the transition”.
A pledge to peak coal consumption during the five-year plan period is reiterated several times in the document. Notably, the plan says that China will “promote coal consumption successfully reaching a peak”.
This, it says, is “guided” by China’s “dual-carbon” goals for peaking and neutrality, but is also based on the premise of “guaranteeing the secure supply of energy”
However, the plan does not provide a government-endorsed target year for peaking consumption.
State-affiliated organisations, such as Xinhua, have suggested that coal consumption is “expected to peak around 2027”. Independent analysis has stated that emissions from coal consumption may have already peaked.
“The absence of a 2027 deadline is significant, but I would be careful not to over-interpret it,” Tu tells Carbon Brief.
While a 2027 peak for coal remains possible, in his view, it is dependent on factors such as “electricity-demand growth, renewable generation, industrial activity, weather conditions and coal demand from the chemical sector”.
Similarly, Li believes that it will be “market and technological progress”, rather than state directives, that determine exactly when coal consumption and emissions will peak.
“Beijing’s regulatory interventions, if any, will be limited to making sure the peaking timelines do not blow past 2030,” he says.
What does the plan say about China’s coal production?
The plan does not set a concrete target for coal production during the five-year plan period. In contrast, total coal production targets for 2015 and 2020 had been set in the 12th and 13th five-year plans.
The plan also reduces a target for “reserve production” capacity, which was first announced in 2024.
The plan reiterates that, by 2030, China should “establish a coal reserve-production capacity of 100m metric tonnes or more per year”. This was first mentioned in the 15th five-year plan for building a “new-type energy system”, published in June.
Despite China’s rapid buildout of renewable energy, reserve coal capacity is necessary, argues state news agency Xinhua. It says that, to balance the variability of renewable energy, coal will shift to “playing a supporting and regulating role to safeguard energy supply”.
Nevertheless, the new reserve goal is lower than the target of 300m tonnes of coal set when China first announced the establishment of the system in 2024.
“Overall, this five-year plan is targeted at the coal industry, not the energy transition”, says Yang Biqing, energy analyst at Ember, although the energy transition and the peaking of coal consumption form the overarching context for the plan.
Provinces in northern China will continue to provide the majority of China’s coal, according to the plan.
It reiterates a pledge from the new-type energy five-year plan that China will continue building “coal-supply security bases” in the provinces of Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi and Xinjiang. It says these bases will supply more than 80% of China’s coal by 2030.
This does not indicate a change in direction, as coal production is already increasingly concentrated in northern China. In 2025, 82% of China’s coal came from these four provinces.
New or expanded coal mines in these provinces – with the exception of southern Xinjiang – must have a minimum annual production capacity of 1.2m tonnes, says the plan.
This is an “important signal”, Tu tells Carbon Brief. He notes that the plans suggest that “China’s coal transition is not simply about reducing the quantity consumed”, but also about creating a “more concentrated, efficient, flexible and resilient” coal system.
The plan also calls for a more centralised approach to managing coal. It states that in 2026-2030, any new production capacity must be “included in the single ledger” – essentially meaning that it must be approved by the central government – before it can be implemented.
Yang tells Carbon Brief that this could indicate that the government is trying to prevent a potential “rush” to get new capacity approved as coal consumption starts to plateau and fall.
What does the plan say about coal’s greenhouse gas emissions?
The plan includes sections on the need to “accelerate” the low-carbon transition of the industry, as well as the “clean and efficient use” of coal.
The former section largely focuses on the production and processing of coal, while the latter addresses emissions associated with its consumption.
Suggested policies include promoting energy efficiency, water conservancy and electrification, coupled with greater use of renewable-energy sources at coal mines.
In addition to promoting a successful peaking of coal consumption, the plan also re-affirms existing policies around promoting energy efficiency and carbon-emission reduction.
It calls for “accelerate energy conservation and consumption reduction in key coal-consuming industries”, largely through methods already established by existing policies.
This includes phasing out inefficient coal-fired equipment, replacing coal-fired equipment with “clean energy” alternatives, reducing use of “dispersed coal” and promoting clean heating sources such as distributed solar heating and waste heat utilisation.
Tom Wang, executive director of People of Asia for Climate Solutions, describes the plan as “more of a coal exploration plan, rather than a coal transition plan”. He tells Carbon Brief that while several policies call for “green” or “smart” development, the plan does not address the greenhouse gas emissions underpinning each step of coal extraction, processing and combustion.
Another major focus is on utilisation of coalbed methane, a significant source of China’s methane emissions.
China will “implement work plans to increase coalbed-methane reserves and production”, the plan says, including a “rapid ramp-up” of production in deep coalbed-methane sites.
Affixed to the main five-year plan is an appendix further detailing plans for coalbed methane.
It notes that utilising coalbed methane has “multiple benefits”, such as improving safety, “increasing the supply of clean energy” and reducing emissions. [Methane is a fossil fuel.]
The government is targeting 26bn cubic metres of coalbed-methane production and 6.5bn cubic metres of mine-gas utilisation by 2030, it says.
At least 18bn cubic metres will be sourced from the Ordos Basin, a region spanning several northern provinces, according to an action plan published by the NEA.
In its coverage of the Ordos action plan, the state-run newspaper China Daily said that developing coalbed methane is a “vital strategic move to optimise [China’s] energy mix and ensure domestic gas supply”.
Reporting by Xinhua and economic news outlet Jiemian said that coalbed methane could help China become an “energy powerhouse” and “secure [its] energy self-sufficiency”, respectively.
In addition, the coal industry will “steadily advance methane-emission control” and “actively participate in the reduction of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions”, according to the appendix.
However, Sun Xiaopu, senior China counsel at the thinktank Institute For Governance and Sustainable Development, tells Carbon Brief, the plan “does not establish an absolute methane-emissions reduction target”.
She notes that the implications for emissions may only become clear as implementation frameworks for meeting the utilisation targets are released.
How does the plan tell coal companies to evolve?
Despite reaffirming the importance of coal, the plan emphasises that the overall role of the fuel in China will change. It adds that the coal industry must adapt to this changing reality.
As the coal industry “modernises”, coal companies must “strengthen management” of mine closures and exit plans. They must also plan for a “smooth transition” and “prudently handle” workforce relocation, debt resolution and ecological restoration, it says.
Companies should also be supported in expanding into industries such as “power, new energy and chemicals”, according to the plan.
A number of major coal producers, as well as at least one oil giant, have already established wings focused on “new energy”.
But the focus on the use of coal to make chemicals is one of the “most consequential parts of the plan”, says Tu.
China must promote the shift to coal being used “equally” as a fuel and a feedstock, the plan says.
The plan urges policymakers to push through “construction of strategic coal-to-oil and gas bases”
The chemicals sector is China’s fastest source of emissions growth, although it remains well behind power and other industries in terms of total emissions.
Tu notes that the plan calls on the coal-chemicals industry to decarbonise production, such as through low-carbon power, green hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage.
As such, he says, the policy signal is “not to exit coal chemicals, but to make them more efficient, higher-value and potentially less carbon-intensive”.
Li echoes this, telling Carbon Brief that the sector is “likely to receive a major boost from the conflict in Iran”. He adds:
“We will probably see further capacity expansion in the sector and I doubt environmental arguments will convince Chinese authorities to take a different approach.”
related
Q&A: What is in China’s new five-year plan for climate change?
Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ for renewables mean for climate change?
Interview: Dr Sun Yixian on his new database tracking Chinese climate ‘leadership’
Q&A: What do China’s provincial five-year plans say about climate and energy?
The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?
Climate Change
New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus
The world saw the lowest amount of new coal mine capacity brought online for at least 10 years in 2025, according to a new report, as clean energy displaces coal for electricity generation in East Asia.
A report by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) found that new coal mine capacity declined by nearly 40% from 2024, the second consecutive year new mine capacity has hit a decade low. This represents an acceleration of a steady decline that began in 2019.
The slowdown in new coal mine openings was driven by China and Australia, where new additions fell by 44% and 96%, respectively. In China, the report said this was partly due to solar and wind displacing coal for electricity generation – although coal rebounded in the first half of 2026 – and the National Energy Administration implementing new rules to curb new mine openings.
In Australia, a 96% reduction in new coal mine capacity was driven by shrinking demand from the countries that import Australian coal for electricity, like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the report said.
This trend is likely to continue, according to GEM, as the Australian state of New South Wales recently banned new coal mines on undeveloped greenfield land. South Korea has promised to stop building coal-fired power plants that cannot capture and store the emissions produced. Meanwhile, Japan is pushing for a post-Fukushima nuclear revival to displace coal.
This Australian coal community is co-designing its own green future
Globally, growth in coal demand has slowed over the last few years and the International Energy Agency expects it to plateau through to 2030 because of the growth of renewable energy, nuclear and fossil gas.
Openings down, pipeline up
But while new coal mine openings fell, the amount of global coal mine capacity proposed increased by 11%. This was almost entirely driven by a spate of projects in the eastern Indian states of Jharkhand and Odisha.
“If built,” the GEM report says, “the projects would commit India – a country with no formal coal phaseout timeline – to years of coal expansion and would put a 1.5C-aligned transition away from fossil fuels farther out of reach”.
The Indian government says it needs to increase coal production to meet growing electricity demand from economic growth and from dealing with heatwaves. It plans to open more than 20 new coal mines to meet its coal production targets.
Because of energy security concerns, India is also aiming to produce chemicals with Indian coal rather than imported gas. China is also pursuing this strategy, although the Global Energy Monitor report said that Indian coal’s high ash content means the South Asian nation will find it harder to make chemicals from coal.
Nations agreed at COP26 five years ago to “phase down” coal power – a commitment that China and India successfully pushed to weaken from “phase out”. At COP28 in 2023, governments agreed to transition away from all fossil fuels in energy systems.
Since then, wealthy nations have partnered with coal-producing countries like South Africa, Vietnam and Indonesia on plans to transition from coal to clean energy. But, after preliminary talks, India and these governments did not agree a JETP.
The post New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus appeared first on Climate Home News.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits




