Connect with us

Published

on

“Natural” world heritage sites, such as the Galápagos Islands, Serengeti national park and Great Barrier Reef, could be exposed to multiple climate extremes by the end of the century, researchers warn.

The study, published in Communications Earth & Environment, assesses the impacts of extreme heat, rainfall and drought on 250 natural world heritage sites, under different warming scenarios.

Natural world heritage sites are areas recognised by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) for their “natural beauty or outstanding biodiversity, ecosystem and geological values”. 

The authors find that, under a low-warming scenario, 33 of the 250 heritage sites will face at least one “climate pressure” by the end of the century. Under a moderate scenario, this number rises to 188 sites, they find.

Under the highest warming scenarios, the authors find that nearly all sites will experience extreme heat exposure, with many also facing the compounding impacts of drought or extreme rainfall.

The study warns that sites located at mid-latitudes and in tropical regions, which are often important hotspots for biodiversity, are likely to face the greatest climate risk as the planet warms.

Heat, rain and drought

Recognised internationally as the most important ecosystems on Earth, natural world heritage sites are legally protected under the World Heritage Convention, an international conservation treaty. 

But, as the climate warms, natural world heritage sites are facing increasing threats from extreme weather events. In this study, the authors focus on extreme heat, drought and rainfall at 250 of 266 Unesco’s natural world heritage sites.

To assess exposure to climate extremes over the coming century, the authors use climate models from the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). They use four different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), listed below.

  • SSP1-2.6: A “low” warming pathway in which global temperatures stay below 2C warming with implied net-zero emissions in the second half of the century.
  • SSP2-4.5”: An “intermediate” warming pathway roughly in line with the upper end of combined pledges under the Paris Agreement, which results in around 2.7C warming by the end of the 21st century.
  • SSP3-7.0: A “high” warming pathway, which assumes no additional climate policy, with “particularly high non-CO2 emissions, including high aerosols emissions”.
  • SSP5-8.5: A “very high” pathway with no additional climate policy.
Case study: Ilulissat Icefjord

The Ilulissat Icefjord is an actively calving ice sheet located on the west coast of Greenland, around 250km north of the Arctic Circle. It is one of the few sites where ice from the Greenland ice cap directly enters the sea.

According to the world heritage outlook, “climate change is the greatest current threat” to the site. It adds that “in the next decades there will be higher temperatures both in summer and winter, increased heavy precipitation (>10 mm), and around 2050 the distribution of pack ice will be noticeably decreased”.

The study finds that that site will face “no climate pressure” under the SSP126 scenario. However, it will experience “heavy rain” under SSP245, and will face both heavy rain and extreme heat under SSP370 and SSP585.

Credit: Realimage / Alamy Stock Photo

Case study: Ilulissat Icefjord

The Ilulissat Icefjord is an actively calving ice sheet located on the west coast of Greenland, around 250km north of the Arctic Circle. It is one of the few sites where ice from the Greenland ice cap directly enters the sea.

According to the world heritage outlook, “climate change is the greatest current threat” to the site. It adds that “in the next decades there will be higher temperatures both in summer and winter, increased heavy precipitation (>10 mm), and around 2050 the distribution of pack ice will be noticeably decreased”.

The study finds that that site will face “no climate pressure” under the SSP126 scenario. However, it will experience “heavy rain” under SSP245, and will face both heavy rain and extreme heat under SSP370 and SSP585.

Credit: Realimage / Alamy Stock Photo

The authors use the highest daily maximum temperature in a year to measure changes in extreme heat and the annual maximum one-day precipitation to track rainfall. For drought, they use an indicator that calculates the difference between rainfall and evapotranspiration (the transfer of water from the ground into the air through a combination of evaporation and transpiration).

The authors define a site as “being exposed to a climate extreme” when heat, rainfall or drought intensity exceeds a defined threshold by 2100, under any warming pathways explored.

The researchers established the “threshold value” for extreme heat, precipitation or drought based on the first 10 years of simulated data under SSP2-4.5 – a modest mitigation pathway where emissions remain close to current levels.

Dr Guolong Chen is a researcher at Peking University and lead author on the report. He tells Carbon Brief that the authors chose the intermediate SSP pathway to set the threshold because it “is a more balanced and realistic representation” of the climate than the other pathway. He adds that they decided to take a 10-year average “to reduce the fluctuations in model simulations”.

Mapped

The maps below shows which natural world heritage sites will face climate impacts under different warming pathways. The dots are coloured red if the site will face climate impacts from heat, drought or extreme rainfall by the year 2100 under low (top left), intermediate (top right), high (bottom left) and very high (bottom right) warming pathway.

Map showing the natural world heritage sites in the study. The dots are coloured red if the site will face climate impacts from heat, drought or extreme rainfall by the year 2100 under low (top left), intermediate (top right), high (bottom left) and very high (bottom right) warming pathway. Data source: Chen et al (2024).

The maps show that under the low warming pathway, the thresholds for extreme heat, drought or rainfall will only be crossed in 33 of the 150 sites. Many of these are clustered in south-east Asia. The thresholds are not crossed for any of the sites in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa under the low warming scenario.

However, under the two highest-warming pathways, almost all of the 250 sites are expected to be threatened by climate extremes.

The authors also find that a significant portion of natural heritage sites are already experiencing extreme heat, posing challenges to conservation.

The study shows that over 2000-15, 45% of sites faced extreme heat, according to the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ERA5 temperature dataset.

If global warming is kept in line with the low warming pathway, this number of sites experiencing extreme heat will decrease to 2% by the end of the century, according to the research. However, under all other pathways it would rise, reaching 69% under the intermediate pathway and 98% under the high pathway.

Compound extreme climate events

The study finds that drought and extreme rainfall will be a less widespread threat to natural heritage sites than extreme heat.

Case study: Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most famous natural world heritage sites and the largest living structure on earth. The reef attracts two million visitors a year, provides jobs for around 64,000 people and contributes more than $6.4bn each year to the Australian economy

The study finds that the reef will face an increase in the intensity of extreme heat events compared to the expected climate over the coming decade, under all but the study’s lowest warming pathway.

However, the Great Barrier Reef is already under threat from climate change, as high temperatures cause “coral bleaching”, which can severely damage the reef. Coral bleaching events are becoming more frequent as global temperatures rise, and in 2024, the reef experienced its fifth bleaching in only eight years.

Credit: Ingo Oeland / Alamy Stock Photo

Case study: Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most famous natural world heritage sites and the largest living structure on earth. The reef attracts two million visitors a year, provides jobs for around 64,000 people and contributes more than $6.4bn each year to the Australian economy

The study finds that the reef will face an increase in the intensity of extreme heat events compared to the expected climate over the coming decade, under all but the study’s lowest warming pathway.

However, the Great Barrier Reef is already under threat from climate change, as high temperatures cause “coral bleaching”, which can severely damage the reef. Coral bleaching events are becoming more frequent as global temperatures rise, and in 2024, the reef experienced its fifth bleaching in only eight years.

Credit: Ingo Oeland / Alamy Stock Photo

However, the authors warn that the combined influence of temperature and either rainfall or drought extremes could be severe. The percentage of natural world heritage sites exposed to compound extreme climate events rises from 17% under the intermediate warming pathway to 31% under the high warming pathway.

Chen tells Carbon Brief that the study only calculates exposure, and does not “fully consider the varying vulnerability levels across different sites”. As a result, the analysis may not capture the worsening impacts of climate change for sites that are already under threat, he says.

Prof Jim Perry is a professor at the University of Minnesota’s department of fisheries, wildlife and conservation biology, and was not involved in the study. He tells Carbon Brief that this study is the most recent and “comprehensive” review of the impacts of climate change on natural world heritage sites. 

Biodiversity threat

Natural world heritage sites make up less than 1% of the Earth’s surface, but are home to more than 20% of mapped global species richness.

As a secondary part of their analysis, the authors focus on threats to biodiversity in the most vulnerable natural world heritage sites.

Case study: Pantanal conservation complex

Brazil’s Pantanal conservation complex area is a cluster of four protected areas, which together make up more than 180,000 hectares of land. The site represents 1.3% of Brazil’s Pantanal region – one of the world’s largest freshwater wetland ecosystems – and is protected due to its extensive biodiversity.

A combination of increasing temperatures, decreased rainfall and other human activity has led to an increasing number of wildfires in the region in recent years. A recent attribution study finds that climate change made the “supercharged” wildfires that blazed across the Pantanal in 2024 around 40% more intense.

The study finds that the Pantanal will face “no climate pressure” under the low warming pathway, but that under intermediate warming pathway, heat and drought will both impact the region. Under high and very high pathways, only extreme heat will affect the region, according to the authors.

It adds that “uncontrolled fires could be detrimental for the site’s biodiversity, landscape beauty and wetland ecological functions”.

Credit: Zoonar GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo

Case study: Pantanal conservation complex

Brazil’s Pantanal conservation complex area is a cluster of four protected areas, which together make up more than 180,000 hectares of land. The site represents 1.3% of Brazil’s Pantanal region – one of the world’s largest freshwater wetland ecosystems – and is protected due to its extensive biodiversity.

A combination of increasing temperatures, decreased rainfall and other human activity has led to an increasing number of wildfires in the region in recent years. A recent attribution study finds that climate change made the “supercharged” wildfires that blazed across the Pantanal in 2024 around 40% more intense.

The study finds that the Pantanal will face “no climate pressure” under the low warming pathway, but that under intermediate warming pathway, heat and drought will both impact the region. Under high and very high pathways, only extreme heat will affect the region, according to the authors.

It adds that “uncontrolled fires could be detrimental for the site’s biodiversity, landscape beauty and wetland ecological functions”.

Credit: Zoonar GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo

Chen tells Carbon Brief that the authors chose to focus on forests for this part of the analysis because they are “highly vulnerable to heat, drought and heavy rainfall due to their dependence on water”.

To assess the damage to biodiversity in forested natural world heritage sites to date, the authors use a metric called the “biodiversity intactness index”. This measures the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems. The authors class regions with an index of less than 0.7 to be “severely vulnerable”, and those with an index between 0.7 and 0.8 as “vulnerable”.

The authors identify 14 forested natural world heritage sites in the tropics with indices under 0.8 – mainly located in South America, the mainland in Africa, and on various coasts and islands. These include Brazil’s Pantanal conservation complex, Mount Kenya’s national park and Australia’s Ningaloo Coast.

The study finds that the mid-latitudes and tropical regions are likely to face the greatest climate risk as the planet warms. Lead author Chen explains:

Tropical regions are home to rich biodiversity and diverse ecosystems, including vital natural land types such as forests. There is a more consistent consensus that temperature increases in tropical areas will have a negative impact on biodiversity, threatening the stability of these ecosystems.”

Prof Martin Falk is a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway who has conducted research on world heritage sites, but was not involved in this study. He tells Carbon Brief that there are challenges to data collection for research on world heritage sites, noting that site managers typically “underreport climate change risks”. He adds:

“Another issue is that the natural world heritage sites in the Western world are over-researched. There is too little on the sites in developing countries.”

The post Mapped: How ‘natural’ world heritage sites are threatened by climate extremes appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Mapped: How ‘natural’ world heritage sites are threatened by climate extremes

Continue Reading

Climate Change

South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right

Published

on

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.

Protesters march to the Constitutional Court in 2025 (Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee/GroundUp)

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

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?

Published

on

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.

Article Contents

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.

Coal's share of total energy consumption in China fell to 51% in 2025. The share of coal and non-fossil energy in China's total energy consumption from 2015-2025, %. Source: National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Carbon Brief analysis of China Energy Transformation Outlook 2025, Yicai analysis of NBS statistics - (alt text generated by Google Gemini)

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.”

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?
Continue Reading

Climate Change

New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

Published

on

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.

    New coal mine openings slow as East Asian demand plateaus

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com