So-called “debt-for-nature swaps” have regained prominence in recent years as part of efforts to raise finance for conservation efforts across biodiverse developing countries.
These “swaps” are financial agreements in which a conservation organisation or government reduces, restructures or buys a developing country’s debt at a discount in exchange for investment in local conservation activities.
Despite a biodiversity “finance gap” estimated at $700bn per year, little finance has been forthcoming from developed countries to help debt-distressed lower-income countries meet their biodiversity and climate targets.
One expert, who helped Ecuador negotiate a debt conversion deal in 2023, tells Carbon Brief that these swaps are “a very tangible strategy that is starting to be proven”.
He adds that they are one of the “big sustainable financing tools that can help” support global-south countries in following through on international treaties.
However, critics are less optimistic about the feasibility of debt-for-nature swaps.
Another expert tells Carbon Brief that the swaps are “far too small to have any impact at all” on the debt of developing countries and that they are “not even marginal to a solution at the current level of their size”.
Additionally, she says, “there’s no evidence that they have worked for nature”.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief examines how debt-for-nature swaps work, the criticism they have received and whether they can alleviate biodiversity loss and climate change in developing countries.
- Where did the idea of debt-for-nature swaps come from?
- How do debt-for-nature swaps work?
- How are they gaining traction in nature finance and conservation policy?
- What are some of the chief criticisms of debt-for-nature swaps?
- Can debt-for-nature swaps be done better?
Where did the idea of debt-for-nature swaps come from?
The idea of debt swaps emerged in response to the global debt crisis of 1982-83 brought on by multiple shocks to the world economy.
The 1979-80 “oil shock”, for example, more than doubled the real price of oil for the oil-importing developing countries, raising interest rates on debt and reducing how much foreign exchange they could raise to service their debts.
This mushrooming crisis led to the creation of a secondary market for developing country debt in 1982, where loans to developing countries could be traded at a market-determined price.
This paved the way for “swaps” of various kinds, where banks could trade their foreign debt at a discount and reduce their financial exposure to precarious loans, while private investors could gain a foothold in new markets that were otherwise closed off to them.
In 1984, ecologist Dr Thomas Lovejoy – then a vice president of science at WWF – wrote a column in the New York Times advocating for swaps where the local currency raised would go towards conservation.
Unlike previous debt swaps driven by a profit motive and giving multinationals “equity” in a country, debt-for-nature swaps were supposed to benefit the debtor country. Lovejoy’s column is widely recognised as one of the “catalysts” for debt-for-nature swaps.
Three years later, in 1987, US-based Conservation International entered into the first-ever debt-for-nature agreement with Bolivia.
In exchange for the Bolivian government’s commitment to grant maximum legal protection to nearly 4m hectares in the Amazon Basin, Conservation International bought $650,000 worth of debt from a swiss bank for $100,000. Bolivia also agreed to provide $250,000 in local currency for management activities in the Beni Reserve.
Even early proponents of debt-for-nature swaps acknowledged that they were “no panacea” for environmental issues in the least-developed countries. Nevertheless, they continued to be popular and have seen a resurgence in the post-Covid era.
How do debt-for-nature swaps work?
In its simplest sense, a debt-for-nature swap involves:
- An indebted, biodiverse developing country.
- A creditor or a group of creditors, such as other governments or private bondholders.
- International conservation organisations, to buy back the debt.
- Local conservation organisations, to implement the swap.
International conservation organisations or private foundations based in the global north have initiated or brokered most debt-for-nature swaps.
Other actors and intermediaries involved in swaps can include commercial banks, multilateral development banks, private finance institutions, insurance companies and legal and financial advisors.
Today, there are many different kinds of debt-for-nature deals in progress, but swaps can broadly be classified as “private”, involving commercial debt, or “public”, involving the debt between governments.
Private debt swaps
In private debt swaps, NGOs offer to buy back part of a government’s commercial debt from private creditors at a significant discount compared to the debt’s face value.
The indebted country then commits to repaying this debt – in whole or in part and generally in local currency. The amount generated by this payment – the difference between the price paid in local currency and the discounted price the NGO buys the debt for – is then put into an environmental protection fund administered by the conservation NGO.
While this was the model for most debt-for-nature swaps until 2008, arrangements have grown more complex in recent years.
The “buy-back” of debt claims by NGOs, for instance, has grown to take the form of various kinds of bonds – essentially, an IOU or loan issued by a government or company, whereby the issuer promises to pay back the face value of the loan on a set date, with regular interest.
For example, the Nature Conservancy set up a trust fund in 2015 which issued a $15.2m “blue bond” that private philanthropic funds paid into. This sum was then lent to the Seychelles government, which used it to buy back $21.6m of debt from the Paris Club of developed country creditors.
In exchange, Seychelles pledged to protect 30% of its marine area and 15% of high-biodiversity regions, along with upgrading its marine mapping and fisheries policies.
Despite a total debt reduction of only $1.4m, the island state committed to investing $5.6m in marine conservation and $3m towards an endowment trust fund.
Public debt swaps
Swaps of debt between countries in exchange for conservation commitments are known as “public debt-for-nature swaps”.
Here, the indebted, biodiverse country restructures or buys back debt from a lender country at a reduced price. The interest or a percentage of the buy-back price then goes toward environmental protection.
The first such swap took place in 1988 between Costa Rica and the Netherlands to finance a 4,000-hectare reforestation programme.
These bilateral debt-for-nature swaps have seen a resurgence in the past year or so.
In January 2023, for instance, Portugal signed an agreement to swap up to $140m of Cape Verde’s debt for investments in a special environmental and climate fund, with more debt relief determined by how its former colony meets key climate and nature goals.
In September last year, the US and Peru entered into a swap agreement covering more than $20m of Peru’s debt to the US. The money will go towards a conservation fund to protect three priority areas in the Amazon rainforest and provide grants to local communities and NGOs.
How are swaps gaining traction in nature finance and conservation policy?
Since the 1980s, 145 debt-for-nature swaps worldwide have written off $3.7bn from the face value of debt globally, according to a 2022 report by the African Development Bank (AfDB).
Most of the debt swaps – $2.4bn of the total – have occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Carbon Brief has compiled a list of debt swaps that have taken place around the world. This is based on data from the African Development Bank report, along with reports from governments, conservation organisations and the media. It is not an exhaustive list.
The map below shows where swaps have taken place. The circles indicate the financial size of the debt involved in the swap, while the colours show the decade in which the swap was completed.
Debt-for-nature swap deals around the world over 1987-2023. The size of the circles corresponds to the face value of debt being swapped for conservation investments by countries, while the colour of the circles corresponds to the decade in which the swaps took place. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of African Development Bank (2022) and media and conservation organisations reports (2022), WWF Center for Conservation Finance (2003) and Eurodad (2023). Debt values not adjusted for inflation.
At the COP15 climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, debt-for-nature swaps featured at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for the first time. They were included in the negotiating text after Indonesia introduced “external debt swap/relief” as a source of finance.
At COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2022, the Sustainable Debt Coalition Initiative was established with the support of 16 countries. It asked for debt swaps and other mechanisms to tackle both climate change and financial stability concerns.
At COP28 in Dubai last year, eight multilateral development banks, including the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility, announced a working group to boost the effectiveness, accessibility and scalability of sustainability-linked sovereign finance, including debt-for-nature swaps.
In the announcement, the development banks acknowledged that the burden of debt owed by the developing countries “greatly hinder[s] their ability to meet their global climate and nature commitments”.
The debt issue is also being addressed in other international meetings.
During the April 2024 World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings, the Vulnerable Twenty Group (V20) – made up of 68 heavily indebted, climate-vulnerable countries – called for additional reforms to the international financial system. They proposed several measures, including increased representation in the global financial system and greater access to concessional finance, or finance provided at lower interest rates than commercial finance, including debt-for-nature swaps.
Eva Martínez, a human rights lawyer and programme officer at the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CEDES) in Ecuador, tells Carbon Brief that swaps will also feature at this year’s G20 summit in Brazil. She explains:
“There is a working document on the new financial architecture…There are [also] references to [debt swaps] for food sovereignty, debt-for-health swaps. The spectrum is broadening.”
What are some of the chief criticisms of debt-for-nature swaps?
Since their inception, debt-for-nature swaps have attracted considerable concern over whether they are effective for either debt relief or conservation.
As with biodiversity offsets and nature-based solutions, debt-for-nature swaps have been criticised for putting a price on nature and “reducing” it to a financial commodity.
Another complication is that “biodiversity is really cheap”, Dr Rebecca Ray from Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center tells Carbon Brief. As a result, creating and maintaining new protected areas is often a small fraction of a country’s sovereign debt. She adds:
“This means a little bit of debt swapped goes a really long way to fund new natural protected areas, but it doesn’t go very far on the debt. And so it’s not the most efficient way to discharge debt, even though countries are particularly facing debt stress right now.
”Repaying debt is hard for countries all around the world due to problems that are not their fault.”
These countries need “immediate debt relief that is fast and large”, Ray points out, but biodiversity conservation projects “tend to cost a lot less money and take a lot more time”.
The following sections provide an overview of some of the other criticisms of debt-for-nature swaps.
Conditionality, sovereignty and additionality
The earliest controversy around debt-for-nature swaps was a perceived fear of foreign interference, sovereignty and a “return to the colonial system”.
The first swap in Bolivia in 1987, for instance, “unilaterally titled” the land to be protected in the Amazon before Indigenous communities could obtain land tenure claims. In 1989, Brazil’s then-president Jose Sarney rejected debt-for-nature swaps stating: “[The] Amazon is ours… [a]fter all, it is situated in our territory.”
Entering into a debt-swap agreement “immediately results in a loss of autonomy and sovereignty” over the resolution of public debt, argues Mae Buenaventura, senior programme manager on debt and green economy at the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD). She tells Carbon Brief:
“Lenders determine the terms of the swap, meaning that they can impose conditions on borrowing governments on how they should invest the freed-up funds and can work towards privileging the lender and private corporations.”
This, Mae and other critics say, gives lenders in the global north “more control” in a developing country than if the debt were to be cancelled outright.
They point out that debt-for-nature swaps also inherently come with conditions attached for conservation measures and can, thus, be described as conditional debt relief.
Others fear that swaps could open the door to “tied-aid” methods, where aid must be spent on services from the lending country, such as swaps being coupled with carbon credits.
However, Ray sees significant evolution in governments’ and creditors’ understanding of the need to put traditional communities that depend on biodiversity front and centre in the planning process.
She cites the success of the 2015 Seychelles debt-for-nature swap, where the Seychelles government undertook a multi-year “deep consultation” process to understand threats to the livelihoods of small fishing communities living on remote islands. Ray says:
“This was a way that got community buy-in, obviously, because this was protecting the livelihoods of those fishing communities, but also recognising that traditional communities frequently don’t just live off of biodiversity, but they have to help protect the biodiversity in order to survive.”
Another criticism of swaps is that they do not create new, “additional” biodiversity funds from the global north. They also run the risk of being “double counted”, if the original loan being restructured in a swap had already been counted towards meeting aid targets.
Frederic Hache, co-founder of the independent thinktank of the EU Green Finance Observatory, tells Carbon Brief:
“The reality is that no global-north country has any intention of dispersing significant amounts of new grant money…All you get is these conditional financial instruments designed to benefit primarily global private investors.”
Scale, fees and forgiveness
The biggest criticism of debt swaps from all the experts Carbon Brief spoke to is their size relative to the looming sovereign debt of biodiversity-rich countries.
The graphic below compares the size of debt swaps (small, dark blue circle) to the amount that indebted developing countries have paid to service their debts (large, light blue circle) over the past three decades.
Between 1987 and 2023, low- and middle-income countries paid more than US$7.6tn in debt service versus $8.4bn treated through debt-for-nature swaps. Source: World Bank International Debt Report (2023) and Eurodad calculations based on the data from the World Bank International Debt Statistics.
The Seychelles marine biodiversity swap, for instance, was considered “one of the largest in history at the time”, but only amounted to $23m. Ray says:
“That’s pennies, in comparison to the billions of dollars that countries like Sri Lanka are currently negotiating for debt restructuring…[Swaps] only make sense as part of a broader package of debt relief to meet the current crisis.”
According to Prof Jayati Ghosh, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, while debt swaps imply debt reduction, they “are far too small to have any impact at all” on countries’ debt. Sometimes, she says, swaps are not even a reduction, but instead allow countries some leeway in rescheduling their debt payments. Ghosh adds:
“It’s not even rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s pretending to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, with big creditor countries refusing to really make the kinds of interventions that would make a difference in reducing the sovereign debt while pretending to do something about climate and conservation finance. And they’re not.”
According to Carbon Brief analysis, among all the debt-for-nature swaps that have taken place, Poland’s 1992 swap allocated the highest amount of resources to nature conservation, totalling over $500m. Ecuador’s 2023 swap, which saw the largest amount of debt swapped at $1.1bn, had the second-highest investment in conservation, allocating more than $400m for this purpose.
The chart below shows the 20 countries that have been the target of the largest debt swaps (light blue) and the amount of that money earmarked for conservation funds (dark blue).
High transaction costs, which are driven up by lengthy, complex, multilateral negotiations, the number of agents involved and intermediary fees, also eat into conservation savings.
Others point out that other real-world challenges, such as unstable exchange rates along with high inflation, can “erode and undermine the real value” of a country’s conservation commitments. For example, in Zambia, funds generated by a $2.2m debt swap in 1989 were exhausted in a year “due to the rapid devaluation” of the local currency.
Human rights
Sandra Guzmán, founder and general coordinator of the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), tells Carbon Brief that it is not possible to generalise the impacts of debt-for-nature swaps. She adds:
“A swap with the World Bank, a swap with the IDB [Inter-American Development Bank] or a swap with a commercial bank is very different. Not all swaps are done in the same way because it depends on the institutions involved.”
The 2007 debt-for-nature swap between Costa Rica and the US is an example of a swap where public information on its activities in Indigenous and local communities is available.
This swap involved more than 200 rural communities. One of the projects in the KéköLdi Indigenous territory, in south-eastern Costa Rica, helped the community reintroduce native iguanas and transmit ancestral knowledge to youth. Guzmán tells Carbon Brief:
“It has been said to be one of the most effective [swaps] because of the size of the debt cut and the conservation programme that Costa Rica promoted.”
However, not all debt-for-nature swaps have been so clear about the impacts on Indigenous and local communities.
Martínez, of CEDES Ecuador, tells Carbon Brief that the Galapagos debt-for-nature swap – signed last year to cancel $1.1bn of Ecuador’s debt in exchange for investing $450m to protect Galapagos islands – did not undergo a consultation process with Indigenous peoples and local communities. This could impact the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights of these communities, Martínez said.
The Climate Bonds Initiative published a report in 2023 analysing debt-for-nature swaps in the Seychelles, Belize, Barbados and Ecuador.
Daniel Costa, senior sustainability debt analyst at Climate Bonds Initiative, tells Carbon Brief that most of the analysed swaps do not mention how they involve local communities. He adds:
“This is what we would like to see further as these transactions are developed.”
Governance
Other criticisms of debt-for-nature swaps are the inadequate governance conditions that debtor countries may have. Governance refers to how swaps are implemented in the countries, the institutions and stakeholders involved and the structure of negotiations.
For example, the 2023 Galapagos swap had “serious limitations” in monitoring and enforcement, lack of transparency and accountability and “little clarity on potential fiscal risks for Ecuador”, according to recent analysis by the Latin American Network for Economic and Social Justice (Latindadd) and other organisations.
The analysis also revealed a lack of public information on the conservation fund and whether these actions have contributed to capacity-building at the local level.
The decision on which conservation activities will be implemented with a debt-for-nature swap varies from transaction to transaction, notes Costa, of Climate Bonds Initiative. These activities are often managed by funds, whose members include conservation organisations in addition to the government, he adds.
Carola Mejía, climate justice, transitions and Amazon coordinator at Latindadd, tells Carbon Brief that while swaps may be potentially scalable, they need to be improved in many ways. She says swaps must be built on principles such as transparency, respect for sovereignty and fairness in negotiation.
Guzmán, of GFLAC, tells Carbon Brief:
“Not all countries will have the same capacities in terms of governance, structures, human, financial and institutional capacities. There are severely indebted countries that need [debt] cancellation; there are countries that can do swaps because they have economies that can move towards those scenarios; and there are countries with greater financial capacity that may not [need] swaps, but other types of financing.”
Greenwashing
Civil society organisations and researchers have also raised concerns about the potential for “greenwashing” in some debt-for-nature swaps.
Mejía says countries in the global north are not meeting their climate finance and biodiversity commitments, but are promoting swaps as “the big solution”. This carries the risk of greenwashing, Mejía adds, as rather than creating positive action for the environment, swaps are generating more loans and debt.
For example, the $30m swap between Indonesia and the US made in 2009 in exchange for conserving rainforests on the island of Sumatra had several shortcomings, according to a 2011 study. The swap did not free up additional resources for the Indonesian government and was “too insignificant to create indirect (positive) economic effects”, the study says.
In the 2023 Galapagos swap, although the IDB provided an $85m guarantee to support the debt agreement for 18.5 years, the Latindadd report found that “there have been no additional international commitments or disbursements so far”.
Debt-for-nature swaps have also been questioned for not directly benefiting citizens and for transferring power over the management of the funds and the implementation of conservation projects to creditors.
The Gabon Blue Conservation was created as part of the swap where Gabon received $500m in exchange for protecting 30% of its oceans. This foreign-owned conservation organisation receives a 20% administration fee, which “immediately reduces the savings for the country by a [fifth]”, a report by the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements says.
Moreover, the report adds, “it is hard to see evidence that” the marine spatial plan, mandated by the Nature Conservancy for this swap, empowers marginalised groups, including fishers, for decision-making around coastal management.
Hache tells Carbon Brief:
“From a geopolitical perspective, swaps are great. It’s a way to gain access and control to land resources that will prove possibly precious in the future. This is…diplomacy by other means.”
Can debt-for-nature swaps be more effective?
Debt-for-nature swaps are being reviewed for their effectiveness again at a time when biodiverse, developing countries struggling with debt payments are having to find the financial resources to meet biodiversity and climate targets.
According to the latest World Bank debt report, low- and middle-income countries owed their foreign lenders $9tn in 2022. The same year, these countries paid a record $443.5bn to pay down these debts, with these payments diverting government spending away from critical development priorities, as well as climate and nature spending.
A 2023 study found that 67 countries at risk of defaulting on their loans collectively host 22% of global “biodiversity priority areas”, such as relatively intact but vulnerable forests, grasslands, deserts and mangroves. For 35 of these countries, it estimated that all of their unprotected biodiversity priority areas could be protected for a fraction of their national debt.
Debt-for-nature swaps and debt-for-climate swaps could free up more than $100bn of debt in developing countries, according to a recent analysis by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
Ray, from Boston University, says that swaps can help create space for countries to make climate-adaptation plans that also help preserve livelihoods that depend on biodiversity, such as fishing or collecting forest produce.
She adds that this can “interrupt a vicious cycle between natural capital and volatile financial capital”, where economic crises and extreme weather events drastically reduce climate adaptation and biodiversity budgets.
But, in order to create this breathing room for biodiversity, swaps need to accomplish multiple things, she tells Carbon Brief:
“You need a lot of time. You need political capital and institutional capacity to centre the communities who have traditionally been the stewards of biodiversity and find a way to make sure that not only is their access to biodiversity uninterrupted, but that they are accountable for that job and rewarded for it. And a real commitment to accountability from everyone involved to make sure these projects actually help support biodiversity and communities.”
Ray points to the case of “blue bonds” for marine conservation, a label that multinational bank Barclays called “misleading” in 2023. According to Barclays, while “the point of a green bond is that 100% of the proceeds raised are spent on” marine projects, in blue bonds floated, each extra party “takes a cut from the proceeds”.
Other experts Carbon Brief spoke to had differing views, suggesting that debt-for-nature swaps would not just require improvements in governance, but in reforming the architecture of international finance.
Guzmán says:
“[Swaps] are initially going to open up your fiscal space, but are not going to solve the financing problem for countries. What we need to fundamentally change is the operation of financial institutions and the type of loans and the conditions they give for those loans, i.e., lower interest rates and much more appropriate treatment. That is really what is going to help sustainable financing.”
To Ghosh, creditors are often “unwilling to make very large commitments of debt reduction”. She adds:
“You have to do something about sovereign debt on its own, which means you have to be serious about the debt reductions. That’s independent of whether you’re linking this conditionality with nature, because without dealing with the sovereign debt, you are not going to generate a green transition in any of these countries. They simply can’t afford it.”
Ghosh suggests solutions that could change the “landscape of debt”, including a standstill on debt during debt negotiations – where the amount of debt stays the same instead of accruing interest while parties come to a resolution – and involving all creditors: private, public and multilateral.
To Hache, the “devil lies in the details” of debt-for-nature swaps. He says:
“It’s about the proportion of the budget allocated to conservation. It’s about the real amount of debt forgiveness compared to where the debt was trading, compared to its nominal value earlier…Ultimately, you also have to compare it to the real alternative, which is debt forgiveness, and you kill any chances of debt forgiveness, loss and damages by endorsing or accepting these deals.”
The post Q&A: Can debt-for-nature ‘swaps’ help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: Can debt-for-nature ‘swaps’ help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change?
Climate Change
Coal mine approval as Albanese meets Pacific leaders undermines Pacific partnership, as UN warns of 1.5C overshoot
SYDNEY, Thursday 3 September 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has branded the Albanese government’s approval of BHP’s coal mine extension in Central Queensland an affront to Pacific leaders and communities grappling with climate disasters, and a reckless move that undermines Australia’s partnership with the Pacific as the PM meets regional leaders at the Pacific Islands Forum.
The approval of BHP’s coal Saraji Mine Grevillea Pit Continuation Project, an extension of one of Australia’s largest coal mines, would allow mining to continue for another 30 years, locking in the production and export of polluting coal and fuelling dangerous extreme weather disasters and sea level rise in Australia and across the Pacific. It will be the 10th fossil fuel project approved during this term of government and the 37th new fossil fuel project approved since the Albanese government was elected in 2022.
The announcement comes as a UN report warns of dangerous climate overshoot, and just two months before Federal Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is due to take the reins of UN climate negotiations at COP31 — a moment that will test the government’s climate credibility and bring global attention to Australia’s fossil fuel exports. It also comes as fracked gas from the Beetaloo Basin climate bomb started flowing.
Speaking from Palau, Dr Simon Bradshaw, COP31 Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “It is deeply insincere for Prime Minister Albanese to meet Pacific leaders here in Palau to discuss security, the energy crisis, and regional threats, while his government fast-tracks the biggest security threat to the Pacific, the climate crisis.
“As leaders meet, thousands remain missing or dead in the Nepal-Tibet floods. Parts of Australia are bracing for a heatwave that will see temperatures approach 40 degrees, just days out of winter, and a new report finds 2,000 kilometres of coral reefs along the WA coast experienced the worst coral bleaching on record.
“We are witnessing dangerous climate change driven by the production, export and burning of fossil fuels, wreaking havoc across the world. Continuing down the path of fossil fuels and approving new coal is an act of recklessness at a pivotal moment in the world’s energy transition and response to the climate crisis. Communities must not pay the price for fossil fuel greed.
“No more double talk. Australia must get squarely behind longstanding Pacific leadership on climate change, fight to protect the all-important goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and ensure that COP31 builds further momentum in the global transition away from fossil fuels.
“A pathway back to 1.5°C is possible. The Pacific Pre-COP and COP31 in Türkiye are critical moments for Australia to work with Pacific leaders to better align energy, climate and trade policies towards a prosperous shared future beyond fossil fuels.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 1% in the second quarter of 2026, as oil consumption plummeted amid the strait of Hormuz crisis.
The country’s use of oil fell by 9% overall and by 16% for transport, after the disruptions to supply from the Gulf through the strait.
This guest post is by:
Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air
China’s total CO2 emissions fell despite a continued rebound in coal-fired power generation.
This is the first time that reductions in oil consumption have been responsible for a fall in CO2 emissions overall – in all previous cases, coal consumption has been the main driver.
Other key findings for the second quarter of 2026 include:
- Electric vehicles (EVs) and public transport have become key factors in China’s oil demand, enabling transportation levels to increase even as fuel use fell sharply.
- The effect of EVs on oil consumption was almost twice as large as would be expected based on the increase in the number of EVs on the road alone, as the usage of existing EVs surged.
- Oil consumption displaced by EVs in China in the first half of 2026 exceeded the UK’s total oil consumption over a six-month period.
- These structural factors are not sufficient to account for the size of the fall in oil consumption, leaving behaviour changes as the other explanation.
- “Curtailment” of solar and wind output caused coal power to rise, despite strong hydro output, solar and wind capacity growth, as well as slower demand growth.
- Major increases in coal-power capacity and a power market that continues to favour coal limited the amount of coal generation displaced by new wind and solar capacity.
- Defying expectations of a boom, annual growth in coal use for chemicals production slowed down to 8%, from 15% in 2025 and 19% in the first quarter.
The second quarter of 2026 was a busy time for China’s government planners, with numerous energy-related five-year plan documents being released.
These plans list new measures to address solar and wind curtailment, as well as signalling a higher bar for the approval of new coal-power plants, but add few new quantitative targets.
After a 2% increase in the first quarter of 2026 and a 1% decline in the second, emissions are up marginally across the first half of the year, but they remain below their peak in 2023-24.
In addition, China is on track to add enough wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower this year to cover electricity demand growth, despite a slowdown in new capacity.
Given the structural pressures on oil demand, continued declines in real-estate construction and slower growth for coal-chemicals, China’s emissions could still fall this year. The emission trend remains a race between energy demand growth and clean-energy growth, both of which have slowed down this year.
Emissions still flat
There has now been a plateau in China’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement for more than two years, following a peak in March 2024.
Previous analysis for Carbon Brief described this as a “flat or falling” trend, which extended until the end of 2025. There was then a 2% increase in emissions year-on-year in the first quarter of 2026, resulting from a rise in the amount of “wasted” wind and solar power.
The latest analysis shows that this was followed by another decline in the second quarter of this year, when China’s emissions fell by 1%, as shown in the figure below.
For further details see: About the data.
Notably, China’s emissions fell in the second quarter despite an increase in coal use. For the first time ever, a drop in oil use was sufficient to drive a decline in emissions overall.
Oil use plummeted while coal grew
Within the overall 1% decline in China’s emissions in the second quarter of 2026, there were divergent trends when looking sector by sector and fuel by fuel.
The largest fall in CO2 emissions came from the consumption of petrol, diesel and jet fuel, with oil consumption in industry also falling, as shown in the figure below.
For further details see: About the data.
Crude oil processing volumes fell 11% in the second quarter, but some of the fall was absorbed by drawing down oil product inventories, with Sinopec sales down 9%.
In total, China cut back oil imports by 32% in the second quarter. The million–barrel question has been how much of this was enabled by genuine reductions in oil consumption and how much by the drawdown of the country’s vast oil stockpile.
Energy mix numbers reported by the National Bureau of Statistics indicate that oil consumption fell by 3% in the first half of the year and around 9% in the second quarter. This shows that reduced consumption played a substantial role, while still leaving 60% of the fall in imports to be covered by the swing from building stockpiles to using them.
The sector with the largest increase in emissions during the second quarter of the year was power, where coal use grew 2.4% while gas-fired generation fell 1.2%. This was despite strong growth in wind and solar capacity over the preceding year, a significant rebound in hydropower generation, a small increase in nuclear power output and a slowdown in electricity consumption growth.
The explanation for the rise in emissions was – similar to the first quarter of 2026 – an increased amount of solar and wind generation being “wasted” due to the power market and grid not being adapted to increasing shares of variable renewable generation.
In other sectors, there was a fall in cement production, driven by falling construction volumes, which accelerated to 9% in the second quarter, from 8% in the first quarter. Crude steel output fell by 1% and pig-iron production by 3% in the second quarter.
Growth of coal use for chemical production slowed down in the second quarter, both compared with the previous quarter and the last year.
The rate of utilisation of installed coal processing capacity was already high before the current oil shock, so there was no headroom for production to increase even though rising oil prices made coal-chemicals more profitable. Oil-based chemical production also kept growing, with ethylene output up 17% and primary plastics production flat.
Coal use for heating continued to increase, with the sector’s coal consumption in the second quarter dominated by industrial heat, as there is little need for space heating at this time of year. Growth has continued despite the prominent drive for “zero-carbon industrial parks”, demonstrating the importance of the initiative for tackling industrial coal use.
What drove the fall in oil consumption?
The dramatic fall in China’s demand for oil imports during the Hormuz crisis has been widely hailed as the most important price stabilising factor for the global oil market.
To understand the implications for China’s oil consumption and CO2 emissions going forward, it is important to unpack what enabled this reduction in imports.
A significant contribution comes from ongoing, structural reductions in transport oil demand driven by electrification. Sinopec had forecast 6% and 5% drops in diesel and petrol consumption this year, respectively, already before the start of the war on Iran. Actual sales fell 9% in the first half of the year.
Transportation levels show a slowdown in growth, but no outright decline. Cross-regional passenger trips were 0.1% higher year-on-year in the second quarter, while urban passenger trips were 2.9% higher. Commercial freight tonnage increased 2.4%.
The exception is air travel, where passenger numbers fell 7% in May-June, after 7% growth in the first quarter. However, this sector plays a minor role in overall transport oil consumption in China.
The stable or growing transportation levels show that the shift to electric vehicles, rail, public transport and other clean transportation, rather than a fall in mobility, played the key role in reducing oil consumption.
The rise in fuel prices that accompanied the Hormuz crisis only accelerated the structural shifts in transportation that were already underway.
Electric heavy-truck sales rose about 77% in the second quarter, year-on-year, with June sales more than doubling and the market share of electric trucks exceeding 45% of all new sales.
The total number of EVs on the road at the end of the quarter grew 33% year-on-year. Some 12.1m EVs were added, of which 8.1m were electric-only battery EVs.
EV usage saw even more of a shift. Charging volumes increased 60% in the second quarter, indicating that EVs already on the road were utilised much more than before, at the expense of petrol and diesel vehicles, with plug-in hybrid drivers likely favouring electricity over fuel.
One factor enabling EV utilisation to grow was the increased use of electric taxis. Intense competition in the sector has pushed prices down at the same time as the use of private petrol vehicles has become more expensive.
Stronger subway and rail use also made a contribution. Rail-passenger traffic increased 5% in the first half of the year.
The fall in diesel demand has been particularly pronounced in the construction and mining sectors. The heavy machinery in the sectors is well-suited for electrification, in addition to which construction levels are also falling.
Based on reported growth in charging volumes, EVs helped avoid an estimated 19m tonnes of oil consumption (Mtoe) in the second quarter, up 50% year-on-year.
This took the total amount of oil displaced by EVs to 36 Mtoe in the first half of the year, as shown in the figure below, well exceeding, say, the total oil consumption of the UK over six months. Notably, trucks are the fastest-growing source of oil displacement, with avoided fuel use up 90% year-on-year in the first half of 2026.
For further details see: About the data.
The increase in avoided oil consumption due to EVs is equal to 4.5% of China’s oil imports in the same period in 2025. If EV sales and charging volumes continue their growth at the same rates in the second half of the year, avoided oil consumption will reach 80 mn tonnes, equal to the consumption of Mexico.
Estimated emissions avoided are 35 MtCO2, or 1.3% of China’s total CO2 emissions in the second quarter, after taking into account emissions from power generation for vehicle charging.
While the amount of oil displaced by the shift to EVs is significant – and is rising fast – the year-on-year increase in displaced oil still only accounts for a third of the drop in China’s oil consumption in the first half of the year, with the fall in consumption only accounting for half of the drop in imports. The remaining reduction is due to the shift from building to drawing down stockpiles, slower growth in chemical industry output, as well as behavioral adaptations by consumers and operational adaptations by businesses.
Coal power continued to rise despite clean-capacity growth
China saw record increases in solar and wind capacity over the past year. In addition, hydropower generation increased 9% in the second quarter of the year, compared with the same period in 2025, and there was a small 2% increase in nuclear-power output.
At the same time, the rate of power demand growth slowed down from 5.9% in the second quarter of 2025 to 5.2% in the same period in 2026.
Yet, power-sector emissions increased 3.0% in the first half of 2026, after falling 3.2% in the first half of 2025. Power generation from fossil fuels rose because of an increase in the amount of potential solar and wind generation that was wasted, as well as exceptionally poor wind conditions. Without those factors, coal-fired power generation and power-sector emissions would also have fallen in 2026.
Wind-power capacity has continued strong growth in 2026, with capacity additions in both the first and the second quarter of the year comfortably exceeding those in any year other than the record-setting 2025.
Solar power additions have slowed sharply from the rates seen in 2025, even falling behind 2024. Yet, they are in line with 2023, when more than 200 gigawatts (GW) was added by year-end.
Nuclear power development continues at pace, with eight new reactors approved in July and five reactors with 4.5GW total capacity expected to enter commercial operation this year. This includes China’s second commercial small modular reactor, Linglong One, with new policies paving the way for further development.
Reactor commissioning will pick up further next year: the government has approved 10 new reactor projects every year since 2022 and those projects will begin to come online. Meanwhile, 3GW of conventional hydropower was added, with a total of 6GW of projects targeting operation in 2026.
Taken together, this clean-energy growth puts China on track to add enough non-fossil generating capacity in 2026 to cover electricity demand growth of up to 5%, despite the slowdown in solar.
Power demand grew 5.3% in the first six months of 2026 and the energy regulator projects 5-6% for the whole year. This means that the increase in power-sector emissions seen in the first half would be reversed, once the obstacles to solar and wind sending their output to the grid are addressed – and once wind conditions revert to average levels.
Moreover, total energy demand growth has slowed down much more sharply than electricity demand, making it more feasible for clean-power generation growth to significantly exceed the increase in total energy consumption and to drive down fossil-fuel consumption.
For further details see: About the data.
The key reason for solar and wind curtailment in China is that neither the power-grid operating model nor the electricity market model require – or encourage – the flexible operation of coal-power plants, hydropower plants and inter-provincial transmission lines.
This situation has been exacerbated by a wave of new coal-power plants entering operation, with newly added capacity reaching 30GW in the first half of 2026, the highest level since 2016. Another 25GW started construction, while less than 3GW was retired.
The electricity prices paid to coal-fired generators are fixed months in advance, as are the volumes of electricity that will be transmitted through long-distance power lines.
This removes the incentive for plants to adjust their output in response to conditions. This could include variations in solar and wind supply, or changes in power demand.
As a result, there is limited ability for the grid to absorb variable renewable power. Furthermore, coal plants are entitled to “capacity payments”, which require them to be available to generate, but do not reward them for operating flexibly.
One solution to integrate more solar and wind into the grid is increasing energy storage capacity. Battery storage capacity continued to grow, with 17GW added in the first half of 2026, bringing total installed capacity to 153GW. This represents a slowdown in storage additions, however, down from 23GW in the first half of 2025.
Outlook for China’s CO2 emissions
The key developments affecting the outlook for China’s emissions in the second quarter include the effects of the Hormuz oil-and-gas crisis, the release of a long list of sectoral five-year plans and a slowdown in energy consumption growth.
The rise in oil prices has caused a stronger shift in China’s transportation sector than anyone anticipated, with EV deployment and use accelerating from an already high base. This trend is unlikely to be reversed. It has also proven the value of electrification to China’s energy security strategy.
The government is targeting a slight acceleration in the pace of electrification, aiming for electricity to make up 35% of energy end-use by 2030, up from 30% in 2025. This is a larger increase than achieved over the past five years, when the share of electricity rose from 26.5% in 2020 to 30% by 2025. The transportation sector plays a significant role in this, with a target for EVs to make up 30% of the vehicle fleet, up from 12% in 2025, and 25% of commercial vehicles.
Electrification both reduces emissions immediately and sets different sectors up for deep decarbonisation as electricity is much easier to produce without CO2 emissions than fuels. Faster transport sector electrification lowers the outlook for oil demand, increases the role of the sector in peaking and reducing emissions, plus means that more of China’s clean energy growth ends up displacing oil.
While transport emissions fell, power-sector emissions continued to rebound for the second quarter in a row. The increased coal-fired power generation and emissions can be attributed to increased solar and wind curtailment. Curtailment has emerged as the key obstacle to both continued rapid solar and wind capacity growth and full utilisation of existing capacity.
Several sectoral five-year plans published in recent months have laid out measures to improve solar and wind utilisation.
Long-distance transmission will continue to expand, helping to move wind and solar generation from remote “energy bases” to centres of demand. There is also a growing emphasis on local consumption of clean power. The power sector five-year plan, published in August, promotes direct purchases of clean electricity, smart microgrids, zero-carbon industrial parks and closer coordination between renewable resources and AI computing infrastructure
Yet the same plan further loosened the limits on the amount of wind and solar that can be curtailed.
The limit for curtailment was 5%, until it was relaxed to 10% in 2024 in provinces with good wind and solar resources. The new plan allows the limit to be increased further to 15% for some provinces, while keeping it at 5% and 10% for others.
Looking at the 2025 data on reported curtailment, very few provinces had higher rates than 15% – only Tibet for wind and Qinghai and Tibet for solar.
Unless the most lenient limit is only applied to those two provinces, it means the plan would allow for higher levels of curtailment.
This is also true of the national average target of “around” 10% curtailment, given reported rates in 2025 were 94% and 95% for wind and solar, respectively.
Notably, monthly data on curtailment has not been published in recent months, raising the possibility that the indicator is being revised. Reported data has understated actual curtailment by a wide margin, compared to implied curtailment.
If the curtailment indicator is revised, such that it captures more of the actual curtailment, then this could make the headline targets stronger than they appear, in comparison to previously reported numbers.
The new five-year plans also lowered the overall level of ambition on coal use. Chinese president Xi Jinping announced in 2021 that China would “gradually reduce coal consumption during the 15th five-year period”, covering 2026-30. However, the target now is for coal consumption to “enter a plateau” during those five years.
The five-year plans call for “reasonably controlling coal-power capacity and generation”, signaling a higher bar for the approval for new coal-power projects, after the government’s active promotion of new coal power in recent years. This could also imply more retirements of older coal plants. However, there is 204GW of coal-power capacity under construction, even after the wave of new coal-power plants starting operation in 2025 and in the first half of 2026, making the implementation of the “reasonable control” more challenging.
It is the first time that the government has vowed to control “coal-power generation” and not just “generation growth”, as the energy regulator did in 2021, but the significance of that distinction is unclear.
The renewable energy five-year plan also broadens the concept of system reliability, which was a key justification for new coal power during the previous five years. Rather than relying primarily on coal-fired power for system stability, it increasingly looks to other options.
Alternatives include storage, flexible demand, EVs, “virtual power plants” and smarter system operation to provide balancing services. The plan also puts an emphasis on increasing the contribution of renewable energy to meeting demand peaks.
Therefore, while coal remains an important backup resource in the plan, reliability is no longer framed as something that can only be provided by coal.
The Chinese government has published numerous other sectoral five-year plans since its overarching plan came out in March. These include plans for the energy sector (“new-type energy system”), power system, renewable energy, carbon peaking, coal, climate-change mitigation, and the environment (“Beautiful China”). Some clear priorities emerge from these plans: electrification, electric vehicles, energy storage, offshore wind and “green”” fuels.
The energy plan also substantially increased ambition on the development of conventional hydropower, despite ecological and social risks and potential for tensions with neighbouring countries. The capacity additions will largely only materialise after 2030, however.
At the same time, energy consumption growth has slowed down markedly after the surge during and immediately after the “zero-Covid” period, making it more feasible for clean energy to meet all incremental demand.
If this trend continues, then total CO2 emissions will begin to fall even as power-sector emissions continue to plateau.
About the data
Data for the analysis was compiled from the National Bureau of Statistics of China, National Energy Administration of China, China Electricity Council and China Customs official data releases, as well as from industry data provider WIND Information and from Sinopec, China’s largest oil refiner.
Electricity generation from wind and solar, along with thermal power breakdown by fuel, was calculated by multiplying power generating capacity at the end of each month by monthly utilisation, using data reported by China Electricity Council through Wind Financial Terminal.
Total generation from thermal power and generation from hydropower and nuclear power were taken from National Bureau of Statistics monthly releases.
Total primary energy consumption is converted to the electricity equivalent using the substitution method.
Monthly utilisation data was not available for biomass, so the annual average of 52% for 2023 was applied. Power-sector coal consumption was estimated based on power generation from coal and the average heat rate of coal-fired power plants during each month, to avoid the issue with official coal consumption numbers affecting recent data.
CO2 emissions estimates are based on National Bureau of Statistics default calorific values of fuels and emissions factors from China’s latest national greenhouse gas emissions inventory, for the year 2021. The CO2 emissions factor for cement is based on annual estimates up to 2024.
For oil, total oil consumption is calculated based on energy mix data for the first quarter and first half of the year released by the National Bureau of Statistics. Consumption of transport fuels – diesel, petrol and jet fuel – is estimated based on the sales growth reported by Sinopec for the first quarter and the first half of the year, with monthly disaggregation based on production minus net exports. The consumption of these three fuels is labeled as oil product consumption in transportation, as it is the dominant sector for their use. Apparent consumption of other oil products is calculated as the residual.
Estimated non-energy use of fossil fuels is subtracted from total chemical industry fossil fuel consumption, and process emissions are calculated based on fossil fuel consumption with carbon retained in products subtracted. Emissions from the incineration of plastics are based on a peer-reviewed estimate of plastics incineration in 2022, combined with growth rates in the overall power generation from waste-to-energy plants. Metals industry process emissions are calculated using industrial output data and IPCC default emission factors.
Oil consumption displaced by EVs is estimated using China Association of Automobile Manufacturers’ sales data, via Wind Financial Terminal. The data breaks down vehicle sales by type and powertrain: passenger cars, buses, vans, semis and trucks of different sizes, each split into battery-electric and plug-in hybrid, with assumptions about how far each vehicle type is driven per year and the fuel economy of the conventional vehicle it replaces.
Annual mileage and fuel-consumption assumptions are compiled from different sources, including the International Council on Clean Transportation. Each electric vehicle sold is credited with avoiding the fuel a comparable internal-combustion vehicle would have burned; plug-in hybrids are credited only with the portion of driving done on electricity (a utility factor of 64%).
The electricity and oil figures are calibrated to figures from China’s National Energy Administration, which put new-energy-vehicle charging at 142.3 TWh in 2025 and reported 56.9% year-on-year growth in the first half of 2026. The second half of 2026 is a projection: each vehicle segment’s actual second-half-2025 displacement is grown by its first-half-2026 year-on-year rate.
related
Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?
Analysis: China’s CO2 climbs 2% in early 2026 due to ‘wasted’ wind and solar
Analysis: China’s new carbon metric leaves Germany-sized gap in its emissions
New coal plants hit ‘10-year’ global high in 2025 – but power output still fell
The post Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions fall in Q2 2026 due to plummeting oil use appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: China’s CO2 emissions fall in Q2 2026 due to plummeting oil use
After last week’s catastrophic flash flooding caused hundreds of deaths and an estimated $5 billion of destruction in Nepal, some board members of the UN’s new loss and damage fund board have called for an extraordinary meeting to allocate money to help the Himalayan country.
Following a direct appeal for funding from Nepal’s government on Monday, developing-country board members gathered online and eight signed a letter, seen by Climate Home News, asking the fund’s board to hold a meeting to respond to the request.
The letter, signed by eight African, Asian and Least Developed Country board members, said the debris-laden torrent – which scientists believe was unleashed by a glacial slope collapsing after unusually hot weather – constitutes “precisely the kind of climate-related extreme weather events the fund was established to address”.
“The scale of loss of life, displacement, and destruction of energy, transport, and economic infrastructure warrants the board’s urgent consideration of how the fund’s existing instruments should be mobilised to support Nepal’s government and affected communities,” the letter said.
-
UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot
Leading scientists say warming must peak at 1.8C to be able to reverse course this century, but current government climate policies are way off track -
Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot
We need a strategy for navigating the huge risks to ecosystems and societies
The rules of the fund’s initial phase, which it is now in, allow for it to support “rapid response”, the letter noted. The fund’s governing instrument says it can provide funds “complementary to humanitarian actions taken immediately after an extreme weather event” as well as funds for “immediate or long-term, reconstruction or rehabilitation”, the letter added.
Governments agreed at UN climate talks to set up the fund in 2022 and it launched its first call for proposals at the end of last year. It received 180 submissions, mainly for long-term projects to help countries reduce the risks from climate threats, like improving water infrastructure in Jamaica or flood response in Bangladesh.
After delaying decisions at its last board meeting as it continued to work out processes, it has yet to approve any funding requests. Despite being set up on the back of the 2022 floods in Pakistan, the board has not yet given out any money in response to climate disasters nor expressed a clear willingness to do so.
The secretariat of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. A few days ago, it expressed solidarity for those affected by the disaster in a social media post.
Rapid response precedent
The board members signing the letter on Nepal want to set a precedent, with the letter saying the board should consider “any procedural lessons” the response to the flooding “offer for strengthening the Fund’s rapid-response modalities and operational protocols for sudden-onset extreme weather events”.
Harjeet Singh, global convenor of the Fill the Fund campaign, told Climate Home News civil society has pushed “really hard” for the FRLD to be a rapid response fund rather than just inviting requests for project funding and reviewing them at regular board meetings as other UN climate funds do.
“Climate disasters like the one unfolding in Nepal cannot wait for scheduled committee cycles,” he said. “The Loss and Damage Fund was built for moments exactly like this.”
Nepal has received multi-million dollar humanitarian pledges from several governments already and the United Nations’ Central Emergency Response Fund is designed to rapidly disburse aid cash for disasters.
But Singh – also founding director of India’s Satat Sampada Climate Foundation – said that, with disasters becoming more frequent and severe, the humanitarian system cannot support all countries in their recovery efforts and the fund should bridge the gap.
“The Board Co-Chairs must heed the call of developing nations, convene an emergency session immediately, and prove that this Fund is ready to deliver real support when frontline communities need it most,” he told Climate Home News.
While the FRLD’s response to Nepal’s recent disaster could set an important precedent, it is only likely to be of limited practical help. The fund’s rules mean it can only give out a maximum of $20 million to each project in its current initial phase. With only $820 million pledged by rich countries and not all of that yet delivered, it has allocated a total of $350 million to spend so far and without further contributions could run of money next year.
Nepalese climate negotiator Manjeet Dhakal, who visited the affected area just days before the flood, told The Nation magazine that while $20 million “may only be a symbolic gesture”, it “could set an important precedent for how the fund responds when such disasters strike vulnerable countries in the future”.
The government’s preliminary estimate of the damage is $5 billion, with many homes and critical infrastructure destroyed, as well as over 1,000 people dead.
A letter to the FRLD board from Nepal’s finance and environment ministers said that Nepal had only contributed “negligibly to global greenhouse gas emissions yet continues to bear disproportionate and escalating climate impacts”.
Requesting the fund’s board take a special decision to allocate funding to Nepal, the ministers emphasised that “time is of the essence”. “A prompt response would help protect affected populations, restore essential services, prevent further suffering and demonstrate that the fund can translate international solidarity into timely support for vulnerable countries and communities when it is most urgently needed,” they wrote.
Glaciers ‘melt like butter’
Despite initial reports of an earthquake, the US Geological Survey has said the floods were caused by a glacier collapsing and the resulting landslide hitting the bottom of the valley causing “subsequent catastrophic impacts downstream”.
Alton Byers, a scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, told journalists this week that global warming has seen glaciers recede, glacial lakes forming and glacial lake outburst floods increasing.
He said that a heating glacier is like butter taken out of the refrigerator. “It becomes mushy. It no longer has the ability to hold together. What that means is that masses of rock and glaciers no longer are as resistant to gravity as they once were,” he explained. “Add to that melting water at altitude, which lubricates the interface between the rock and the glacier and you get an increased likelihood of slippage.”
He added that a trigger – like gravity or an earth tremor – can then set off the sudden release of masses of bedrock and glacial ice, “which is what happened last week”.
As well as reducing emissions to rein in climate change, Byers said that authorities can adapt to climate change by not building in flood plains. Many of the destroyed buildings in Nepal were located in places that have flooded before, he noted.
Flood deaths in West African cities raise fraught issue of slum evictions
The disaster took place on the Himalayan border of Nepal and Tibet, which is governed by China. Chinese state media are reporting at least 16 people dead and hundreds missing. China’s government has made no appeal to the loss and damage fund and the board’s letter does not mention China or Tibet.
The FRLD board’s co-chairs are now expected to respond to the letter, with any extraordinary board meeting likely to be held online, so that members from around the world can attend at short notice.
The post Loss and damage fund urged to hold crisis meeting on Nepal appeared first on Climate Home News.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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