COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber has urged governments to agree on global goals to triple renewables capacity and double the rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030.
This call from Al-Jaber is supported by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and political momentum is building.
This month, a US-China joint statement on climate change backed tripling renewables to substitute coal, oil and gas power and bring about “post-peaking meaningful absolute power sector emission reduction”.
The context for these targets is a world that remains dramatically off course against global climate goals, with recent assessments pointing to warming of 2.4-2.7C above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
In its recent report on how to get back on track, the IEA said tripling renewables, doubling efficiency and slashing methane emissions 75% by 2030 would provide 80% of the emissions cuts needed for 1.5C.
This Q&A explains what tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency means – and why they are the two biggest actions the world can take to get back on track for 1.5C, even though they would be insufficient on their own to meet the target.
It also looks at what governments would need to do to deliver these goals and the likelihood of them being agreed at COP28.
- Why tripling renewables and doubling efficiency are key to 1.5C?
- What does ‘tripling renewables’ mean?
- What does ‘doubling energy efficiency’ mean?
- Is tripling renewables possible?
- What would governments need to do?
- The road to COP
Why tripling renewables and doubling efficiency are key to 1.5C?
In the IEA’s latest pathway to keeping warming below 1.5C, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy use fall by 35% by 2030, compared to 2022.
Yet the latest analysis from UN Climate Change (UNFCCC) shows that global emissions are set to fall by just 2% below 2019 levels by 2030, if countries continue to follow their current pledges.
The IEA set out five “pillars” to achieve deep emissions reductions by 2030 and keep the path to 1.5C open, which it suggests should be adopted at COP28. It states that tripling of global renewable capacity is the “single largest driver” of emissions reductions to 2030 in its roadmap.
The other pillars are doubling the rate of global energy efficiency improvements by 2030, cutting methane emissions from fossil fuel production 75% by the same date, developing “innovative, large-scale financing mechanisms” to support such changes in developing countries and measures to ensure an “orderly decline in the use of fossil fuel”, such as no new coal power being approved.
As the chart below shows, renewables growth and improved energy efficiency account for almost three-quarters (72%) of the total CO2 emissions cuts needed by 2030 in the IEA pathway.
Although tripling renewables is the single largest, energy efficiency – when combined with electrification – makes a slightly larger contribution.
The next largest contribution in the IEA’s roadmap would come from slashing the amount of methane released during the extraction of fossil fuels.
The leftmost column in the chart below shows global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2022. The black wedge shows how this would be expected to increase out to 2030 as a result of economic growth.
The next wedges show how expanding renewables (red), boosting energy efficiency (dark blue) and other mitigation measures (yellow) would cut emissions by 2030. The light blue wedge shows the additional contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from tackling methane.
Renewables would in fact have a hand in both doubling efficiency and slashing methane emissions. Renewables would help to power emissions savings from electric cars and heat pumps, which are both counted in the “efficiency” wedge because they are much more efficient than petrol cars and gas boilers.
Furthermore, tripling renewables would halve the need for coal power, which would in turn deliver almost half of the reduction in coal mine methane required under the IEA’s 1.5C pathway.
Ember’s analysis of the IEA’s 1.5C pathway, shown in the chart below, finds that just under half of the increase in renewable generation to 2030 would be used to displace fossil fuel electricity, while just over half would be used to meet rising electricity demand.
The large majority of the rise in electricity demand to 2030 would come from electrifying buildings, transport and industry. Another sizable part of the rise in electricity demand would power electrolysers to manufacture “green hydrogen”.
The leftmost column shows global renewable electricity generation in 2022. The second set of wedges shows increases in demand due to electrification (red), production of green hydrogen (yellow) and underlying electricity demand growth (dark blue).
The third set shows the displacement of electricity generated from coal (black), as well as oil and gas (light blue). The final wedges show contributions from other low-carbon sources, including nuclear (sky blue), hydrogen or ammonia (purple) and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (orange). The rightmost column shows electricity generation from renewables in 2030 under the IEA pathway.
The chart above also illustrates why energy efficiency improvements are also critical. Without efficiency, total electricity demand would rise substantially faster, meaning there would be much less additional renewable power to displace coal and gas-fired generation.
What does ‘tripling renewables’ mean?
The target of tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030 was not initially clearly defined, with different groups and different pathways implying slightly different goals.
The COP28 presidency is now explicitly calling for a target of 11,000 gigawatts (GW) of renewable capacity by 2030, which would mean a tripling of the 3,629GW installed by the end of 2022.
This target is similar to the levels installed by 2030 in 1.5C pathways from the IEA and IRENA, which reach 11,008GW and 11,174GW respectively.
A global tripling would not mean every country being required to achieve a tripling of domestic capacity. Each country’s renewable capacity today affects how ambitious it would be to individually achieve a tripling – and the target is defined at a global level, rather than nationally.
With this in mind the Nairobi Declaration for example, targets a fivefold increase in Africa’s renewables capacity, subject to access to financing.
Solar is expected to be the main technology used for tripling capacity. It provides two-thirds of the rise in renewables capacity out to 2030 and half of the increase in generation in the IEA’s 1.5C scenario.
This would see solar capacity increasing fivefold from 2022-2030. Combined with a threefold increase in wind , wind and solar would provide 92% of the tripling target.
New hydro, bioenergy, geothermal, marine and other technologies are still significant though, accounting for 8% of new renewable capacity and 15% of the rise in renewable generation.
The figure below shows the increase in capacity expected from solar, wind and other renewables under the IEA’s 1.5C pathway, illustrating the dominant role of wind and solar.
New nuclear and, to a lesser extent, fossil-fired generation with carbon capture and storage, have a much smaller role to play in 2030 under the IEA’s 1.5C pathway.
The increase in global nuclear capacity increase by 2030 would be equivalent to just 2% of that for renewables – though this would be equivalent to 9% of the rise in renewables generation.
What does ‘doubling energy efficiency’ mean?
The proposed target of doubling energy efficiency is a shorthand for saying that the rate of energy efficiency improvements would need to double by 2030, compared with 2022 levels.
Specifically, as proposed by the IEA, the target refers to the rate of improvement of global energy intensity, the amount of energy needed to generate each unit of economic output.
This stood at 2% per year in 2022 – already nearly double the average rate of the previous five years, according to the IEA. In the IEA’s 1.5C pathway, this rate continues to rise, reaching 4% per year in 2030.
According to the IEA, doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvements could be achieved through four pillars, shown in the chart below.
First, electrification and renewables. Electric vehicles use two-to-four times less energy than internal combustion engine vehicles; meanwhile, heat pumps use three-to-five times less energy than fossil fuel boilers. Moving to a more electrified economy would substantially reduce overall energy demand.
Second, clean cooking. Traditional use of biomass is extremely inefficient compared to modern improved cooking stoves. Over two billion people today lack access to clean cooking, and the IEA assumes this falls to zero by 2030 in its 1.5C pathway.
Third, technical efficiency. Focusing on the best available technologies for all electrical appliances, especially air conditioners, makes for the largest increase in efficiency of all the pillars.
Fourth, behavioural changes by individuals. The IEA makes relatively stretching assumptions here, including on heating and cooling homes less, reducing demand for flights and shifting surface transport away from cars.
Energy demand globally has been consistently increasing – but at a slower rate than GDP. This has resulted in large gains in energy intensity over at least the last half-century.
However, the IEA net-zero scenario shows that to stay below 1.5C, the world would need to do something new: reduce primary energy demand, even as GDP rises.
Achieving the rise in energy intensity to 4% per year would mean global primary energy demand in 2030 would be nearly 10% lower than in 2022.
Crucially, however, greater energy efficiency would mean the world could generate higher levels of energy services – warm homes, miles driven and so on – even as primary energy demand falls.
Is tripling renewables possible?
While tripling renewable energy capacity in just eight years might seem like an impossibly ambitious target, it’s worth reflecting on progress to date.
According to IEA figures, global renewable energy capacity reached 3,629GW in 2022, nearly triple the level seen in 2010. Moreover, within that total, solar capacity increased 29-fold.
(IRENA figures, reflected in the figure below, record a slightly lower total of 3,372GW.)
Both the IEA and IRENA’s modelling on what it would take to stay below 1.5C include renewable capacity tripling to at least 11,000GW by 2030. While the scenarios do not test what is possible, they are based on the agencies’ assessments of what it would be reasonable to achieve, in each country and sector of the global economy.
Another way to answer the question of whether the tripling target is possible is to look at current government plans to expand renewable energy capacity.
An analysis by Ember of 57 country-level renewable policies for 2030, covering 90% of global electricity generation, shows that the world is already targeting more than a doubling of renewable capacity to 7,250GW by 2030.
This would be roughly equivalent to repeating the record annual additions expected in 2023 – some 500GW, up from 300GW last year – every year for the rest of the decade, as shown in the figure below.
Still, tripling renewable capacity within eight years would require even more rapid growth, as the chart illustrates. Annual additions would need to rise from 500GW in 2023 to 1,500GW in 2030, an annual growth rate of 17%. It is worth adding that the average growth rate from 2016-2023 was also 17%.
The latest IEA assessment of government policies is more optimistic than Ember’s, showing global renewable capacity reaching 8,611GW by 2030 or 9,786GW if countries meet their climate pledges.
Moreover, Ember’s country-level analysis highlights that many national targets were set before the record renewable progress in 2023, meaning their ambition is perhaps lower than it could be.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a tripling target would entail significantly higher ambition than governments are currently envisaging.
What would governments need to do?
Tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency is achievable, according to a recent flagship report by IRENA, the COP28 presidency and the Global Renewables Alliance.
However, meeting the targets would require significant effort at a national and international level, the report says. It identifies the key enablers to unlock a large-scale increase in renewables and energy efficiency through decisive action from policymakers.
The policy priorities in the report include: standards for new appliances and buildings or bans on the least efficient options; reform of tax incentives and subsidy reform, including of direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies; electricity market redesign, recognising the shift towards systems largely based on zero marginal cost renewables; streamlined permitting, particularly for wind, solar and electricity networks; and efforts to maximise social benefits, via community benefit schemes and other measures.
These policy interventions are needed across the whole of government – not just the climate and energy ministries – according to the report, meaning their implementation would require supporting all government departments to deliver the energy transition.
Expanding low-carbon energy sources in line with the tripling target relies on a fast build-out of new infrastructure. This includes building power grids faster, developing more energy storage, and ensuring smart electrification. In many countries, electricity grids are holding back not just the deployment of renewables, but also the connection of electric cars and heat pumps.
Energy storage will be a key flexibility measure, the report continues, and long-duration storage is highlighted as a major priority, although flexibility would need to be improved everywhere. For example, it highlights that electrification would need to be “smart” so that electric cars and heat pumps are used most when there is abundant sun and wind.
Finally, finance support is critical, the report says. Only 20% of renewables investment happens outside China and developed economies, with access to competitive finance being a major barrier.
The IEA suggests $80-100bn in annual concessional funding is needed by the early 2030s to lower the cost of finance and mobilise private capital in lower income countries.
Andreas Sieber, of environmental NGDO 350.org, suggests that even more funding would be required, suggesting debt cancellation at scale, as well as $100bn in concessional finance and $200bn in grants yearly.
The road to COP
Support for the targets of tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency is building ahead of COP28, but many hurdles remain.
More than 60 countries, including the EU, US and COP28 hosts the UAE have now said they would support a pledge to triple global renewables, a draft of which would also commit to doubling efficiency.
However, this would have a different status to a deal backed by all countries within the final COP28 text.
The recent US-China climate statement committed both countries to support a global tripling of renewables, but overlooked a doubling of energy efficiency, mirroring the G20 position. It remains to be seen if the agreement reached at COP will include either target.
If the targets are agreed, there would also be a need for action to meet them.
The COP presidency is already urging countries to come to COP with “tangible commitments” to achieve the renewable and efficiency goals. After that, a post-COP review process would deliver accountability for the achievement of the targets.
Beyond the renewable and efficiency targets, COP28 is likely to be debating text in other related areas, including whether to phase down or phase out fossil fuels.
As the charts above show, delivering on renewables and efficiency would yield major reductions in fossil fuel use this decade. However, they are only two parts of the IEA’s recipe for staying below 1.5C.
As IEA executive director Dr Fatih Birol told Carbon Brief in September, implementing some but not all of those ingredients would not be sufficient to get back on track.
In particular, Birol noted the importance of “giving a signal to the markets and the governments and companies around the world that in order to reach this 1.5C target, we have to see fossil-fuel use decline”. A target on renewables alone would be “far from being enough” for 1.5C, he said.
The post Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5C appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5C
As in his first term, US President Donald Trump has again kick-started the country’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the global pact to tackle climate change. But this time, he has launched a barrage of additional efforts to end US participation in international climate action during his first 100 days in office.
He not only signed an order for the US to leave the Paris Agreement on his first day in the White House on January 20, a process that takes a year from when the UN is notified. His administration has also crippled international climate finance by cutting aid and saying it will not deliver on pledges to climate funds, financed major fossil fuel projects abroad and undermined environmental treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
“It is the policy of my Administration to put the interests of the United States and the American people first in the development and negotiation of any international agreements with the potential to damage or stifle the American economy,” said Trump’s day-one executive order on global environmental deals.
However, the implications could be far-reaching and weaken the US geopolitically, analysts warned.
“The Trump Administration is fundamentally dismantling the ability of the US government to project influence around the world,” said Jesse Young, former chief of staff at the Office of the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate under John Podesta, a political adviser to Joe Biden’s government.
“If you take the ball and go home, everyone else still shows up to these fora. It’s not like the party’s cancelled,” Young added. “By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and doing all this stuff, you make China look better by standing still.”
It is still unclear whether the US will send a delegation to the COP30 UN climate summit in Belém, Brazil, in November, where more than 190 countries are set to discuss a new climate finance roadmap and present updated national climate plans. A no-show for the US would be an unprecedented move for the world’s second-largest carbon polluter.
“The world will keep going,” said Tom di Liberto, public affairs specialist and former climate scientist with the US government. “What we’ve seen is a complete rejection of America’s role in the world.”
Bowing out of the UN climate process
The US leaving the Paris Agreement – although falling short of pulling out of the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – was the first step in a series of actions meant to undermine climate action on the global stage.
In February, the Trump administration prevented its scientists from attending a key meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held in China, where researchers from UN member states discussed the outlines and deadlines for the world’s upcoming flagship climate science reports.
As part of Trump’s first-day orders, the US also halted all financial contributions to the UNFCCC, leaving the UN climate body with a 22% shortfall in its core budget. In 2024, US contributions totalled $13.3 million.
Shortly after the announcement, American billionaire Michael Bloomberg pledged to fill the funding gap left by the US. Bloomberg Philanthropies had already stepped in during Trump’s first term and is already the UNFCCC’s largest non-state donor.
After Trump’s pullback, Bloomberg promises to fill US funding gap to UN climate body
The United States also failed for the first time to report its climate-warming emissions to the UN, a commitment the US had upheld ever since the UNFCCC was adopted over three decades ago.
And this month, the Trump administration dismantled the entire State Department’s Office for Global Change, which oversees global climate policy and aid, by terminating all of its employees. This was part of a wave of bureaucratic layoffs led by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), run by unelected tech billionaire Elon Musk, who owns electric vehicle maker Tesla and social media platform X.
One of the agencies targeted by DOGE was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which could suffer an almost 30% budget cut despite being in charge of key global weather and climate data. Di Liberto was one of the scientists fired from NOAA.
“We’re already seeing the impacts, especially in our national weather service, where we already today cannot forecast the weather 24/7 at local forecast offices,” Di Liberto told journalists on an online briefing.
Many developing countries rely on NOAA’s forecasting to prepare for extreme weather events like hurricanes or drought. In a world of increasing climate impacts, the move could “jeopardize most people’s access to life-saving information”, the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said in a statement.
Also in April, the Trump administration dismissed all the authors of the Sixth National Climate Assessment – a quadrennial scientific report mandated by Congress since 1990 – saying it is being “reevaluated”.
“Trying to bury this report won’t alter the scientific facts one bit, but without this information our country risks flying blind into a world made more dangerous by human-caused climate change,” warned Rachel Cleetus, one of the authors who is a senior policy director for UCS’s Climate and Energy Program.
Crippling climate finance
In his initial executive order to quit the Paris Agreement, Trump made very clear his intention to dramatically cut US contributions to international climate funding by ordering the US Treasury to “immediately cease or revoke any purported financial commitment” under the UNFCCC.
One of the administration’s first targets was the US government aid agency, USAID, which has suffered a dramatic mass layoff of staff and was subjected to a funding freeze. USAID is the world’s largest grant-based bilateral agency, overseeing hundreds of climate programmes now at risk of disappearing.
Speaking to Climate Home in February, workers at USAID-funded projects in Africa warned of “devastating” consequences to the world’s poorest, warning it would make them more susceptible to extreme weather.
USAID’s climate projects included an $84.5 million clean energy rollout across Southern Africa that would grant first-time electricity access to tens of thousands, as well as $22 million to help farming communities in Iraq deal with climate-related drought, and $18.5 million to boost climate resilience in Palestine.
The US has also walked out of coal-to-clean energy Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) with South Africa, Indonesia and Vietnam, set up by a group of donors to phase down fossil fuels and boost renewables in these growing economies. Together, the deals are worth a combined $45 billion.
Trump has also targeted international climate funds, rescinding a large pledge to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) in February, leaving a $4-billion shortfall and an empty seat on the fund’s board. The country also gave up its seat on the board of the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, although the previous administration made good on a previous $17.5-million contribution.
In addition, the US government is putting pressure on global financial institutions that support development around the world. During April’s Spring Meetings, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to drop their climate work, amid fears of a US exit from those agencies.
He said the IMF “devotes disproportionate time and resources to work on climate change, gender and social issues”. The IMF and World Bank chiefs have so far not indicated they will scale back their climate programmes.
Rush for gas and minerals
While cutting funding for climate mitigation, the Trump administration has invested efforts in redirecting international support towards fossil fuel projects, in particular gas.
For instance, back in March, the US Export-Import Bank approved a $4.7-billion loan for a major gas plant in Mozambique described as a “carbon bomb” by experts. The project operated by TotalEnergies is set to emit 121 million tonnes of planet-heating carbon dioxide every year and it would become Africa’s largest-ever energy project.
Trump has also encouraged other countries to buy into the US’s fossil fuel expansion plans, urging Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to commit to a controversial $44-billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Alaska. Asian countries reportedly have diverging views on this, with Taiwan expressing interest and South Korea more hesitant over the costs.
In line with this, the US government has also pushed gas at international energy gatherings. This month, at the International Energy Agency’s Summit for the Future of Energy Security in London, Trump’s envoy criticised renewables, blaming them for recent power cuts in Puerto Rico without providing evidence.
At energy security talks, US pushes gas and derides renewables
Critical minerals – whose global production is currently dominated by China – have featured too in Trump’s foreign policy. Minerals like lithium and cobalt as well as rare earths are key for manufacturing solar cells, batteries and other clean energy technologies. But Trump has set his sights on the military uses of these minerals, analysts told Climate Home.
At peace talks to end the conflicts in both Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the US government has offered “minerals-for-security” deals in an effort to secure key reserves of cobalt and copper in DRC, and graphite and lithium in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, in defiance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Trump administration in April signed an executive order to fast-track controversial deep-sea mining projects planned by Canada-based The Metals Company (TMC). For years, diplomats have tried to set rules for mining the ocean floor at the International Seabed Authority, an UNCLOS body. Trump’s unilateral permitting is set to create international backlash, experts warned.
Xi commits China to full climate plan but emissions-cutting ambition still unclear
Amid the US president’s snubbing of the UN climate process and other global environmental pacts, COP30 host Brazil has called on countries to stay committed to the UNFCCC. China, for example, recently announced it will produce an upgraded national climate plan ahead of COP30, covering all economic sectors and greenhouse gases for the first time.
“Now, we have to make an even greater effort to ensure that multilateralism prevails, and this
has to involve Brazil, China, India, the European Union, South Africa, and all remaining [UNFCCC]
parties,” Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva said in a statement. “Only intense multilateral action can tackle climate change.”
The post Trump’s first 100 days: US walks away from global climate action appeared first on Climate Home News.
Trump’s first 100 days: US walks away from global climate action
Canadians chose Mark Carney, a former central banker and UN climate envoy who leads the ruling Liberal Party, as their prime minister in Monday’s election, rejecting the anti-climate action Conservative Party of Pierre Poilievre.
The election result means that the climate policies of the world’s 12th-biggest emitter will be broadly unchanged, as the Liberals – under Justin Trudeau and now Carney – have governed the North American nation since 2015. At the time of publication, it was still unclear whether the centre-left party had won a majority of seats in Canada’s parliament.
Poilievre’s Conservative Party had promised to scrap climate polices like a carbon tax on industry and to boost oil and gas production and exports.
Meghan Fandrich, who survived a devastating wildfire driven by climate change in her village of Lytton, said there was “some comfort in knowing that Canada has rejected the Conservative leader – someone who voted against climate policies over 400 times, planned to accelerate fossil fuel production, and whose platform would have driven emissions higher, fuelling even more climate disasters”.
Canada’s new leader culls carbon tax seen as burden on voters
A Carbon Brief analysis suggests that a Conservative victory would have led to a rise in Canada’s emissions, whereas a Liberal government would keep emissions falling – although not fast enough to meet its own climate targets.
Trump drives Carney comeback
Climate change did not play a major role in the election, particularly as Carney scrapped an unpopular carbon tax on consumers soon after taking over from Trudeau in March.
Polls had suggested that the Conservatives were on course for a huge victory until January, when Trudeau resigned and US President Donald Trump charged big tariffs on Canadian exports and threatened to annex the country, causing many voters to back Carney over Poilievre, who is more ideologically aligned with Trump.
Carney is an ex-banker with a long history of climate action. As governor of the Bank of England, he called on investors to take their money out of fossil fuel companies.
After leaving the bank, he promoted carbon offsets through the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets and helped launch a coalition of financial institutions trying to reduce emissions called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.
Ana Toni, the Brazilian CEO of this year’s COP30 UN climate summit, said it was “very positive to have Mark Carney who has a deep knowledge of climate change and economics at the helm in Canada, and knows that the best path ahead is through the energy transition”.
After Trudeau announced in January that he would resign, Carney won the Liberal Party contest to take over from him as prime minister in March and has now won a general election, giving him a mandate to rule the country for up to four years.
Pick a lane on energy
Caroline Brouillette, head of Climate Action Network Canada, said Carney now had the chance to prove his climate credentials as Canada’s leader: “With the election over, Prime Minister Carney has the opportunity to practice what he has preached for years, and kickstart a green transformation that will build our country’s resilience for decades to come.”
But, she said, that means “picking a lane with regard to energy: no more flirting with fossil fuel expansion and new pipelines, which would come with staggering costs to our wallets and our planet”.
Trump throws lifeline to Canadian deep-sea miner, setting scene for international clash
Under pressure from Conservatives labelling him “Carbon Tax Carney”, the prime minister scrapped the controversial tax on consumers – which had been his party’s signature climate policy since 2019 – this March.
The tax, which a March poll showed two-thirds of Canadians wanted to get rid of, was paid by some drivers filling up their cars with gasoline or diesel and by people buying heating oil for their homes.
Carney said he would replace the tax with measures to retrofit homes for energy efficiency and install heat pumps, saying the changes “will make a difference to hard-pressed Canadians” and “ensure that we fight against climate change”.
Carbon tax on industry stays
But he did maintain the carbon price on big industries, which the Conservatives had promised to scrap. Analysis from the Canadian Climate Institute suggested that, while the consumer carbon price grabbed the headlines, the industrial price was expected to drive three times more emissions reductions by 2030.
At energy security talks, US pushes gas and derides renewables
Carney’s election manifesto also promises to boost electric vehicle production and use, as well as infrastructure to transmit electricity across the country and carbon removal and storage technology.
The Conservative manifesto pledged to “unleash Canadian resources”, by scrapping the emissions cap on oil and gas production, enabling construction of gas export terminals on Canada’s west coast and approving oil exports from Arctic ports.
Canada this year holds the G7 presidency and will host a leaders summit for the group of big, wealthy countries in the oil-rich province of Alberta in June.
Harjeet Singh, director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation in India, said that, as the G7 chair, Carney “must summon the political courage to champion bold global climate action – starting at home by rejecting new oil and gas projects and urging other G7 nations to dramatically scale up public climate finance to support developing countries in deploying renewable energy and addressing escalating climate impacts”.
The post Canada votes to keep Carney as leader, over anti-climate Conservatives appeared first on Climate Home News.
Canada votes to keep Carney as leader, over anti-climate Conservatives
Steelworkers, other advocates say proposed changes would put workers and communities at risk.
This article was originally published by Public Health Watch, a nonprofit investigative news organization. Find out more at publichealthwatch.org.
‘Secret Deal’ in California Would Weaken Regulations for Oil Refineries
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months 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 Change11 months 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 Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban