Earlier this month, a years-long legal attempt by community and environmental groups to challenge a new oil project in Horse Hill, Surrey resulted in victory – with implications for all new fossil fuel projects in the UK.
On 20 June, the Supreme Court, the highest court for civil cases in the UK, issued a majority judgment ruling that Surrey County Council acted unlawfully by granting planning permission for the project, because councillors did not consider the climate impact from burning the fuel.
It came after an “incredibly finely balanced” legal battle, which saw multiple courts reject the arguments made by environmental groups – and judges in the Supreme Court take nearly a year to come to their own conclusion.
The judgment, which will now lead to changes in how the environmental impact of new fossil fuel projects is assessed, has been described as “landmark”, “watershed” and “tide-turning” by environmental groups, while right-leaning media warned it could “kill off the oil industry” completely.
Below, Carbon Brief speaks to environmental lawyers to unpack what happened in the Horse Hill case, what it actually means for UK fossil fuel production and how it could affect the policies of the next UK government.
- What happened in the Horse Hill case?
- What does the judgment mean for other fossil fuel projects in the UK?
- Could it affect other carbon-intensive projects, such as airport and road expansion?
- What could the judgment mean for the next UK government?
What happened in the Horse Hill case?
The story began back in 2012 when Surrey County Council granted planning permission for Horse Hill Developments Ltd to dig an exploratory oil well at Horse Hill, a site close to the town of Horley in Surrey and 3.5km north of Gatwick Airport.
In 2017, the council granted permission for a second borehole, a sidetrack well and for testing to commence.
In 2019, the council granted permission for the project to start drilling for oil – just two months after it had passed a motion declaring a climate emergency. The project was to include six oil wells, which would produce 3m tonnes of oil over a 20-year period.
In 2020, Sarah Finch, a freelance editor representing the Weald Action Group, a network of organisations opposing oil and gas in southern England, decided to challenge the council’s decision to grant planning permission in the High Court, with charity Friends of the Earth acting as the legal intervener.
(There is a clear scientific consensus that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with meeting the Paris Agreement’s ambition of keeping global temperatures at 1.5C.)
Finch and her representatives argued that the decision to permit the oil development was unlawful because the council did not take into account the climate impact of burning the fossil fuels produced by the project.
Under an EU directive that has been incorporated into UK law, any development that is likely to have a significant effect on the environment must carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA). This assessment must be considered by the decision makers responsible for permitting the project.
The legal challenge argued that the EIA for the Horse Hill drilling project only considered the climate impact from the process of dredging up the oil from the ground, rather than from burning the oil.
As with any fossil fuel project, the emissions from burning the fuel are far larger than those from simply setting up operations, Katie de Kauwe, the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, explains to Carbon Brief:
“In the Finch case, the developer assessed that the operational emissions were around 114,000 tonnes of [carbon dioxide] equivalent (CO2e). But then during the hearing, it was recorded that the end use emissions from burning the oil were over 10m tonnes. So they really are dwarfed. And the decision maker had no information on that whatsoever when they granted permission for the oil drilling in Surrey.”
But, in December 2020, the High Court ruled that the council had acted lawfully, with the judge concluding that it would have been “impossible” for the council to have considered the emissions from burning the oil.
Finch appealed the decision. In November 2021, a Court of Appeal hearing before three judges resulted in an “unusual” split decision, with two judges upholding that the council acted lawfully and the third producing a strong dissenting judgment that it had not.
In contrast to the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal judgment said that decision makers for fossil fuel projects are not prohibited from considering the emissions from burning the fuels.
However, in practical terms, it left it up to the decision makers themselves as to whether they will consider these emissions or not.
Finch appealed again, leading to a hearing before the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK for civil cases, in June 2023. This took place before five judges.
In this hearing, legal interventions were made by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Office for Environmental Protection and representatives of the company behind a new coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, which itself is facing a legal challenge from environmental groups (more on this below).
The Office for Environment Protection was set up post-Brexit to act as an independent environmental watchdog, pursuing the enforcement of environmental law and the introduction of new protections. It was the first time this office had intervened in a court case.
The Supreme Court took almost a year to deliver its judgment, which finally came on 20 June 2024.
It delivered a majority decision from three of the five judges that Surrey County Council had acted unlawfully in permitting the oil project, with the other judges giving a dissenting judgment.
Delivering the majority judgment, Lord Leggatt ruled that the decision to grant planning permission for the oil project was unlawful as the project’s EIA failed to assess the climate impact of burning the oil, and the reasons for disregarding this were “demonstrably flawed”.
Rejecting the arguments made by the council, the developer and the government that the emissions from burning the oil were not within their control, Lord Leggatt said:
“The combustion emissions are manifestly not outwith the control of the site operators. They are entirely within their control. If no oil is extracted, no combustion emissions will occur. Conversely, any extraction of oil by the site operators will in due course result in greenhouse gas emissions upon its inevitable combustion.”
The Supreme Court said any suggestion that local planning authorities are unable to consider climate change when making planning decisions is “misguided”.
It also rejected the Court of the Appeal’s ruling that it should be up to the decision maker to decide whether to consider emissions from burning the fuels produced by new fossil-fuel projects, with Lord Leggatt saying this “would be a recipe for unpredictable, inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making”.
It is the first time in UK legislative history that a judgment has ruled that decision-makers should consider the emissions from burning fossil fuels – also known as scope 3 emissions – and not just those from the project’s operations.
It follows on from a similar ruling in Norway in January of this year.
In a statement, environmental charity ClientEarth lawyer Sophie Marjanac said the two judgments indicated that the world is “reaching a tipping point where countries and companies are going to have to comprehensively account for the impact of every fossil fuel project on the climate”.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Angus Walker, an infrastructure planning solicitor, noted that, from the very start, the Finch case proved highly divisive among the court judges:
“It was incredibly finely balanced all the way from the very first stage…It’s interesting that the dissenting judgment is as long as the leading judgment, that also shows how finely balanced it was. And it took them a year to produce it, which I think is unusually long even for the Supreme Court. Does that mean they were agonising over it? I don’t know.”
What does the judgment mean for other fossil fuel projects in the UK?
Much of the coverage of the judgment focused on what it could mean for the UK’s fossil-fuel industry.
Environmental groups described the ruling as “landmark”, “watershed” and “tide-turning”, while right-wing media warned it could “kill off the oil industry” completely.
Lawyers explain to Carbon Brief that the judgment will have consequences for new fossil fuel projects in the UK. However, it does not amount to a “ban” or “block” on Horse Hill or other similar projects.
Rather, the judgment makes it clear that, when an EIA is produced for a new fossil-fuel project, this should include information on the emissions associated with burning the coal, oil or gas produced – and not just the much smaller emissions from the project’s operations. Walker explains:
“It’s just assessing and reporting. The decision makers can still grant [an oil project planning permission], but it’s just about knowing what the impacts are. The judgment is careful to point out this is only information for the decision maker, it is not a factor that itself bans these projects from going ahead.”
Tessa Khan, an environmental lawyer and founder of Uplift, a group supporting actions on ending new oil and gas production, adds:
“It’s groundbreaking because, until now, when an EIA was done for an oil and gas project, you didn’t even need to know what the scope 3 emissions would be before you said that the environmental impacts were compatible with the decision to approve the project.
“What Horse Hill does is say that information has to be on the desk of the decision maker. But that doesn’t mean that that’s an automatic block on the project, it’s just one factor in the mix of different factors.”
The kinds of developments that are required to produce EIAs when looking to obtain development consent in the UK include onshore oil and gas, offshore oil and gas in the North Sea and coal mining projects.
When it comes to North Sea oil and gas projects, developers must first obtain a licence for fossil fuel exploration from the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).
After this, developers will apply for development consent, which is granted by the NSTA and the secretary of state for energy infrastructure, which would currently be the secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, Claire Coutinho.
It is at this stage that project developers will have to produce an EIA containing information on emissions from burning the fossil fuels.
That means that oil and gas projects that have been awarded a licence for exploration, but have not yet obtained development consent, will be affected by the Horse Hill judgment.
Previous Carbon Brief analysis shows there are dozens of such projects looking to obtain development consent sometime between now and 2025.
North Sea oil and gas projects that have already received development consent, such as the Rosebank oil field, will not be automatically affected.
However, the judgment will offer new arms to legal challenges against such projects.
Khan, who is contributing to a legal challenge against Rosebank that is due to be held in the next few months, says:
“Our legal challenge against Rosebank, if we succeed, would mean that the decision has to be remade around the development consent. And so in making that decision, the government and the regulator would then have to consider the scope 3 emissions.”
Rosebank contains around 325m barrels of oil equivalent. Previous Carbon Brief analysis found that, when burnt, this would produce around 150m tonnes of CO2e – roughly the same as produced each year by 90 of the world’s lowest-emitting countries.
Coal mining is another activity that is likely to be affected by the judgment.
This likely explains why representatives from the company behind a new coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, were moved to intervene in the Supreme Court case on Horse Hill, experts tell Carbon Brief.
The controversial project was permitted by communities secretary Michael Gove in 2022 and would be the UK’s first new deep coal mine in 30 years.
It plans to produce coking coal to be exported for global steel production, rather than for power production.
De Kauwe, who with Friends of the Earth is mounting a legal challenge against the coal mine to be held in the High Court on 16-18 July, said the reasoning used in the Horse Hill judgment is likely to hold true for the mining project:
“Coal’s role in all of this is to be burned as part of that steelmaking process. So it doesn’t matter that it’s not being used in power generation, it’s still the burning of fossil fuel.”
As with Rosebank, an overturning of the development consent given to the Cumbria mine by Gove would lead to the project having to produce a new EIA including information on emissions from burning the coal produced.
Could it affect other carbon-intensive projects, such as airport and road expansion?
While it is clear that the judgment will have implications for fossil fuel projects in the UK, it is unlikely to have consequences for other carbon-intensive infrastructure projects, such as airport and road expansion, experts tell Carbon Brief.
The judgment makes it clear that the ruling only applies to fossil-fuel projects, de Kauwe says:
“I think Lord Leggatt is very clear that in requiring the assessment of downstream emissions for fossil fuel projects, this is not opening up the floodgates, that was something that had clearly bothered both the High Court judge and the Court of Appeal.”
The judgment specifically says that fossil fuel projects are unique when compared to other types of carbon-intensive infrastructure, such as aeroplane manufacturing, she adds:
“[Lord Leggatt] said that the difference with fossil fuels, these have an inevitable use. They’ve only got one use. It’s for combustion.”
Walker adds that both road and airport expansion projects already consider the additional emissions from creating more car traffic or flights.
What could the judgment mean for the next UK government?
The judgment comes just days before a general election in the UK.
Carbon Brief has assessed where each party stands on fossil fuels. For example, the Conservatives have pledged to continue issuing new North Sea oil and gas licences, while Reform has promised to “fast-track” them.
Polls suggest that the Labour party is likely to win the election.
Labour’s manifesto says it “will not issue new licences” for oil and gas exploration, but that it “will not revoke existing licences”, leaving vagueness around whether it will grant development consent to new projects that have an exploration licence already.
Outside of the manifesto, representatives of Labour have previously pledged to put a stop to Rosebank and Cambo, two of the largest new oil and gas projects.
In light of the judgment, it is probable that the new energy secretary, which is likely to be the shadow energy and net-zero secretary Ed Miliband, will be faced with deciding whether to grant development consent to new North Sea oil and gas projects – with, for the first time, full knowledge of the emissions that will be caused by burning the fuels produced.
Commenting on the likely impact of the judgment on decision makers, Walker says:
“It makes the negatives appear greater, I would have thought, when weighing up whether to give consent.”
The post Q&A: What does the ‘landmark’ Horse Hill judgment mean for UK fossil fuels? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does the ‘landmark’ Horse Hill judgment mean for UK fossil fuels?
Colombia wants countries to discuss options for a global agreement to ensure that the extraction, processing and recycling of minerals – including those needed for the clean energy transition – don’t harm the environment and human wellbeing.
The mineral-rich nation is proposing to create an expert group to “identify options for international instruments, including global and legally-binding instruments, for coordinated global action on the environmentally sound management of minerals and metals through [their] full lifecyle”.
Colombia hopes this will eventually lead to an agreement on the need for an international treaty to define mandatory rules and standards that would make mineral value chains more transparent and accountable.
The proposal was set out in a draft resolution submitted to the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) earlier this week and seen by Climate Home News. UNEA, which is constituted of all UN member states, is the world’s top decision-making body for matters relating to the environment. The assembly’s seventh session will meet in Kenya in December to vote on countries’ proposals.
-
Milei’s budget cuts fuel deforestation fears in Argentina’s Chaco
President Javier Milei has slashed environmental spending since his 2023 election, putting forest defenders on alert in Gran Chaco, South America’s second-largest forest biome -
Why ethics must be at the heart of global climate action
If science shows us the urgency for climate action, then ethics must show us the way to rebuild momentum writes WWF climate & energy lead Manuel Pulgar-Vidal
Soaring demand for the minerals used to manufacture clean energy technologies and electric vehicles, as well as in the digital, construction and defence industries have led to growing environmental destruction, human rights violations and social conflict.
Colombia argues there is an “urgent need” to strengthen global cooperation and governance to reduce the risks to people and the planet.
Options for a global minerals agreement
The proposal is among a flurry of initiatives to strength global mineral governance at a time when booming demand is putting pressure on new mining projects.
Colombia, which produces emeralds, gold, platinum and silver for exports, first proposed the idea for a binding international agreement on minerals traceability and accountability on the sidelines of the UN biodiversity talks it hosted in October 2024.
Since then, the South American nation has been quietly trying to drum up support for the idea, especially among African and European nations.
Its draft resolution to UNEA7 contains very few details, leaving it open for countries to discuss what kind of global instrument would be best suited to make mineral supply chains more transparent and sustainable.
Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?
Colombia says it wants the expert group to build on other UN initiatives, including a UN Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals, which set out seven principles to ensure the mining, processing and recycling of energy transition minerals are done responsibly and benefit everyone.
The group would include technical experts and representatives from international and regional conventions, major country groupings as well as relevant stakeholders.
It would examine the feasibility and effectiveness of different options for a global agreement, consider their costs and identify measures to support countries to implement what is agreed.
The resolution also calls for one or two meetings for member states to discuss the idea before the UNEA8 session planned in late 2027, when countries would decide on a way forward.
No time to lose for treaty negotiations
Colombia’s efforts to advance global talks on mineral supply chains have been welcomed by resource experts and campaigners. But not everyone agrees on the best strategy to move the discussion forward at a time when multilateralism is coming under attack.
Johanna Sydow, a resource policy expert who heads the international environmental policy division of the Heinrich-Böll Foundation, said she had hoped that the resolution would explicitly call for negotiations to begin on an international minerals treaty.
“Treaty negotiations take a long time. If you don’t even start with it now, it will take even longer. I don’t see how in two or three years it will be easier to come to an agreement,” she told Climate Home.
-
The company tracking energy transition minerals back to the mines
Australian firm Source Certain traces minerals back to the exact point where they were extracted from the Earth – a technique that could help make cleantech supply chains more accountable -
The ICJ climate ruling has major implications for the loss and damage fund
As the fund struggles with lack of money and bureaucratic barriers, its board must align its actions with the landmark court decision -
Major financiers neglect energy transition risks from mining as demand booms
Financial institutions are lacking safeguards to prevent harms caused by mining the resources needed for the energy transition, analysis of the sector’s financing finds
Despite the geopolitical challenges, “we need joint rules to prevent a huge race to the bottom for [mineral] standards”. That could start with a group of countries coming together and starting to enforce joint standards for mining, processing and recycling minerals, she said.
But any meaningful global agreement on mineral supply chains would require backing from China, the world’s largest processor of minerals, which dominates most of the supply chains. And with Colombia heading for an election in May, it will need all the support it can get to move its proposal forward.
‘Voluntary initiative won’t cut it’
Juliana Peña Niño, Colombia country manager at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, is more optimistic. “Colombia’s leadership towards fairer mineral value chains is a welcome step,” she told Climate Home News.
“At UNEA7, we need an ambitious debate that gives the proposed expert group a clear mandate to advance concrete next steps — not delay decisions — and that puts the voices of those most affected at the centre. One thing is clear: the path forward must ultimately deliver a binding instrument, as yet another voluntary initiative simply won’t cut it,” she said.
More than 50 civil society groups spanning Latin America, Africa and Europe previously described Colombia’s work on the issue as “a chance to build a new global paradigm rooted in environmental integrity, human rights, Indigenous Peoples’ rights, justice and equity”.
“As the energy transition and digitalisation drive demand for minerals, we cannot afford to repeat old extractive models built on asymmetry – we must redefine them,” they wrote in a statement.
Main image: The UN Environment Assembly is hosted in Nairobi, Kenya. (Natalia Mroz/ UN Environment)
The post Colombia proposes expert group to advance talks on minerals agreement appeared first on Climate Home News.
Colombia proposes expert group to advance talks on minerals agreement
If you’re young, pregnant and Latina, chances are you live near agricultural fields sprayed with higher levels of brain-damaging organophosphate pesticides.
A baby in the womb has few defenses against industrial petrochemicals designed to kill.
California Sanctions Stark Disparities in Pesticide Exposure During Pregnancy
Climate Change
DeBriefed 3 October 2025: UK political gap on climate widens; Fossil-fuelled Typhoon Ragasa; ‘Overshoot’ unknowns
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Shattered climate consensus
FRACKING BAN: UK energy secretary Ed Miliband has announced that the government will bring forward its plans to permanently ban fracking, in a move designed to counter a promise from the hard-right Reform party to restart efforts to introduce the practice, the Guardian said. In the same speech, Miliband said Reform’s plans to scrap clean-energy projects would “betray” young people and future generations, the Press Association reported.
ACT AXE?: Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservatives, pledged to scrap the 2008 Climate Change Act if elected, Bloomberg reported. It noted that the legislation was passed with cross-party support and strengthened by the Conservatives.
‘INSANE’: Badenoch faced a backlash from senior Tory figures, including ex-prime minister Theresa May, who called her pledge a “catastrophic mistake”, said the Financial Times. The newspaper added that the Conservatives were “trailing third in opinion polls”. A wide range of climate scientists also condemned the idea, describing it as “insane”, an “insult” and a “serious regression”.
Around the world
- CLIMATE CRACKDOWN: The US Department of Energy has told employees in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to avoid using the term “climate change”, according to the Guardian.
- FOREST DELAY: Plans for Brazil’s COP30 flagship initiative, the tropical forests forever fund, are “suffer[ing] delays” as officials remain split on key details, Bloomberg said.
- COP MAY BE ‘SPLIT’: Australia could “split” the hosting of the COP31 climate summit in 2026 under a potential compromise with Turkey, reported the Guardian.
- DIVINE INTERVENTION: Pope Leo XIV has criticised those who minimise the “increasingly evident” impact of global warming in his first major climate speech, BBC News reported.
€44.5 billion
The cost of extreme weather and climate change in the EU in the last four years – two-and-a-half times higher than in the decade to 2019, according to a European Environment Agency report covered by the Financial Times.
Latest climate research
- Fossil-fuelled climate change caused around 36% of Typhoon Ragasa’s direct damage to homes and properties in southern China, according to a rapid impact attribution study | Imperial Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment
- Some 86% of the global population are concerned about climate change, according to a survey of 280,000 people in 142 countries and regions | Climate Policy
- A global shift towards a “planetary health diet” could slash emissions and save tens of thousands of lives each day | EAT-Lancet Commission 2025 report
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Clean energy has met 100% of Great Britain’s electricity demand for a record 87 hours this year so far, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. This is up from just 2.5 hours in 2021 and 64.5 hours in all of 2024. The longest stretch of time where 100% of electricity demand was met by clean energy stands at 15 hours, from midnight on 25 May 2025 through to 3pm on 26 May, according to the analysis.
Spotlight
‘Overshoot’ unknowns
As the chances of limiting global warming to 1.5C dwindle, there is increasing focus on the prospects for “overshooting” the Paris Agreement target and then bringing temperatures back down by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
At the first-ever Overshoot Conference in Laxenburg, Austria, Carbon Brief asks experts about the key unknowns around warming “overshoot”.
Sir Prof Jim Skea
Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and emeritus professor at Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy
So there are huge knowledge gaps around overshoot and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). As it’s very clear from the themes of this conference, we don’t altogether understand how the Earth would react in taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
We don’t understand the nature of the irreversibilities and we don’t understand the effectiveness of CDR techniques, which might themselves be influenced by the level of global warming, plus all the equity and sustainability issues surrounding using CDR techniques.
Prof Kristie Ebi
Professor at the University of Washington’s Center for Health and the Global Environment
There are all kinds of questions about adaptation and how to approach effective adaptation. At the moment, adaptation is primarily assuming a continual increase in global mean surface temperature. If there is going to be a peak – and of course, we don’t know what that peak is – then how do you start planning? Do you change your planning?
There are places, for instance when thinking about hard infrastructure, [where overshoot] may result in a change in your plan – because as you come down the backside, maybe the need would be less. For example, when building a bridge taller. And when implementing early warning systems, how do you take into account that there will be a peak and ultimately a decline? There is almost no work in that. I would say that’s one of the critical unknowns.
Dr James Fletcher
Former minister for public service, sustainable development, energy, science and technology for Saint Lucia and negotiator at COP21 in Paris.
The key unknown is where we’re going to land. At what point will we peak [temperatures] before we start going down and how long will we stay in that overshoot period? That is a scary thing. Yes, there will be overshoot, but at what point will that overshoot peak? Are we peaking at 1.6C, 1.7C, 2.1C?
All of these are scary scenarios for small island developing states – anything above 1.5C is scary. Every fraction of a degree matters to us. Where we peak is very important and how long we stay in this overshoot period is equally important. That’s when you start getting into very serious, irreversible impacts and tipping points.
Prof Oliver Geden
Senior fellow and head of the climate policy and politics research cluster at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and vice-chair of IPCC Working Group III
[A key unknown] is whether countries are really willing to commit to net-negative trajectories. We are assuming, in science, global pathways going net-negative, with hardly any country saying they want to go there. So maybe it is just an academic thought experiment. So we don’t know yet if [overshoot] is even relevant. It is relevant in the sense that if we do, [the] 1.5C [target] stays on the table. But I think the next phase needs to be that countries – or the UNFCCC as a whole – needs to decide what they want to do.
Prof Lavanya Rajamani
Professor of international environmental law at the University of Oxford
I think there are several scientific unknowns, but I would like to focus on the governance unknowns with respect to overshoot. To me, a key governance unknown is the extent to which our current legal and regulatory architecture – across levels of governance, so domestic, regional and international – will actually be responsive to the needs of an overshoot world and the consequences of actually not having regulatory and governance architectures in place to address overshoot.
Watch, read, listen
FUTURE GAZING: The Financial Times examined a “future where China wins the green race”.
‘JUNK CREDITS’: Climate Home News reported on a “forest carbon megaproject” in Zimbabwe that has allegedly “generated millions of junk credits”.
‘SINK OR SWIM’: An extract from a new book on how the world needs to adapt to climate change, by Dr Susannah Fisher, featured in Backchannel.
Coming up
- 7 October: International Energy Agency (IEA) renewables 2025 report launch
- 8-10 October: World summit of Indigenous peoples and nature, Abu Dhabi, UAE
- 9-15 October: International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2025 congress, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Pick of the jobs
- UK government foreign, commonwealth and development office, senior climate policy adviser | Salary: CA$93,207. Location: Calgary, Canada
- Wellcome Trust, senior research manager, climate and health | Salary: £64,800. Location: London
- Bloomberg, product manager – climate, nature and sustainability regulations | Salary: Unknown. Location: London
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 3 October 2025: UK political gap on climate widens; Fossil-fuelled Typhoon Ragasa; ‘Overshoot’ unknowns appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Doing What’s “Right” Is More Controversial than it Seems
Trump’s Agenda Is Even Far-Reaching Than People May Think
We’re this close to a huge climate win
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Change1 year 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases2 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy3 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale