- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Bill Hare is CEO and senior scientist with Climate Analytics.
The term “hard-to-abate” is widely claimed by heavy industry like the iron and steel sector to argue against having to reduce emissions quickly, or to justify their continued faith in carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) – or offsets – to meet climate goals.
But continuing to classify highly polluting industrial sectors as “hard-to-abate” is jeopardising the world’s ability to achieve global net-zero CO2 emissions by around mid-century, critical to the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5C.
In a recent report, we have taken a forensic look at the iron and steel (and cement) sectors, showing how the “hard-to-abate” label has shaped both policy and industrial actions in ways that risk undermining the urgency and effectiveness of global climate mitigation efforts.
The iron and steel sector accounts for 7-8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Technologies for achieving zero emissions in steel production are currently available at commercial scale, with strong policy support.
Colombia announces fossil fuel phase-out summit to be held in 2026
Yet this sector has convinced governments that it cannot mitigate its emissions without CCS – as evidenced by the recent German government announcement that sets aside €6 billion ($7 billion) to deal with hard-to-abate sectors like steel, which includes inviting proposals for CCS projects.
Iron and steel emissions are currently projected to be just 10% lower in 2050. Yet, in top-down scenarios that limit warming to 1.5C – such as the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions roadmap – combined CO2 emissions for iron and steel fall by about 23% by 2030 below 2023 levels, 46% by 2035 and 94% by 2050.
Existing tech and demand reduction can cut emissions
Steel is produced by one of three different methods. Nearly three-quarters of the world’s steel is still produced with the highly polluting “blast furnace to basic oxygen furnace” (BF-BOF). Here, coal is turned into coke at high temperatures to provide the carbon monoxide required to turn iron ore into iron. Coal typically also powers the furnace, where the steelmaking occurs. All stages of this process produce CO2.
The second is “direct reduced iron to electric arc furnace” (DRI-EAF) where iron ore is reduced in a direct reduction furnace in a solid state using a reduction gas such as hydrogen or syngas (often derived from fossil fuels). As the name implies, electric arc furnaces are powered by electricity, so there’s a choice of electricity generation sources.
Lastly, there’s scrap steel recycling in Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF), which can also be entirely powered by renewables.
This sector, we find, could feasibly reach near-zero residual CO2 emissions by around 2050 based on currently available technologies. If complemented by strong demand-side interventions without large-scale CCUS, this sector could potentially eliminate the need for negative CO2 emissions.
Carbon colonialism? Malaysia and Indonesia plan storage hubs for Asian emissions
Demand reduction measures, such as increased use of secondary steel and improving material efficiency, could reduce steel requirements by up to 20% by 2050, making deep decarbonisation even more achievable. Substantial emissions reductions could be achieved through circular economy strategies that reduce steel demand, such as cutting the ‘overspecification’ of steel in construction, which could lower steel use by 35–45%.
Advanced retrofitting of existing plants could also help limit warming to 1.5C. Substitution of green hydrogen and, only where necessary, CCUS, could lead to large reductions of up to 66% of cumulative emissions from this sector between 2020-2050, compared to estimated emissions levels without any interventions.
CCUS not working for industry
Industry recourse to future CCUS deployment and offsets must also be put in the context of doubts about the legitimate mitigation potential of these pathways. Because despite its frequent promotion, CCUS deployment in supposed hard-to-abate sectors – or indeed any sector – remains minimal for emissions abatement purposes.
Reliance on CCUS poses substantial technical, economic and scalability risks. It cannot capture 100% of emissions; residual emissions are inevitable.
The combined announced capacity for CCUS projects that are operating, planned or under construction in the steel sector is only 9 million tonnes of CO2 a year. This is just 0.3% of the total 2.6 billion tonnes of CO2 the steel sector emitted in 2022.
There are only two operational CCUS projects in the global iron and steel sector, which are delivering minimal capture rates. Aside from these, there are only 11 planned projects and one (two-stage) project under construction. This is compared to the more than 1,000 steel plants operating or under development globally.
Offsets, by design, allow CO2 emissions to occur that would not otherwise have occurred in their absence and often lack additionality, permanence and verifiability, thus failing to deliver real mitigation.
Together, CCUS and offsets allow companies to delay investment in transformative solutions. Strong policy and regulation should instead consider treating sectors like iron and steel as typical sectors with 1.5C-compatible emissions reduction obligations, reducing dependence on negative emissions by mid-century.
The post Is “hard-to-abate” really that hard – or is it a justification for delay? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Is “hard-to-abate” really that hard – or is it a justification for delay?
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.
- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
What timeline options were delegates debating?
Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).
Countries failed to reach a resolution on the scheduling of the influential reports at five consecutiv


