Since its head office opened in Johannesburg 16 years ago, the African arm of environmental campaign group Greenpeace has made a name for itself, battling governments and corporations to defend forests, protect oceans and tackle climate change. It was an organisation staff said they were proud to work for.
But an internal restructuring – which Greenpeace Africa’s board asked newly-appointed executive director Oulie Keita to implement in June 2023 – has left management fighting affected employees as well as the planet’s foes.
Climate Home spoke to former staff and has seen leaked documents, meeting recordings and email correspondence that expose the disarray caused by the drive by Greenpeace Africa’s management to lay off around 40 people – about half of its total staff – at three of its five offices, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), South Africa and Senegal. The organisation cited financial and security reasons in justifying the job cuts.
Some ex-employees interviewed by Climate Home, however, expressed doubt about those motives, saying they felt unfairly targeted for dismissal. They also criticised the new management’s approach to interaction with African governments, as well as Greenpeace Africa’s stance on LGBT+ rights and trade union representation.
Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events
In a written response to those grievances, Climate Home was told that Greenpeace Africa “values the rights and voices of our employees and fosters an inclusive and collaborative work environment”. “Our policies align with the legal requirements in each country,” it added.
As one of the highest-profile environmental organisations on the African continent, Greenpeace has an ambitious vision to bring about “an Africa where people live in harmony with nature in a peaceful state of environmental and social justice”. The internal turmoil uncovered by Climate Home raises questions about its ability to meet that goal.
The terms of reference for a three-month operational review of the organisation, which was due to start in August 2023, cited a need for cultural change as a key reason for the restructuring. It said collaborative processes intended to boost productivity and accountability had failed, slowing down the delivery of a 2022-2025 strategic plan.
As COP Troika dithers on 1.5C-aligned climate plans, experts set the bar high
That four-year strategy “aimed to transform Greenpeace Africa, to be a viable organisation working on campaigns delivering systemic impacts in Africa, with an operating model that is fit for purpose and responsive to the challenges facing the continent”, the document added.
It also showed that Greenpeace Africa wanted to ensure it had enough of a presence in richer African nations to improve fundraising – an argument that was later used by management as a justification for downsizing offices in poorer nations like DRC.
Greenpeace told Climate Home this shift was “part of a broader effort to ensure that Greenpeace Africa remains financially sustainable. This approach strengthens our capacity to promote environmental justice in all regions, including those with fewer resources.”
Following the shake-up, Climate Home understands that more than 10 former employees have launched legal action against Greenpeace Africa in labour courts in South Africa and Senegal, alleging unfair treatment by the organisation. Greenpeace Africa did not respond to questions on the cases, which are ongoing.
It said, however, that its 2023-2024 restructuring was conducted “with the utmost care”, and “in accordance with all relevant labour laws in each of our countries and ethical guidelines”.
New strategy
On March 1, 2023, the Greenpeace Africa board announced that, after a series of interim bosses, Keita had been appointed as executive director.
In a statement, it said she would “lead the implementation of the organisation’s new strategy which, grounded in African consciousness, seeks to dismantle systems which have historically served only to benefit the colonial powers, still plundering Africa for its resources”.
Amazon state that will host COP30 strikes “largest carbon credit sale in history”
Then board chair Oury Traoré, a fellow Malian who resigned this year, said in the statement that it was “critical to build a movement led by women and youth”. As a woman joining from the United Nations youth platform YouthConnekt Africa, Keita seemed well-placed to do that.
She had studied law, sociology, international development and human rights at universities in Morocco, the US and Austria and then worked as a trainer, facilitator and consultant for NGOs and Western embassies across Africa. She joined the Greenpeace Africa board in April 2012.
Staff were initially pleased with Keita’s appointment as executive director, which ended the long hunt for a permanent leader. “We were very excited,” said one then staff member in Senegal. “We had the sense that the organisation would become more stable.”
But that did not happen. Just a week later, an email landed in the inbox of Greenpeace Africa’s people and culture director Paul Ngugi and its then lead campaigner on climate and energy Melita Steele, flagging earlier support by Keita for Rwandan President Paul Kagame.
Sent by the head of Greenpeace Africa’s Congo rainforest campaign at the time, and signed on behalf of “the Congo Basin team”, the email raised “serious concerns” about Keita’s appointment, due to her alleged “very high admiration of Paul Kagame and her public communication to praise and admire him”.
The email, seen by Climate Home, included 15 posts by Keita on X (formerly Twitter), sent between November 2020 and October 2022. They praised Kagame’s “exemplary leadership”, calling him a “visionary”, “rare jewel” and “my Favourite President in the world”. Keita said she had moved to Rwanda “because of the admiration and respect I have for this man!”
A post on Oulie Keita’s X account on November 14, 2020 (Screenshot)
Commenting on this, the email from the Congo Basin team said that having a leader of Greenpeace Africa with that kind of admiration for Kagame was a serious problem for them and their work.
The United Nations has accused the military forces of Rwanda, governed by Kagame since 2000, of sending 4,000 troops to invade parts of neighbouring DRC and of backing Congolese rebel group M23. The violence has displaced millions of people in the DRC, which is home to large swathes of the world’s second-largest rainforest – a huge carbon store whose protection is regarded as vital to curbing global warming.
The email noted that the Congo Basin team had been preparing a statement on the DRC conflict for Greenpeace Africa’s leadership to endorse, “as for us our organisation’s silence on this conflict is no longer acceptable”. It added that the DRC office now believed “our new ED [Keita] would never accept such a statement”.
A mourning ceremony for the victims of the DRC conflict took place in the city of Goma on September 2, 2024. (Photo: Arlette Bashizi/Reuters)
Internal “smear campaign”
The email led to frantic activity at the top of Greenpeace Africa. The organisation’s engagement director brought forward training on social media use and prepared what she called a “risk mitigation comms plan for this particular concern”.
On March 16, 2023, Greenpeace Africa’s then head of communication, Johannesburg-based Mbong Akiy Fokwa Tsafack, sent an email to staff on the subject of “the smear campaign” against the new executive director.
Greenpeace Africa, it said, wanted “to express its ultimate concern and disgust at the onslaught”. It accused unnamed people of using a “colonial approach, of divide and rule, taking advantage of the fragile political situation in the DRC to drive their agenda” and to “resist the transformation that is required to bring credibility to the presence of Greenpeace in Africa”.
UN climate chief warns of “two-speed” global energy transition
Shortly afterwards, Keita herself sent a conciliatory email with no reference to Tsafack’s message. Keita said she had “heard with distress, yet with solidarity, the cries of the staff in the DRC who are rightfully disturbed about tweets on my social media handle”.
The posts, she noted, were made while she led YouthConnekt, which was chaired by Rwanda. “Cheering, supporting and celebrating the political will of these African leaders towards investing in the youth of Africa, including the main Champion the President of Rwanda as the co-initiator of this continental initiative was a big part of the job,” she wrote.
Keita added that she had “no personal political affiliations with any African countries”, thanked colleagues for raising “valid” concerns, and appealed for unity “to build the Africa we all want to live in”.
Keita did not respond to a request for comment for this article. Greenpeace Africa’s website states that the organisation “does not take sides in conflicts and wars on the African continent”, in line with Greenpeace’s global policy on peace.
Congo office closure
About seven months later, in October, Greenpeace Africa’s finance director, South African Gerhard Combrink, held a video call with the DRC office to tell staff there that management had decided “to close down” their office and centralise activities for the Congo Basin in Cameroon.
The announcement seemed to come as a surprise to those attending, many of whom criticised the decision. Combrink said the Greenpeace Africa board had “consulted widely with Greenpeace International and with other [national or regional offices], especially Belgium”, the DRC’s former colonial ruler. But staff in the DRC said on the call they had not been included.
The then lead for the Congo Basin team said that, as three-fifths of the Congo rainforest is in the DRC, losing the office there would be a “historical error” and would damage the organisation’s credibility globally.
The forest – and its central role in keeping climate change in check – is threatened by government-backed efforts to drill for oil and by industrial logging.
“It’s like closing an office in Brazil, and you say you’ll be campaigning from somewhere else to try to save the Amazon forest. It doesn’t work,” the team lead said. “Closing it will send a signal to many other African countries saying that no, this Greenpeace is not an organisation that we can count on,” she warned.
Environmental activists, with a banner co-signed by Greenpeace Africa, protest in Kinshasa, DRC, on November 29, 2019. (Photo: Hereward Holland/Reuters)
Combrink said one “fundamental” reason for the decision was “the security issues we face and our inability to openly confront the government without placing our staff at risk”. He noted that the organisation had evacuated staff to safeguard them against threats. The campaigner, who did not respond to Climate Home’s request for comment, replied that these evacuations had only been “preventive” and no DRC employees had been arrested.
Fundraising prioritised
Combrink said another reason for shutting the DRC office was that, due to the war in Ukraine, funding from Germany – a key source of income for Greenpeace Africa – was drying up. He said that “the [Greenpeace Africa] board is adamant that if we do have activities, it is necessary that we focus on fundraising within those countries”, adding it was not possible to “substantially” raise funds in the DRC, one of Africa’s poorest countries.
In the terms of reference seeking an external consultant to conduct the review – to be hired in August 2023 and reporting to Combrink and Keita – Greenpeace Africa stipulated that its future footprint should “reflect adequate presence in countries affluent enough to raise income for the rest of the organisation”.
In its earlier June 2023 letter to Keita, mandating her to carry out the restructuring, the Greenpeace Africa board had noted that Greenpeace’s global revenue was decreasing against inflation, with the war in Ukraine negatively affecting its donor base and leading to a reduction in grants to regional offices including Africa.
It said staff alone accounted for almost two-thirds of Greenpeace Africa’s total annual projected costs, leaving it “poorly equipped to reduce its expenditure in the short term when its income streams diminish”.
“Given the large fixed overhead costs required to maintain a formal office within a country, it is crucial that we utilize current grant income streams to grow within geographical areas that can provide future donor income streams,” it added.
Several months later, on the call with DRC staff, Combrink said the review had identified Ghana, Nigeria and Mauritius as good targets for expansion, adding that fundraising in Kenya had “started to pick up”.
Responding to his comments, Greenpeace’s then Congo Basin lead argued that, while decisions on where to locate offices should be based on more than finances, DRC was “getting a lot of money compared to other offices”, particularly for its campaign to save the country’s huge rainforest.
A PhD student measures the circumference of a tree in a forest reserve near the village of Masako in the DRC on August 8, 2012. (Photo: Ollivier Girard/CIFOR)
In spite of the subsequent restructuring, which led to most of the DRC office staff leaving, Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home its operations in the country had not ceased and had been strengthened in 2024.
During its latest mission to the DRC in August, to engage with “key stakeholders”, including the government, Greenpeace Africa said the Hydrocarbons Minister confirmed his government’s commitment to remove oil concessions overlapping protected forest areas, including in the Virunga National Park, and invited Greenpeace Africa to help identify the areas threatened by the concessions.
“Such political dialogue provides us a platform to campaign to achieve positive outcomes for the environment and the people in Africa,” Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home by email.
It added that the board’s decision to conduct a “geographic footprint” exercise to consider fundraising potential across the continent also supported this objective – and was not a threat to its activities in poorer countries like DRC.
“This approach does not diminish – in fact it strengthens – our capacity to promote environmental justice in all regions, including those with fewer financial resources,” it told Climate Home.
Union members sue in South Africa
As part of the broader restructuring of the organisation, further job cuts were announced at Greenpeace Africa’s offices in Senegal and South Africa.
Sources who worked at Greenpeace South Africa at that time said unionised staff members were affected by the retrenchment.
A document put together by trade union members, seen by Climate Home, lists 34 union members in Greenpeace Africa’s head office in Johannesburg. Of these, ten were in the fundraising department which trade union sources said was excluded from the restructuring.
Of the remaining 24, 15 were deemed “not suitable” for their positions and were laid off, as were several non-union staff, out of an overall headcount of around 50 employees.

Chart: Climate Home News
A legal document seen by Climate Home, dated May 2024, shows that lawyers acting for affected union members filed a case against Greenpeace Africa with the Labour Court of South Africa in Johannesburg alleging unfair dismissal and failure to follow due process.
It said court-ordered efforts at consultation between the employees and Greenpeace Africa had not resulted in any agreed selection criteria for retrenchment, but their contracts were terminated nonetheless. The case is pending and if not resolved in arbitration, will be heard by the court. Greenpeace did not comment on the proceedings.
Sources also raised questions about whether new staff, brought in after the restructuring, were permitted to unionise in the workplace.
A Greenpeace Africa employment contract from the end of 2023, seen by Climate Home, asked a potential employee in South Africa to “acknowledge that Greenpeace Africa is a non-unionised employer due to the nature of its operations, being a Non-Governmental not-for-profit institution relying on external grants for its survival”.
It requested that the employee “acknowledge that any [trade union] recognition agreement signed before 1 January 2024 is deemed cancelled and should a recognition agreement be required under local labour law, a new agreement will need to be signed in line with Greenpeace Africa’s new policies”.
Senegalese banker Ibrahima Cheikh Diong picked to lead new loss and damage fund
It is not known whether this is a standard clause in employment contracts for Greenpeace Africa staff. The organisation did not respond directly to Climate Home’s questions on this issue, or provide information on its unionisation policy, as requested.
In Senegal too, Climate Home understands that three former staff members have taken Greenpeace Africa to the local labour court. They are seeking damages and a declaration that their dismissals were unfair after they were accused of financial irregularities and other misdemeanours – which they deny. Greenpeace Africa declined to comment on the case, which is at a pre-trial stage pending conciliation efforts.
While Greenpeace’s management have insisted the job losses across their African offices were necessary to keep the organisation financially sustainable, many former staff members told Climate Home the restructuring was used as a way to ram through the changes wanted by the board in the face of internal opposition.
“It’s just a way to kill [the influence of] some activists who do not agree with what they say,” said a former staffer in Senegal “They want people who are very docile.”
Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it recognised that “some people may not be happy with the growing success of the new management”.
“We understand that organisational changes can be challenging, and we made sure that the change management process was carried out legally, fairly and transparently,” it added.
Row over LGBT issues
During the restructuring period, Greenpeace Africa management also took issue with staff members’ criticism of its approach to LGBT+ rights.
In June 2023, Greenpeace Africa debated internally how to mark Pride month and how to respond to the Ugandan government’s new Anti-Homosexuality Act.
Ugandan LGBTQ activists protest against their government in the South African city of Pretoria on March 31, 2023. (Photo: Alet Pretorius/Reuters)
Some LGBT+ employees criticised a plan to hold an all-staff meeting in Johannesburg to discuss these issues, where LGBT+ workers were going to be asked to share their experiences.
In a letter to Greenpeace Africa management, they said this would require them to out themselves and “identify us for further victimisation later”.
Instead, they proposed that external experts on South African labour law, discrimination and gender sensitivity should be brought in to educate staff.
They accused management of “a refusal to maintain professional standards” and of not following South African labour and equality law.
Their email elicited a strongly worded response from Greenpeace Africa governance officer Eugene Perumal, who wrote that they did not represent all of the organisation’s LGBT+ employees. He added that it was “disingenuous and disrespectful to insinuate that Greenpeace Africa Management paid no attention to this particular area”.
He then warned them: “You need to revise the disrespectful manner you engage with Greenpeace Africa senior management, the defamation, false statements and undermining are unacceptable behaviour patterns and [Senior Leadership Team] will take action accordingly.”
COP29 aims to boost battery storage and grids for renewables, as pledges proliferate
Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it had engaged external experts to provide LGBT+ education and support, and ensured that “all staff feel safe and respected during these discussions”. A training workshop in March on this issue “proved very successful”, it added.
The organisation, it said, is “firmly committed to promoting the principles of Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Safety (JEDIS) across all aspects of our work”, including by fostering and maintaining “a safe, inclusive, and supportive environment for all employees, including our LGBTQ+ colleagues”.
More government “collaboration”
The organisational strife and contentious reforms inside Greenpeace Africa have been accompanied by a shift in external strategy, according to documents seen by Climate Home.
An internal report on Greenpeace Africa’s activities at the COP28 UN climate summit in Dubai last December, said that, during meetings, ministers from the Republic of Congo and Cameroon “expressed their strong displeasure with Greenpeace’s confrontational approach in trying to address the issues around climate change”.
A screenshot of Greenpeace Africa’s internal report on the COP28 climate summit
The report did not describe what they objected to, but said that Keita “reassured [the ministers] of a new approach of collaboration” and noted they “were willing to reset the relationship with [Greenpeace Africa] under the new leadership and map out areas of collaboration in the near future”.
This approach was criticised by former staff members. “It’s not the DNA of Greenpeace,” one said. “How can you be friendly with the government and it is killing people?” Another said, “it felt like we were being neutered.”
Greenpeace Africa, told Climate Home that, under its current management, it “supports the building of a climate justice movement across Africa to hold the extractive industries and governments to account”. It had launched its first such movement in the DRC, Cameroon and Ghana, with plans to expand into the Republic of Congo and Nigeria in 2025, it added.
In addition, Greenpeace Africa pointed to its lobbying work against the oil industry and its impacts on the continent, as well as its advocacy calling for plastic waste to be cleaned up in Kenya, and more protection for oceans and the livelihoods of African fishing communities, among other campaigns.
Greenpeace International silent
Despite the apparent turmoil experienced at Greenpeace Africa over the past 18 months, Climate Home understands that its parent organisation Greenpeace International has not intervened to help resolve the documented issues. Greenpeace did not respond directly when asked about this.
Greenpeace Africa is one of 26 Greenpeace branches around the world, known as national/regional organisations or NROs. They all have some independence but are overseen by Greenpeace International, which is based in the Dutch city of Amsterdam.
Nairobi-based development officer Yvonne Muyoti, who is in charge of monitoring Greenpeace Africa for Greenpeace International, was copied on the emails from Keita and Tsafack about DRC staff concerns over Rwanda.
Greenpeace Africa told Climate Home it is an independent NRO guided by its board of directors but collaborates closely with Greenpeace International. “We value the support and oversight provided by Greenpeace International,” it said.
Some former staff members of Greenpeace Africa, however, are concerned that a lack of racial diversity in the upper levels of Greenpeace International – whose top executives are mostly white and from rich countries – is preventing the global parent organisation from intervening in the African disarray.
One black female former Greenpeace Africa staff member told Climate Home she believed Greenpeace International was reluctant to challenge Keita over her leadership style: “I think they are worried about how it will look – a Eurocentric organisation taking on a black woman.”
Another former employee described Greenpeace Africa as his “baby”, but said those now in charge “don’t know the DNA of the organisation”.
“People in Greenpeace have to be strong and be up against all the injustice they are facing in the organisation,” he said. “The fight must start inside before it goes outside.”
(Reporting by Joe Lo; fact-checking by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Megan Rowling, Sebastian Rodriguez and Matteo Civillini)
The post Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance appeared first on Climate Home News.
Greenpeace Africa in disarray as restructuring meets resistance
Climate Change
Bonn Bulletin: Adaptation Fund stalemate puts people at risk, says head
Dark clouds are gathering over adaptation finance. The US has all but stopped providing it and European countries are slashing their aid budgets to spend more on their militaries. Much of what is flowing comes in the form of loans and doesn’t reach the most vulnerable, as we’ve reported.
Over the years, one bright spark has been the Adaptation Fund and its grants to developing countries for pioneering work in communities. It has allocated $1.6 billion to 226 projects, benefiting 90 million people, its website says. And, while rich nations are failing to give the fund all the money it needs to finance its growing pipeline, new revenues are supposed to come in from the Paris Agreement’s new carbon market, known as Article 6.4.
Back at COP26 in Glasgow, governments agreed that the Adaptation Fund should get 5% of the proceeds from all Article 6.4 carbon credits – other than those based in small islands and least developed countries.
How much money that will amount to is uncertain. It depends on how many projects there are and the price of their credits.
The fund got over $200 million from a similar share of proceeds under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), although the price of those credits collapsed.
While $200 million was a disappointment as ten times that was expected, the Adaptation Fund head Mikko Ollikainen told Climate Home News in Bonn that the sum was “not insignificant”. By comparison, the fund has been seeking $300 million per year from donor governments in recent years.
Hopes are that the CDM’s successor will yield bigger sums for adaptation. But for the fund to get its hands on the share of cash it is expecting from Article 6.4 projects , governments need to agree to transition the fund to “exclusively” serve the Paris Agreement. They are hoping to wrap up those talks in Bonn this week, so that they can rubber-stamp the decision early at COP31.
It has not been plain-sailing. As small islands’ lead negotiator Anne Rasmussen told a press conference on Tuesday, this transition “is being blocked, frustrating efforts to replenish the fund and ensure that the crucial adaptation finance can flow to those that need it the most”.
This issue, along with other finance complaints, leads small islands “to question whether the implementation of the NCQG [the 2035 finance goal agreed at COP29] is dead on arrival”, she added.
The problem is related to who is considered a developed country at UN climate talks, with the responsibilities for providing climate finance that designation implies.
Traditional donor countries, which have been pushing for years for some wealthier developing countries like Saudi Arabia and China to contribute to climate finance as well, want the Adaptation Fund’s board seats to be split between “developed” and “developing” countries.
They argue that these are the categories referred to in the Paris Agreement and so are appropriate for a fund that exclusively serves that accord.
Developing countries – which have long opposed any of their members being considered developed – argue that the board seats should continue to be split between “Annex 1” and “non-Annex 1” countries.
These categories, based on lists of nations drawn up in 1992, are more rigid than “developed” and “developing”. While development status can change over time, you’re either on the Annex 1 list or you’re not.
Ollikainen said a delay in agreement beyond COP31 – a risk if the issue is not resolved here in Bonn – would harm people in the real world where adaptation needs are rising sharply while the money to protect them from worsening climate impacts is not.
“If we don’t address adaptation,” the fund’s head told Climate Home News, “that will lead to loss and damage and that’s going to be even more costlier than adaptation – and the cost will be borne by people who have done least to cause this problem who typically don’t have social safety networks to support them.”
The post Bonn Bulletin: Adaptation Fund stalemate puts people at risk, says head appeared first on Climate Home News.
Bonn Bulletin: Adaptation Fund stalemate puts people at risk, says head
Climate Change
Analysis: Energy-efficient air conditioning could save Indian homes 69bn rupees a year
More energy-efficient air-conditioning units could, together, save Indian households ₹69bn ($724m) a year, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Climate change-induced extreme heat is driving up the use of air conditioning across the country, as people try to cope with record-breaking temperatures.
This demand, however, is straining the country’s power grid and raising emissions.
On 21 May 2026, India’s power demand reached a record 270 gigawatts (GW), fuelled by a heatwave sweeping across the country and a surge in air-conditioning demand.
Carbon Brief’s analysis shows that, if the roughly 15m households expected to buy a new air conditioning (AC) unit this year bought a “five-star” rated one instead of a “two-star”, it would cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by nearly 5m tonne (Mt).
The installation of AC units in India is currently uneven and ongoing challenges remain, predominantly around the cost of the technology.
Below, Carbon Brief looks at what more energy-efficient models would mean for India’s emissions and household electricity savings, as well as opportunities and barriers to cooling access.
Record heat
Historically, India has had one of the lowest levels of access to cooling in the world. As the nation continues to see an increasing number of heatwave days, this is shifting.
For example, India saw record-breaking heat in 2024 and nearly 14m air conditioners sold – up from 10m in 2023.
Between 2021 and 2023, AC sales volumes increased by more than 25% year-on-year in India.
While solar power is playing an increasing role in meeting the daytime electricity demand from these units, coal power plays a significant role in powering air conditioners on warm nights.
By 2037, India’s space-cooling demand was expected to grow nearly 11-fold in a business-as-usual scenario compared to 2017, according to the government’s 2019 India Cooling Action Plan (ICAP).
According to a World Bank study, this would mean a new air-conditioning unit is bought every 15 seconds in India. There would also be a 435% increase in annual greenhouse gas emissions related to air conditioning in the country over the next two decades.
The chart below shows the ICAP’s estimated rise in air conditioner units in India from 2021 to 2037. The blue line represents a high-growth scenario, while the green line corresponds to a low-growth scenario.

Growing demand
Despite the upswing in installations over recent years, it remains rare for households to have access to air conditioning in India.
According to India’s national sample survey in 2020-21, only 4.9% of Indian households owned air conditioning, with ownership concentrated among the urban rich. As of 2024, this had increased to around 8%.
(Ownership of evaporative air coolers is significantly higher than it is for air conditioning, particularly in the arid north and central Indian states, where humidity is low.)
Dr Nikit Abhyankar, an associate adjunct professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley, tells Carbon Brief that India is set to add between 100-150m new air conditioners in the next 10 years, which could go up to 200m “if you factor in the crazy heatwaves”.
According to his research, the two factors that drive “dramatic” sales of ACs are income and extreme temperatures.
He tells Carbon Brief:
“The moment you cross a specific income threshold, the first appliance you buy is an air conditioner, no matter whether it’s hot or not. And the moment there are extreme temperatures, the next summer, you see a huge wave of new ACs being purchased.”
With that in mind, he says India offers a “classic lock-in opportunity”, since 90% of the air conditioners that will exist in 2040 have yet to be purchased, particularly given the tendency among Indian users to repair and reuse units. Abhyankar continues:
“That’s why making sure that first AC purchase is the most efficient one is very important in India, because that AC is not going out of the market in seven years.”
Energy-efficient units
With the number of air-conditioning units in India on the rise, ensuring they are as energy-efficient as possible could save households money, while cutting emissions and electricity demand.
India’s Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) mandates star ratings for air conditioners to indicate their efficiency. It uses a metric called the Indian seasonal energy efficiency ratio (ISEER), which is based on an India-specific temperature distribution.
Ratings range from one to five stars, with the latter being the most energy-efficient.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), three-star units “dominate” India’s air-conditioning market, “possibly due to [up-front] cost considerations”, while four- and five-star units account for a minority of sales.
The chart below shows AC production volumes in India between 2019 and 2023 by energy-efficiency star rating, according to the IEA.

Carbon Brief analysis finds that buying a five-star air conditioner could cut the emissions associated with generating electricity to run the unit by around 300 kilograms (kg) of CO2 per year, when compared to a two-star unit.
As such, if all 15m air-conditioning units expected to be sold in 2026 were five-star, it could save 5MtCO2 annually.
This is roughly equivalent to the emissions from an average-sized coal-fired power plant, the analysis shows.
In a year, the lower electricity demand from more efficient units could mean ₹69bn ($724m) in cost savings for consumers, as shown in the chart below. Each affected household could save ₹4,600 ($48) annually on their bills.

There are also significant savings from five-star units compared with three-stars, amounting to around 150kgCO2 and ₹2,300 ($24) per household per year.
Carbon Brief’s illustrative analysis is supported by a new working paper from the India Energy and Climate Center (IECC) at UC Berkeley, which looks at the longer-term impact of AC demand on electricity demand and emissions, as well as grid investment costs and consumer savings.
Released in May 2026, it says that room air conditioners already account for nearly a quarter of India’s peak electricity demand (60-70GW).
The authors estimate that AC-driven peak power demand could reach 120GW by 2030 and 180GW by 2035, pushing India’s power grid beyond its capacity. They warn:
“Even with all under-construction generation and storage projects online, power shortages are expected as early as 2028.”
Sustained energy-efficiency improvements, however, could reduce this cooling-driven peak power demand by 10GW by 2030 and 47GW by 2035.
They estimate that these improvements could help avoid nearly $80bn in power infrastructure investments and deliver $9-25bn in consumer savings between 2028 and 2035, while reducing emissions by 12MtCO2 per year by 2030.
Rolling out five-star units
While there are emissions and cost benefits to five-star air-conditioning units compared to the alternatives, the higher upfront costs can still present a barrier.
These more energy-efficient units can pay for their higher purchase price over a three-year period, but on average cost ₹5,000 to ₹8,000 ($52-84) more upfront than a three-star unit.
Researchers at the Indian climate thinktank Sustainable Futures Collaborative (SFC) called on Indian state and national governments to create a “highly-targeted active cooling” programme last year.
They recommended deploying a subsidy or a large-scale purchase programme that allows families to buy energy-efficient air conditioners. This, they said, must be targeted at portions of Indian cities with the highest heat risk, determined by the vulnerability assessments of their heat action plans.
Climate adaptation researcher at King’s College London and SFC author Aditya Valiathan Pillai tells Carbon Brief:
“Commit money to air conditioning for the poorest-of-the-poor: subsidise ultra-efficient ACs and electricity, but give them cool air at the cheapest possible, most efficient rate.
“Because these are the people running the economy, which is not going to function in a heatwave if these people are dying or unable to work.”
Methodology
Carbon Brief’s analysis is based on official energy consumption, power pricing and emissions data from different ministries and government institutions.
It uses BEE’s “search and compare” tool to list all five-star and three-star “variable speed” or “inverter” air conditioners, given their enhanced efficiency and ability to regulate humidity.
This was then filtered to air conditioners with a capacity of 1.5t, which studies say are most preferred by Indian households.
Using the same tool, Carbon Brief then listed all “fixed speed” two-star ACs of a similar capacity (1.45t to 1.55t), given that these account for the majority of two-star ACs available on the market and favoured by renters.
Based on expert estimates, the analysis lists the energy consumption of each of these key categories in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and added 15% to account for losses in power transmission and distribution.
The carbon intensity of Indian electricity is specified by the CO2 baseline database published by India’s Central Electricity Authority in November 2025.
The number of hours per year a household’s air conditioning runs is estimated at 1,600 hours by the BEE.
Carbon Brief uses a marginal electricity tariff of ₹10 per kWh to calculate annual electricity consumption costs.
This is because average electricity tariffs vary significantly from state to state, but especially by energy consumption “slabs”, with AC use pushing bills into higher-tariff rates.
For instance, in Maharashtra, electricity tariffs for domestic households range from ₹1.52 per unit for below-poverty-line households to ₹16.64 per unit for homes using more than 500 units of electricity.
Savings from higher energy efficiency, therefore, reduce electricity consumption in the highest electricity tariff block, where rates are the most expensive.
Cooling hours
Air-conditioner usage varies across India’s climatic zones. The ISEER metric that underpins star ratings estimates that, on average, a household air conditioner runs for 1, 600 hours a year.
This estimate is based on 2014 weather data for 54 cities across India, to see how many hours in a year temperatures exceed 24C.
Refrigerant emissions
The analysis only accounts for emissions from electricity generation and does not factor in “fugitive” emissions from refrigerant leaks.
These are significant, given that refrigerants are greenhouse gases that can have hundreds of times more warming potential than CO2.
According to a study published by climate thinktank iForest last year, Indian households with air conditioning are refilling their refrigerants more frequently than the global average.
It estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from refrigerant release from India’s air conditioners were 52Mt of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in 2024, likely to increase to 84MtCO2e by 2035.
Cooling access and population data
Government estimates vary on how many Indian households do not own a single air conditioner, with little publicly available data differentiating between cooling devices and a delayed national census.
India’s national sample survey, published in 2020-21, is the only one of its kind in recent years to separate air-conditioner ownership from air cooler ownership, estimating that only 4.9% of all Indian households owned an air conditioner.
The post Analysis: Energy-efficient air conditioning could save Indian homes 69bn rupees a year appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Energy-efficient air conditioning could save Indian homes 69bn rupees a year
Climate Change
Coral reefs are not doomed – but policy must catch up with the science
Dr. Stacy Jupiter is the Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Global Marine Program. Melissa Wright is Bloomberg Ocean Initiative Lead at Bloomberg Philanthropies.
For years, the dominant story on coral reefs has been one of inevitable loss, with news headlines focusing on mass bleaching, ecosystem collapse, and catastrophic tipping points. As ocean temperatures continue to rise, many people have come to see the decline of the world’s reefs as unavoidable.
The threats are real and urgent, but new evidence points to a more complicated and useful conclusion: some reefs still have a meaningful chance to survive and recover, provided they are protected.
A major new analysis, published today with the support of Bloomberg Philanthropies, identifies more than 165,000 square kilometers of coral reefs, across 71 countries and 100 territories and jurisdictions, with the strongest potential to withstand and recover from climate impacts.
Drawing on more than 45,000 coral surveys, along with decades of climate and ocean data, the research finds that three times more reefs may be capable of surviving the climate crisis than previously understood. That has major implications for reef-dependent communities, food security, coastal protection, fisheries, tourism, and national economies.
Essential natural infrastructure for communities
The findings make clear that reefs will not all respond to climate impacts in the same way. Some are located in rare underwater cool spots that can help shield them from extreme heat. Some show greater resistance to bleaching and other climate-related stress. Others recover more quickly after severe disturbances. These differences matter because they show where protection can have the greatest long-term impact.
More than 500 million people depend on reefs for food, livelihoods, and coastal protection. For those communities, climate-resilient reefs are not an abstract conservation priority. They are essential natural infrastructure. They help protect coastlines, sustain fisheries, support local economies, and reduce climate risk. Because ocean currents move coral larvae and marine life between reef systems, some of these reefs may also help regenerate wider reef ecosystems after climate shocks.
This should change how governments, funders, and conservation partners prioritize action.
Climate change remains the greatest long-term threat to coral reefs. At the same time, many of the pressures pushing reefs closer to collapse are immediate and local. Sewage pollution, deforestation, agricultural runoff, destructive fishing practices, and poorly managed coastal development continue to damage reefs that are already under stress. Recent research shows that water pollution and fishing pressure are now among the leading local threats affecting nearly two-thirds of the world’s coral reefs.
These pressures can be reduced. Governments and local partners are already working to improve reef management, cut pollution, strengthen enforcement, and protect critical ecosystems. Those efforts need to move faster, alongside much stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Prioritising climate-resilient reefs
The new maps of climate-resilient reefs give governments, communities, and reef managers a clearer basis for action. They show where reefs have the strongest potential to persist over time, and where protection can deliver the greatest benefits for people, coastlines, and economies.
Right now, only around 28 percent of the identified climate-resilient reefs fall within protected or conserved areas. If these reefs are among the most capable of surviving climate impacts and helping regenerate broader reef systems, they should be prioritized for protection, management, and investment.
The case for action is practical as well as ecological. Healthy reefs can reduce wave energy by up to 97 percent, helping protect coastlines from storms, flooding, and erosion. They support fisheries that feed millions of people, sustain tourism jobs and local economies, and help reduce climate risk for vulnerable coastal communities.
For many families, a healthy reef means food, income, and protection when storms hit. For Indigenous Peoples and coastal communities, reefs are also tied to culture, heritage, identity, and traditional knowledge systems.
Ocean conservation must catch up
Governments are beginning to recognize the urgency of protecting climate-resilient reefs. At last year’s UN Ocean Conference in Nice, 11 countries signed a declaration committing to stronger protection of these reefs, including action to address destructive fishing, pollution, and unsustainable coastal development.
As leaders meet in Kenya this week to discuss the challenges facing the world’s ocean, more governments should join the declaration and help build a broader coalition committed to safeguarding these critical ecosystems.
As coral reefs pass tipping point, ocean protection rises up political agenda
Some countries are already showing what this leadership can look like. Brazil has included corals in its national climate plans. The Bahamas is embedding reef protection into national policy and local stewardship systems. The declaration offers a way to build on these efforts and scale them globally.
But commitments will not be enough. Success will depend on implementation. That means stronger protection and management, reduced local pressures, increased investment, and meaningful support for the Indigenous Peoples and local communities stewarding these ecosystems.
The science is clear. Many reefs still have the capacity to persist and recover. The question is whether policy and investment will move quickly enough to protect them, so they can continue sustaining communities, economies, and coastlines for generations to come.
The post Coral reefs are not doomed – but policy must catch up with the science appeared first on Climate Home News.
Coral reefs are not doomed – but policy must catch up with the science
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 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 Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测








