China and India accounted for 87% of the new coal-power capacity put into operation in the first half of 2025, whereas other regions continued to move away from coal.
These developments, highlighting a growing global divide between many countries phasing out coal power and a handful continuing to expand new capacity, are revealed in Global Energy Monitor’s latest Global Coal Plant Tracker results and reported here for the first time.
The results include Ireland becoming the fifth EU country to phase out coal power and Latin America becoming a region with zero active proposals for new coal capacity.
Meanwhile, the results show the US is on track to retire more coal capacity in 2025 than it did under the Biden administration last year, despite the efforts of the Trump White House.
Moreover, rather than follow the US in turning away from clean-energy leadership, other countries have continued their efforts to phase down coal power, with “just energy transition partnerships” (JETPs) advancing in Vietnam, Indonesia and South Africa during 2025 to date.
EU and Latin America pave the way for coal phaseout
The EU and Latin America are emerging as the global leaders in phasing out coal power, according to GEM’s analysis.
On the heels of the UK coal phaseout in 2024, Ireland stopped the use of coal power in June 2025, with nine EU countries expected to follow suit through 2029, including Spain, France and the Netherlands.
In total, all but three EU countries are planning to phase out coal by 2033, as shown in the chart below.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), coal power should be virtually phased out in advanced economies by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2040 to keep warming below 1.5C, as the Paris Agreement targets.
Development has also ceased in the region. No new coal plants have been proposed in the EU since 2018 and no coal plants have entered construction since 2019.
The coal phaseout in the EU and UK has been driven by a combination of country commitments and supporting policies and regulations, including air and carbon pollution limits on power plants, carbon pricing and policy support for clean-energy deployment.
Coal-power capacity retirements in the EU stalled for two years, following gas shortage concerns in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but they have since accelerated.
Coal capacity retired in the first half of 2025 (2.5GW) has already nearly exceeded all of 2023 (2.7GW) – with another 11GW planned for retirement in the EU by the end of the year.
GEM data shows that, in Latin America, the shelving of two coal-plant proposals in Honduras and Brazil in 2025 has left the region with no new coal plants actively proposed, as shown in the chart below – a collapse of the 18 plants totalling 7.3GW of capacity proposed in 2015.
This followed the entry of Honduras into the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) in May and the lack of new coal plants proposed in Brazil’s 2025 national energy auctions, with a decrease in coal-power generation projected through 2034 in Brazil’s most recent 10-year energy plan.
Latin America is also nearly on track for a coal-power pathway that would be aligned with the 1.5C target of the Paris Agreement. More than 60% (10GW) of its 16.3GW of operating coal-power capacity is scheduled to come offline by 2040.
China and India continue to dominate
China and India dominated coal development in the first half of 2025, as the two countries had more new proposals, construction starts and coal plants commissioned than the rest of the world combined, GEM’s tracker shows.
As the chart below shows, there were 74.7GW and 12.8GW of newly proposed coal projects in China and India, respectively, in the first half of 2025, compared to just 11GW in the rest of the world.
Construction starts and restarts in China also reached 46GW, putting the country on track to match the record levels of 2024, when more than 97GW of coal-power plants began construction.
As discussed in GEM’s recent joint report with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), major coal-producing provinces, including Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shandong and Shaanxi, are among the provinces commissioning and building the most new coal power, as shown in the chart below.
This expansion is backed by established permitting pathways, strong local power companies and a reliable flow of investment.
Yet, China has also been installing record amounts of clean energy, with more than 500GW of solar and wind power expected to come online in 2025. The increased generation from solar and wind power exceeded the increase in power demand in the first half of 2025, helping drive down China’s CO2 emissions by 1% compared to last year.
As clean energy has gained growing significance in China’s energy mix, more attention is being placed on renewables’ role in energy security and on coal power’s future as a flexible, supporting resource rather than as a primary generator.
Despite this narrative shift, coal remains deeply embedded in China’s power system, with little public discussion of its phasedown or eventual exit.
Coal-plant development is also on the rise in India, GEM’s tracker shows.
Commissioning of new coal plants in the country in H1 2025 (5.1GW) has already exceeded all of last year (4.2GW), as shown in the chart below.
Proposed coal-power capacity in India has also been on the rise, led by a record 38.4GW of coal-plant proposals in 2024 – driving up proposed coal capacity to over 92GW as of July 2025.
Retirements also remained sluggish in India, with 0.8GW retired in H1 2025 and just 0.2GW retired in 2024 and 2023, according to GEM’s tracker.
The decline follows 2023 guidance by India’s Central Electricity Authority (CEA) advising power utilities not to retire any thermal power capacity until 2030. In 2025, the country’s environment ministry again delayed long-pending sulfur dioxide regulations on coal plants.
Yet India also added more than 28GW of wind and solar power in 2025, a nearly 50% increase over the previous year. Despite the growth, the Indian government has stated that it is planning a coal expansion, with coal use not projected to peak until 2040, according to India’s Ministry of Coal.
In both China and India, coal retains its policy support, with clean energy framed, not as a replacement, but as a supplement – reinforcing a dual-track energy strategy that postpones difficult decisions on coal phaseout.
The US goes big on ageing coal plants
Like China and India, the US under President Donald Trump is also supporting coal power. Unlike China and India, however, the US has reversed course on clean energy in the first half of 2025.
During his tenure, former US president Joe Biden reached an agreement with other G7 nations to phase out coal power by 2035, offered incentives for clean energy under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and moved to finalise pending power plant regulations – effectively helping replace the nation’s ageing coal plants with lower-cost solar and wind power while boosting domestic cleantech manufacturing.
The Trump administration has moved to derail Biden’s agenda by phasing out the clean energy tax credits, repealing coal plant regulations and slowing or halting solar and wind power permitting and financing.
It has also been using “emergency powers” to keep coal plants online, racking up $29m in costs to extend the life of Michigan’s Campbell plant through the summer – costs the utility is seeking to pass on to ratepayers for power the grid operator said was not needed.
Despite the political support for coal, the US remains on track to retire more coal power in 2025 than in 2024, with 3.7GW retired as of July.
Whether this trend continues in an increasingly uncertain environment for clean energy remains to be seen, as plant closures are often part of long-term plans and economic considerations, usually extensively negotiated with state regulators and based on broader considerations than just current federal policy.
In all, US utilities are slated to close nearly 100GW of coal capacity by 2035, as shown in the chart below. By then, the average age of a US coal plant will be 55 years.
The US also saw a new coal plant proposal in H1 2025, bringing the total to three proposals according to GEM’s tracker, the most of any OECD country. All three plan to incorporate carbon capture and storage, although none have the necessary permits for construction.
Just energy transition partnerships advance despite hurdles
Despite delayed documentation, ongoing negotiations and the withdrawal of the US from International Partner Group participation, JETP agreements in Vietnam, Indonesia and South Africa are all continuing to progress.
In Vietnam, three clean-energy investment projects have officially penned financing agreements as of July 2025, getting the country one step closer to mobilising JETP capital.
Just a few months prior, Vietnam released an adjustment to its latest power development plan, which featured substantial increases in projected wind and solar capacity and a modest increase in projected hydropower capacity.
However, the plan also includes a 1GW increase in projected coal power by 2030, as shown in the chart below.
The new figure for peak coal, 31.1GW, coincides with the interest from state-owned utility EVN to revive a coal plant previously considered to be cancelled.
In Indonesia, the release of the latest electricity supply business plan (RUPTL 2025–2034) in May 2025 resulted in a spike in new and revived proposals for on-grid coal capacity. This was alongside the continued growth of off-grid, captive-coal plant proposals to power industrial areas, as GEM’s tracker shows.
Accounting for these captive-coal plants in Indonesia’s JETP documentation has presented a challenge, but Indonesia’s JETP secretariat has reiterated that updates to the country’s JETP comprehensive investment and policy plan are ongoing through the first six months of 2025 to address emissions from captive plants and incorporate efficiency targets.
Disparity remains between the government’s stated renewable energy ambitions and the reality of present advancements at the project level. Presidential regulation 112/2022 targets a 2050 national coal phaseout date in Indonesia and President Prabowo Subianto has more recently made overtures to an even faster 2040 coal phaseout.
Meanwhile, Indonesia’s proposed coal-power capacity grew by 5.1GW in H1 2025, to 17.1GW overall, as shown in the chart below.
In South Africa, the government has also reiterated its commitment to its JETP agreement. While Vietnam and Indonesia have substantial numbers of recently built coal plants and plants in continued development, South Africa operates a fleet of old, unreliable coal plants.
World Bank-linked funding for South Africa’s energy transition was approved in June 2025. While solidifying a climate investment fund, the plan also included the delayed closure of three coal plants that already average more than 50 years of age (Camden, Hendrina and Grootvlei).
All three countries are continuing down the dual paths of simultaneously extending coal’s lifetime and maintaining just energy transition commitments, banking on “all of the above” approaches and, ultimately, causing misalignment with JETP principles.
Yet, the continued progress of their just energy transition programs, despite global political and economic volatility, is a strong indicator that policy and planning priorities could soon align towards the phaseout of coal.
The post Guest post: China and India account for 87% of new coal-power capacity so far in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: China and India account for 87% of new coal-power capacity so far in 2025
The US is expected to resume its attempt to sink measures for a greener global shipping sector at closed-door talks between governments at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in early September.
The US and oil-producing allies like Saudi Arabia want to weaken a proposed plan for cleaner fuels that aims to reduce planet-heating emissions from the industry, which relies heavily on dirty bunker fuels. Shipping currently represents 3% of global emissions.
Those that want a softer system are likely to back a Liberian proposal which expert analysis suggests would see emissions fall by only half at most by 2050, far short of the sector’s agreed climate goals.
After several years of debate, governments provisionally agreed in April 2025 on the “Net Zero Framework” (NZF), a series of emissions reduction targets for shipowners, backed up with financial rewards for meeting the targets and fees for missing them.
But in October 2025, after a high-profile intervention from US President Donald Trump and threats of sanctions and visa restrictions, the US convinced a majority of voting nations to postpone the adoption of the NZF for a year.
Ralph Regenvanu, climate minister for the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, called the delay “unacceptable” given the urgency of accelerating climate change.
After a round of low-profile talks in May, the first of three further sets of talks on how to clean up shipping will begin at the IMO’s riverside headquarters in London on Tuesday, culminating in a final public session in November.
Em Fenton, who follows the talks as senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, an NGO focused on aviation and shipping, said governments should not be sidetracked by alternative proposals to the NZF, calling them “a distraction from a hard-fought multilateral compromise”.
“If countries want to deliver a just and fair maritime transition, there is really only one choice: back the NZF and stand together in solidarity against those who would tear it apart,” Fenton added.
Five proposals on the table
Governments will discuss five different proposals submitted in advance of next week’s meeting. The most ambitious of these is from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, which has proposed a levy on the entirety of a ship’s emissions rather than just those above a certain level, as the NZF envisions.
That had been the original demand of Pacific nations before the NZF was provisionally adopted in April 2025. At the time, Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe described the NZF as disappointing and not ambitious enough.
For this reason, six Pacific countries abstained in the vote on the NZF. While they supported the original plan for its adoption in October 2025, they have used the delay to push again for more ambition.
John Kautoke, advisor to a group of Pacific nations called 6PAC+, told Climate Home News that the NZF “cannot diminish its already inadequate ambition. If anything, the NZF must increase in ambition if we are going to renegotiate its parameters.”
-
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
A new bill prevents corporations being sued for the climate damage their emissions cause, as the government says climate action should be handled at the national level not in court -
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue -
As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31
Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans
Analysis by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) suggests that, of the five proposals, only Tuvalu’s would meet the 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets for global shipping that were agreed by governments in 2023. Those were for cuts of 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and then reaching net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”.
Despite this, the UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa have formally proposed that governments adopt the NZF, which won support in a 63-13 vote among governments at the April 2025 talks. Trump’s US walked out halfway through.
According to IMarEst’s analysis, while the NZF proposal will not be enough to meet the industry’s targets, it will reduce emissions more cheaply than the Pacific proposal.
A proposal by Brazil – which fought hard for the NZF last October – suggests tweaking the framework to make meeting targets easier in the short term and harder in the long term.
While this compromise will make it more appealing to the owners of polluting ships and countries that support them, IMarEst estimates it would lead to higher cumulative emissions than either the NZF or Pacific proposals.
The NZF stipulates that fees for high-polluting shipowners should be be put into a Net Zero Fund and used to promote clean shipping fuels and a fairer transition. The Brazilian proposal would delay raising and spending these funds by two years, from 2029 to 2031.
Liberia’s proposal weakens emissions cuts
The US and Saudi Arabia are likely to swing behind a new proposal from Liberia, whose government makes millions of dollars a year selling the right for shipowners to register their vessels in the small West African nation via a US-based company.
This proposal would weaken the emissions reduction targets. IMarEst says it would cut the industry’s emissions at most by a half by 2050, falling far short of the target agreed in 2023 for international shipping to reach net zero “close to 2050”.
It would also replace the NZF’s fees for missing targets with a carbon trading system. As a result, there would be no Net Zero Fund and therefore less money available to incentivise green fuels and make the transition more equitable for poorer nations.
Pacific advisor Kautoke said that, as well as preventing shipping from reaching zero emissions by 2050, Liberia’s proposal would mean the Pacific “will not receive any support to deal with the disproportionately negative impacts created by the cost of the transition”.
“We get a double blow if we adopt the Liberian proposal,” he warned. “We get all the cost of a transition without any support, and we have an industry that continues to burn fossil fuels to an unforeseen point.”
Japanese proposal favours shipowners
Japan has submitted a late proposal to amend the NZF so that shipowners have more control over how the fees they would pay for emitting above a set threshold are spent.
University College London professor Tristan Smith has argued that this change means there will be no central mechanism to incentivise investments in clean fuels. He wrote on LinkedIn that under the system put forward by Japan, shipowners would be able to select which green projects their fees would go to. They could choose their own or those of a sister company or other shipowners, rather than funding broader just transition projects that would benefit marine workers or developing countries hit by rising shipping costs.
Despite its flaws, Smith added that Japan’s proposal “could still get taken seriously by some, given how appealing it may seem to shipowners who have consistently demanded control of revenues, and given how the US and other member states have pushed back against the IMO Net Zero Fund and [greenhouse gas] pricing.”
Tacit or explicit approval?
Next week, governments are expected to make statements saying which proposals – or which aspects of proposals – they prefer. Another set of talks will be held from November 23-27 before a potentially final round from November 30-December 4.
A new framework to tackle shipping emissions could be adopted at those talks if two-thirds of countries that are present and signed up to a regulation called Marpol Annex VI – endorsed by just over 100 states – vote in favour of it, as they did in April 2025.
The US and its allies are also trying to change the rules to make the next stage more difficult. Decisions that have been adopted at IMO meetings usually take effect automatically unless a certain number of countries object within a certain time period decided by governments, a system known as tacit approval.
But the US wants that to require explicit approval instead, so that any new emissions standard would not come into force unless enough governments – representing a certain percentage of the world’s shipping fleet – actively indicate support for it.
Critics say this change would give a small number of countries with large shipping registries the power to block implementation. Liberia has the world’s biggest shipping registry, run by an American company, followed by Panama and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Liberia and Panama have supported the US at the talks on the Net Zero Framework. The Marshall Islands has long been one of the most vocal supporters of climate action in shipping but, with its officials and shipping registry income vulnerable to US retaliation, did not sign on to the recent Pacific proposal vowing to strengthen the NZF if it is re-opened.
Brazilian negotiator Adriana de Medeiros Gabinio warned in April that the NZF’s opponents are trying to change the rules by which it comes into force as a “safety net to block” it.
The post Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks
SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.
Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:
“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.
“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.
“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
-
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