Chris Skidmore has been both UK energy and science minister and led an independent government review into net-zero published in 2023. He recently resigned as a Conservative MP in protest at a UK government bill to boost new oil and gas production.
- On realising climate change’s importance: “I realised that, actually, this was a mainstream issue now that was driving economic change and development.”
- On meeting Sir David Attenborough: “He just said: ‘Well, just get on with [tackling climate change]. You haven’t got any time, just get on with it.’”
- On the 2022 Conservative leadership contest: “I took a purposeful decision then that I was going to do all I could to try and protect and preserve net-zero.”
- On being asked to conduct a net-zero review: “I was going to grip that with two hands, regardless of who was prime minister.”
- On the government’s response to the review: “They haven’t really gripped that narrative in a way that I hoped they would.”
- On government action on climate change: “I think the government has been guilty of ‘green hushing’ in that, actually, the department and the excellent civil servants and officials who are working tirelessly on this agenda are getting on with it.”
- On resigning: “I’ve never been someone to rock the boat. But it is the accumulation of all different sides of the narrative building up that meant that I didn’t really feel that there was a choice.”
- On the prime minister’s reaction: “I’d asked previously for a meeting with the prime minister earlier in the year, but had received no response.”
- On the government’s decision to push new oil and gas: “There’s been a pivot towards trying to create a culture war on the back of net-zero as somehow being a measure that is juxtaposed to energy security. It is completely false.”
- On the government’s reluctance to reduce oil and gas emissions: “There’s been a consistent pattern of favouritism towards one particular sector at the expense of others.”
- On the next election: “You will probably see at the general election, a false narrative between claiming that the £28bn investment in green industries and technologies is somehow going to be a cost and a burden. Well, it’s not.”
- On GB News and TalkTV: “I refuse to go on them, they’re not proper media channels. Whereas most of my colleagues seem to be presenting them.”
- On UK newspapers critical of climate action: “[They’re] trying to undermine, make it personal, use misinformation.”
- On UK climate policy in five years: “I’m still optimistic that the UK can return to its leadership position if it wants to.”
Carbon Brief: You’ve said in the past that you’ve been on a journey when it comes to seeing climate change as an important issue. Can you please explain that journey?
Chris Skidmore: I first became an MP nearly 14 years ago and I focused a lot locally on the environment from that sort of perspective of the countryside. My constituency was on the edge of Bristol, between Bristol and Bath, and I had campaigned on issues around the protection of the countryside and the green belt. To be honest with you, at that time 14 years ago, I wasn’t aware of the science that was developing around climate change. I was sort of aware of the Paris Agreement happening and [then-secretary of state for energy and climate change] Amber Rudd coming in to meet [then-chancellor] George Osborne when I was the parliamentary private secretary for the Treasury.
But I think, for me, I became science innovation research minister in 2018 and you get the chance to go around the country and meet lots of fantastic academics and researchers, but also start-ups and scale-ups, so I think that was when I began to sort of register that action on climate change wasn’t just a green issue. I think the challenge has been in the past with politics in the UK is – and this is not a criticism – you see the Green Party as holding the flame for looking at issues around climate change. And I realised that, actually, this was a mainstream issue now that was driving economic change and development. I’d always written about research and development and the importance of spending more on R&D – actually, people criticise me for the writing a chapter in Britannia Unchained, but if you looked at that chapter, Buccaneers, is it’s all about how the UK should invest more money in R&D, like Israel, in order to get a rate of return and get new economies. And I started to realise a lot of the work was around decarbonisation, tackling climate change, new forms of renewable clean power, energy – whether it’s new nuclear, whether that’s solar. And so then when I had this opportunity to become interim energy minister in 2019, I seized it with both hands and I told the chief whip Greg Clark that I’ll be able to do both jobs together. Because I saw the opportunity to really push forwards on decarbonisation. And, at that time, I then had the chance to sign net-zero into law. And I’ve always said, when I go around and do talks, I’ve never expected that to have the impact that it had.
I left government in 2020. I was involved then in the all-party group on the environment. I think that was probably part of the journey. I was no longer a government minister, but then I was able to build relationships with [Green Party politician] Caroline Lucas, with the members of the Labour Party, which then brought me to that journey of then having the net-zero review. It was an independent review, but people were obviously naturally sceptical – as a Conservative MP, how can I be independent? So I really tried to go out and meet the SNP, the Welsh Labour government, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrat Party to really demonstrate that this would be cross-party and that I would stand up to my own party. I was going to set out the truth and the reality of what needs to be done and I wouldn’t pull any punches. During the review, we had that vote on fracking and I refused to back a confidence motion. I was expecting to lose the party whip and be sacked at that moment in time. So to me, it’s not a surprise that I’ve gone now.
For some people who maybe haven’t followed climate policy in detail, it seems like a sudden moment that I’ve taken this snap decision. But actually, going back to 2022, I’ve been at a point where I’ve said that I’m more interested in conserving the planet than conservatism – and that I was going to put net-zero front and centre of my own political values and philosophy. And that’s what I’ve done. And the inevitable consequence of following that journey – which began to accelerate up to Rishi Sunak’s net-zero row-back back in September – was that I was going to have to stand on my principles and that I couldn’t remain part of a party that was taking decisions that were so juxtaposed to my own values and what I believed.
CB: In that journey, can you think of one standout moment – a scientific paper or a talk perhaps – that really convinced you of the importance of climate change, that made you think: ‘Gosh, this is actually a really big problem.’?
CS: When I was science minister, before I became energy minister – so it must have been in that early 2019 period – David Attenborough came into the House of Commons. I said it would be great if I could sit down and have a chat with him.
As science minister, I was responsible for the British Antarctic Survey. I think the one moment for me, along with that meeting with David Attenborough, was that the UK government funded this big Antarctic research laboratory that was then built on an iceberg. And then they had to abandon it. And I was basically told – it wasn’t then public knowledge – that these cracks had opened up. They’d spent millions of pounds on this research station only to find four years later that it’s going to be impossible to use. I thought this is just accelerating far faster than anyone thought. If people thought they could build a research station on this glacier that then now had to be abandoned, this is definitely something that needs more serious focus.
Then I met Attenborough, through the British Antarctic Survey, in the House of Commons. I said to Attenborugh: “Is there anything you’d like me to focus on?” And he just said: “Well, just get on with it. You haven’t got any time, just get on with it.” And I think the way he said that to me made me sort of realise that there wasn’t really any time to be waiting or holding endless consultations.
Then there was the net-zero moment itself. I didn’t realise the impact it would have. That’s driven me to realise that the leadership position the UK can take is so precious because net-zero went viral after we became the first G7 country [to commit to it]. If we can deliver that impact with net-zero, we could have done so with oil and gas. And that’s why I have this incredible frustration that, if it wasn’t for this small amount of oil and gas that we’re trying to extract from the North Sea, we could have had a net-zero moment on defossilisation and the phase-out of fossil fuels. Also, there was a moment when we brought all of the NGOs into a room. Extinction Rebellion, Greenpeace. And I said to them: “There is a moment now where the prime minister wishes to achieve net-zero, but if you say it’s not good enough, then it probably is never going to happen.” There are challenges on both sides with net-zero, I recognise for some people it doesn’t go far enough or fast enough and for others, it’s too far too fast. But there was this moment where I felt a sense of recognition in the room that people were going to have to leave their own organisational pride at the door and that we’d all have to work together. Net-zero wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for people coming together. And, if we could achieve that with net-zero in one moment in time where people didn’t fall apart opposing each other, then we could do the same elsewhere. So I think probably two perspectives, one from the scientific perspective and then one from this opportunity of cross-party and cross-organisational collaboration.
CB: As you mentioned, former prime minister Liz Truss instructed you to conduct a review into net-zero. What was your sense of the reasons behind that decision at the time?
CS: Just to rewind back a couple of months, I’d set up the net-zero support group. Because, in January 2022, there was a story in the Guardian that was front-page – and also ran significantly in the BBC – that said: “Tory MPs rowback on net-zero.” It was talking about this net-zero scrutiny group, which had produced a letter signed by about five MPs. I remember thinking: “Not in my name is this going to happen.” So I set up this net-zero support group, which ran for a little bit until I then became chair of the all-party group on the environment. And then Boris Johnson fell. They had the leadership contest – and I took a purposeful decision then that I was going to do all I could to try and protect and preserve our net-zero commitment. So that would mean risking my own political capital to ensure that that happened. So I organised a hustings that I got [COP26 president and Conservative politician] Alok Sharma to chair – that was on the hottest day of the year in the summer when parts of east London were on fire. I organised a Conservative environment pledge, one of the pledges was to agree to net-zero by 2050. It got to a point where we had commitments from Rishi Sunak and from Liz Truss. Liz Truss said that she wanted to do net-zero by 2050 in a way that was pro-business, pro-growth. She basically had this pro-business pro-growth message. And then I initially backed Rishi Sunak. I was then highly annoyed that, having met with him, he didn’t tell me that he was going to come out publicly and say he wanted a ban on onshore wind. I felt that was not an accurate reflection of what he’d said to me in private about net-zero. And Liz Truss was going to win. And I took a decision – again, one that sort of burned through my political capital – to defect because I wanted to make sure that I might have a set opportunity to own and lead the policy [on net-zero]. I didn’t want to become a minister again. I’ve been there and done that.
So, she rang me up and she’d like me to lead this independent review on the basis of the commitment she made that she wanted to do net-zero by 2050 in a way that was pro-business and pro-growth. And I asked how long I would get to do it. I said: “Can I have six months?” And she said: “No, you can have three.” It was something that, once the prime minister had asked me to do that, I felt that I got to the place where I needed to be, which was to return to mark my homework having set the net-zero commitment. I wasn’t involved with the net-zero strategy, I was out of government in 2021. So I now have this moment to come back to provide the detail, in terms of that strategy and the pathways. And I was going to grip that with two hands, regardless of who was prime minister.
CB: Do you feel that the conclusions of your net-zero review have been listened to?
CS: I think on the face of it, I did my own analysis of the government’s official response – having an official government response that was recommendation by recommendation doesn’t always happen. I mean, where was the government’s response to the Dieter Helm review on the cost of energy? They didn’t even respond to it in the end. I didn’t want to make the mistake of the Helm review, which was to just go off and write something and give it to government. So I’d gone out purposely to make the net-zero review the biggest engagement exercise on net-zero ever conducted. You know, 1,800 responses. It wasn’t my review. That is what I said to people. I said this is your review. And I think, having done that, I placed the government in a position where they would have to recognise it. And also the totality of the review, it was 340 pages of A4, it’s 500 pages in the new book that has come out. I’d gone to see Nick Stern. Some people advised me to do a strategic review. I decided, in the end, it was every area of net-zero that needed to be covered. And as a result, I think the government needed to respond to this moment.
There were 129 recommendations in the review. Initially, the government took forward about 100 of those recommendations. Then they brought in another one, the net-zero duty for Ofgem. There’s a couple they’ve gradually brought in. We also had a timeline for each one because you can accept a recommendation and then kick the can down the road. So they accepted about 70 on the timescale we recommended. We’ve seen some significant shifts on that. Lots of things have come forward: rebalancing costs of electricity and gas, solar task forces, a number of recommendations around nuclear that the government took forward even last week. So I do think the government has been guilty of ‘green hushing’ in that, actually, the department and the excellent civil servants and officials who are working tirelessly on this agenda – who believe passionately in this agenda – are getting on with it and doing it.
The challenge I think for me with the government’s response to the net-zero review was obviously that I’d also set out, in part one, that this is the economic opportunity, that we need a response effectively to the IRA [US Inflation Reduction Act] and the EU Green Deal – and we’ve not really seen that response come forward. So £4.5bn on new technologies or green industries doesn’t really touch the sides in comparison to the US and the EU’s response. And also this long-term programmatic approach – what I call Mission Zero. The certainty, the clarity, the consistency and the continuity – the four C’s that we identified in the review – that should make a mission. We need a 10-year plan for retrofit, we need a 10-year plan for nuclear. The government’s committed to a 20-year plan for CCS [carbon capture and storage], so why not elsewhere? That brings down the costs. It brings down the learning cost of the technology, it brings down the labour market costs – it makes net-zero cheaper to do. And so they haven’t really gripped that narrative in a way that I hoped they would. The 10 missions that I set out are about taking forward long-term planning and long-term frameworks across several spending reviews. So, yes, to the detail of the individual policy recommendations, I think the government response – and this is pre net-zero row-back as well – was welcome. It’s just that wider, more important point to be honest with you, that if you’re going to commit, you’ve got to commit long term.
CB: As you’ve mentioned you’ve had high-level positions under several Conservative prime ministers. How do you think attitudes towards climate change have shifted in that time with each new prime minister?
CS: I guess the challenge is, whose attitude? I’ve seen myself, my constituents and people who contact me, have become more informed, deeply passionate and engaged on this issue. I have also seen an explosion in community projects that are highly capable, a citizen-led focus on delivering on climate change. In a way this groundswell has come up into local authorities. I’ve met with local authorities across the country and have been deeply impressed by their knowledge. I think we’ve seen this silent revolution take place where individuals have come forwards. Also, you know, we’ve seen websites like yourself being able to provide people with the stories, best-practice examples from across the globe. I passionately feel – and one of the reasons why I’ve left politics – that I can do more on the outside now to help deliver and implement and have an impact that I can in Westminster as a single individual independent MP simply voting time and time again against the government. I think also we’ve seen a number of sort of ginger groups set up, whether in the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, that are trying to push on climate action. So I really do feel that the tapestry of organisations and the climate community [is increasing]. I also think academics are getting better at disseminating their research more immediately. I think, previously, there was a time lag between what was in a paper [and the public knowing about it]. As science minister, I was always keen to make sure there was open-access data, but I think the ability for research to get out into the public domain faster is also informing decisions that can be made more effectively.
I think from a politician’s perspective, I have taken a decision partly because I believe that we are living through the challenge of our generation. If we don’t act now we could face catastrophe in 20 years or even closer than that. I think in 10 years time the world’s going to be a very different place and we’re seeing investors already recognising the risks of maintaining investment in fossil fuel. It’s going to get even faster. The next generation is not having any truck with this sort of compromise approach that somehow claims, Janus-faced, that we can somehow, on the one hand, phase out fossil fuels and, at the same time, produce new fossil fuels. It is unpalatable to me, Chris Skidmore five years ago, that I would have taken the decision that I have taken – I’ve never been someone to rock the boat. But it is the accumulation of all different sides of the narrative building up that meant that I didn’t really feel that there was a choice.
CB: As you mentioned, you resigned over the government’s plans to continue to maximise new oil and gas through the offshore petroleum licensing bill. Did you try to raise your objections to the bill with the prime minister prior to resigning and what was his reaction?
CS: I spoke in the King’s speech, saying that I would not back the King’s speech because of this bill. So I was half expecting the whip to be taken away from me at that point. I didn’t vote on the King’s speech, which in itself is a confidence issue, but then I received no reaction from the whips, no one rang me up angrily. I’d asked previously for a meeting with the prime minister earlier in the year, but had received no response. I don’t want to make this about personalities. I’ve said in the past, prime ministers will come and go, if people don’t want to engage with me, I’m not someone who shows any sort of pride in that. I just felt that I’d made my case repeatedly on the floor of the House of Commons. I had a conversation with Claire Cothiuno when she became new energy minister and set out very clearly my opposition to new oil and gas licences in my conversation with her.
But there does come a point where you can no longer argue black is white and continue in a party. I think it’s quite also clear from my comments that it would be the greatest mistake of [Sunak’s] premiership, if he rowed back on some of the commitments on net-zero – and they did that in the summer. So it shouldn’t have come as any surprise that I took the decision that I had to take. But, ultimately, that’s a decision for them. If they wish to engage with me the ball is in their court. They weren’t going to change. They weren’t going to somehow remove the bill. There’s no way you can amend that bill to make it somehow more palatable. And so, I had to take a decision, both to resign the whip and stand down, in order to demonstrate that we can’t [do this] as politicians in the UK – where we could have led [by phasing out fossil fuels], given that we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel of oil that’s not even going to be sold on domestic markets. The narrative was so false and so wrong, the Twitter graphics that were going out claiming: “This oil is ours.” Unless we’re going to bring in a bill to nationalise that oil, that is deeply mistaken. I couldn’t play a part in that.
There were other issues like the Rwanda Bill. Equally, I had spoken out about that and I didn’t vote for that either. But this is the reason why I feel strongly and passionately. If I’d stayed as an independent, people would have said: “You’ve changed party allegiance. You should resign your seat.” And, actually, 14 years ago, I introduced a bill myself saying if you change your political allegiance, you should have an automatic byelection. So I’ve stood by that principle as well. And I’m not having any truck with anyone that claims that I should have somehow stayed because it’s up to my constituents, having chosen Conservative, to have that opportunity to reelect the MP that they choose. I’m empowering my constituents and the point here is that I tried my hardest to get across the importance of this issue that was only raised further at COP28, but they continued to push forward.
CB: Why do you think the government is set on maximising new oil and gas despite, as you lay out in your letter, the clear case that it will do little to help energy and economic security?
CS: I think decisions are taken at the top and there was a clear change in government policy as a result of a change in leadership. So, again, I don’t want to go into sort of personalities and it’s up to journalists like yourself to try to explore those reasons. I don’t know myself why those individual decisions were taken by Number 10. They were not necessarily taken by BEIS [the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – which has now been split into the Department for Energy Security and Net-Zero, the Department for Science Innovation and Technology and the Department for Business and Trade]. But obviously there’s been a pivot towards trying to create a culture war on the back of net-zero as somehow being a measure that is juxtaposed to energy security. It is completely false. Net-zero is energy security. There couldn’t be any stronger way to deliver energy security than diversification of supply and moving away from foreign-owned volatile fossil fuels. But this demonstration of creating a department of net-zero and energy security as if they were juxtaposed…They fit together.
But we’re in the run up to a general election. The Labour Party would have been clear that there should be no new fossil fuel licences. A really important point is that no one has ever said that we shouldn’t be using our existing fossil fuel on the net-zero balanced pathway. But everyone has said no additional new fossil fuel licences. And this blurring of the lines – somehow claiming that you’re going to cost 200,000 jobs. Those jobs will be lost in 10 years’ time because private investors will have disinvested in fossil fuels in the North Sea. These will be stranded assets – as well as stranded communities. And it makes me angry that people are playing a culture war, claiming that, on the other side, somehow those that back net-zero are not thinking this through. Of course, we know we thought the production emissions discussion is a false one because, ultimately, in that case, why not buy all your oil and gas from Norway? which is the cleanest and low-carbon product.
But all the recommendations in my review around [the oil and gas sector, such as] bringing forward a methane flaring ban – which has been in place in Norway since 1971 – the government refused to do it. I backed the CCC’s [Climate Change Committee] recommendations that we should move further faster on electrification and decarbonising oil and gas. But the government backed the North Sea Transition Authority’s deal, which was drawn up by the sector itself, marking its own homework. There’s a real challenge around that gap, which is basically the government has allowed the sector [to do as it pleases]. And I’m not demonising that sector, it is just that everyone should be treated fairly. If every industry is expected to decarbonise and be part of the emissions trading scheme, why should there be an exemption for one particular sector? I said we should create a net-zero fund on the back of the tax on fossil-fuel companies and that should be then hypothecated into net-zero projects. Again, the government refused to take it forward. So there’s been a consistent pattern of favouritism towards one particular sector at the expense of others. And we need to have a just transition. A just transition means treating everyone equally and recognising that everyone’s got their role to play – and no one should have one particular advantage. But on that jobs point, I’m extremely worried that this becomes a similar situation to what happened with coal. In that there is not enough fossil fuels to be extracted, they will become evermore expensive. And at a time when everyone else is moving their investments into renewables and clean technology and clean power, we will be spending taxpayers money on tax breaks for industries that will be rapidly out of date. We should be transitioning those jobs. They are highly-skilled, fantastic workers. They could be working both on renewable clean power and decarbonisation as well. And if we leave it too late, those communities will pay the price. And I’m incredibly concerned that this is short-term politics at the expense of long-term security – not just energy security, but the job security of this country.
CB: What role do you see climate change playing in the next general election?
CS: I think that the lines have been drawn now. My resignation from the House of Commons, I hope, will reflect the point that not all Conservatives who believe that Conservatism should be about conserving the planet agree on this strategy. There is a chance that the government might wish to change its mind, we’ll see what happens in the run up to the election. Obviously, they’ve changed their mind on a number of other attitudes on the back of relaunches that took place last year. I think the challenge is going to be to what extent this is a domestic election versus a foreign affairs election. There’s a number of issues in the Middle East that could produce black swan moments, we’ll have to wait and see. There is also a key challenge that I’m interested in, from an economic point of view – put aside issues of culture – which is, do you invest to make things cheaper in the longer term, saving taxpayers money or do you claim that that investment is somehow borrowing and a cost on taxpayers? And we’ve begun to see this narrative develop on the battle lines. I personally believe that the Labour Party’s decision to come out and say that we should be investing in green industries, in the technologies and jobs of tomorrow, is the right one. I can’t deny that I’ve made that case around investment in the past – in R&D, when I was science minister. If you get this right and you bring in inward investment, the UK can be a true leader and also develop huge opportunities for regeneration across the country – jobs, growth – otherwise we get left behind. You will probably see at the general election, a false narrative between claiming that the £28bn investment in green industries and technologies is somehow going to be a cost and a burden. Well, it’s not. Anyone just needs to read my net-zero review to recognise you need to even spend more than that in the longer term, the CCC set that out as you go forwards to 2050. But, equally, my review stated that if we delay this spend, it’s going to cost billions and potentially add 28 base percentage points to debt-to-GDP ratios. So there’s an economic case to be won, as well as a values case, at this election.
CB: Carbon Brief analysis published recently found that right-wing newspapers in the UK published a record number of editorials criticising actions to tackle climate change in 2023. What do you think of the role of the media in casting doubt over the benefits of net-zero?
CS: I think there’s a challenge with some of the media. You have this new media that’s developed very fast – GB News, Talk TV. I refuse to go on them, they’re not proper media channels. Whereas most of my colleagues seem to be presenting them. That creates content that then creates that funnel mechanism that exists on social media, by which people can identify with particular conspiracies or causes that propagate misinformation and disinformation. It’s a huge challenge.
Mainstream media, how to tackle that challenge is equally problematic. Because we’ve had a number of papers – I’m not going to necessarily name them – that are on a relentless crusade, claiming that net-zero is a culture war and a cost. They’ve got particular commentators who write personal attacks. There were a number of personal attacks written about my resignation in the mainstream press that were not balanced. I think there’s a challenge with those who are against or have an agenda in claiming the action in climate is [wrong] – they’re either the delayers or they’re the deniers. It’s a continual push. And, also, [they’re] trying to undermine, make it personal, use misinformation. Whereas, on the other hand, with certain charities and NGOs, once a decision that’s been made that is the right one, they bank it and move on. And they’re not fighting the same fight. On the one hand, negative information on climate and net-zero is relentless, whereas those who know that the case is the right one [aren’t doing anything], it’s not at the moment an equal process. There needs to be a greater challenge around how to push harder from those that know [what is right].
I try my best to do that myself. I go around the country making the case for net-zero. I will use the regional local press as well. I’m determined to make sure that I can play my part in 2024. Again, as I did with the net-zero review, showing that net-zero is an opportunity, it’s not a cost. That it is a benefit. It’s going to make people warmer, in terms of having better insulated homes, it’s going to make them wealthier, in terms of lower bills. It’s not going to make them richer or poorer. I don’t want to necessarily be fighting a culture war on the terms of the individuals that I know are wrong and creating false narratives. But equally, putting the case out there, the media needs to embrace that. Also, they need to not give an equal platform to people who’ve only got three mates in a pub or to a party that has no elected MPs. Why should they be given an equal platform to mainstream scientific opinion that recognises the challenge we face?
CB: Finally, where do you think that the UK’s climate policy will be in five to 10 years and how do you think it will sit within a global picture?
CS: I’m still optimistic that the UK can return to its leadership position if it wants to. We are world-leading in terms of the policy frameworks, the academics, the NGOs, the businesses, everybody looks to us and I think that’s still the case. I hope that, if we can get back to a stage of moving away from this culture war, if there’s a change in administration, if there’s an opportunity to signal that the UK is willing to lead again, then we can. We’ve still got the most ambitious NDC [nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement] and if we can reach that it’s totemic in demonstrating that we can deliver net-zero at the same time as growing the economy.
CB: Thank you so much for your time.
The post The Carbon Brief Interview: Chris Skidmore appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Greenhouse Gases
DeBriefed 23 January 2026: Trump’s Davos tirade; EU wind and solar milestone; High seas hope
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Trump vs world
TILTING AT ‘WINDMILLS’: At the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Donald Trump was quoted by Reuters as saying – falsely – that China makes almost all of the world’s “windmills”, but he had not “been able to find any windfarms in China”, calling China’s buyers “stupid”. The newswire added that China “defended its wind power development” at Davos, with spokesperson Guo Jiakun saying the country’s efforts to tackle climate change and promote renewable energy in the world are “obvious to all”.
SPEECH FACTCHECKED: The Guardian factchecked Trump’s speech, noting China has more wind capacity than any other country, with 40% of global wind generation in 2024 in China. See Carbon Brief’s chart on this topic, posted on BlueSky by Dr Simon Evans.
GREENLAND GRAB: Trump “abruptly stepped back” from threats to seize Greenland with the use of force or leveraging tariffs, downplaying the dispute as a “small ask” for a “piece of ice”, reported Reuters. The Washington Post noted that, while Trump calls climate change “a hoax”, Greenland’s described value is partly due to Arctic environmental shifts opening up new sea routes. French president Macron slammed the White House’s “new colonial approach”, emphasising that climate and energy security remain European “top priorities”, according to BusinessGreen.
Around the world
- EU MILESTONE: For the first time, wind and solar generated more electricity than fossil fuels in the EU last year, reported Reuters. Wind and solar generated 30% of the EU’s electricity in 2025, just above 29% from plants running on coal, gas and oil, according to data from the thinktank Ember covered by the newswire.
- WARM HOMES: The UK government announced a £15bn plan for rolling out low-carbon technology in homes, such as rooftop solar and heat pumps. Carbon Brief’s newly published analysis has all the details.
- BIG THAW: Braving weather delays that nearly “derail[ed] their mission”, scientists finally set up camp on Antarctica’s thawing Thwaites glacier, reported the New York Times. Over the next few weeks, they will deploy equipment to understand “how this gargantuan glacier is being corroded” by warming ocean waters.
- EVS WELCOME: Germany re-introduced electric vehicle subsidies, open to all manufacturers, including those in China, reported the Financial Times. Tesla and Volvo could be the first to benefit from Canada’s “move to slash import tariffs on made-in-China” EVs, said Bloomberg.
- SOUTHERN AFRICA FLOODS: The death toll from floods in Mozambique went up to 112, reported the African Press Agency on Thursday. Officials cited the “scale of rainfall” – 250mm in 24 hours – as a key driver, it added. Frontline quoted South African president Cyril Ramaphosa, who linked the crisis to climate change.
$307bn
The amount of drought-related damages worldwide per year – intensified by land degradation, groundwater depletion and climate change – according to a new UN “water bankruptcy” report.
Latest climate research
- A researcher examined whether the “ultra rich” could and should pay for climate finance | Climatic Change
- Global deforestation-driven surface warming increased by the “size of Spain” between 1988 and 2016 | One Earth
- Increasing per-capita meat consumption by just one kilogram a year is “linked” to a nearly 2% increase in embedded deforestation elsewhere | Environmental Research Letters
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
For the first time since monitoring began 15 years ago, there were more UK newspaper editorials published in 2025 opposing climate action than those supporting it, Carbon Brief analysis found. The chart shows the number of editorials arguing for more (blue) and less (red) climate action between 2011-2025. Editorials that took a “balanced” view are not represented in the chart. All 98 editorials opposing climate action were in right-leaning outlets, while nearly all 46 in support were in left-leaning and centrist publications. The trend reveals the scale of the net-zero backlash in the UK’s right-leaning press, highlighting the rapid shift away from a political consensus.
Spotlight
Do the oceans hold hope for international law?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks what a landmark oceans treaty “entering into force” means and, at a time of backtracking and breach, speaks to experts on the future of international law.
As the world tries to digest the US retreat from international environmental law, historic new protections for the ocean were quietly passed without the US on Saturday.
With little fanfare besides a video message from UN chief Antonio Guterres, a binding UN treaty to protect biodiversity in two-thirds of the Earth’s oceans “entered into force”.
What does the treaty mean and do?
The High Seas Treaty – formally known as the “biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction”, or “BBNJ” agreement – obliges countries to act in the “common heritage of humankind”, setting aside self-interest to protect biodiversity in international waters. (See Carbon Brief’s in-depth explainer on what the treaty means for climate change).
Agreed in 2023, it requires states to undertake rigorous impact assessments to rein in pollution and share benefits from marine genetic resources with coastal communities and countries. States can also propose marine protected areas to help the ocean – and life within it – become more resilient to “stressors”, such as climate change and ocean acidification.
“It’s a beacon of hope in a very dark place,” Dr Siva Thambisetty, an intellectual property expert at the London School of Economics and an adviser to developing countries at UN environmental negotiations, told Carbon Brief.
Who has signed the agreement?
Buoyed by a wave of commitments at last year’s UN Oceans conference in France, the High Seas treaty has been signed by 145 states, with 84 nations ratifying it into domestic law.
“The speed at which [BBNJ] went from treaty adoption to entering into force is remarkable for an agreement of its scope and impact,” said Nichola Clark, from the NGO Pew Trusts, when ratification crossed the 60-country threshold for it to enter into force last September.
For a legally binding treaty, two years to enter into force is quick. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol – which the US rejected in 2001 – took eight years.
While many operative parts of the BBNJ underline respect for “national sovereignty”, experts say it applies to an area outside national borders, giving territorial states a reason to get on board, even if it has implications for the rest of the oceans.
What is US involvement with the treaty?
The US is not a party to the BBNJ’s parent Law of the Sea, or a member of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) overseeing deep-sea mining.
This has meant that it cannot bid for permits to scour the ocean floor for critical minerals. China and Russia still lead the world in the number of deep-sea exploration contracts. (See Carbon Brief’s explainer on deep-sea mining).
In April 2025, the Biden administration issued an executive order to “unleash America’s offshore critical minerals and resources”, drawing a warning from the ISA.
This Tuesday, the Trump administration published a new rule to “fast-track deep-sea mining” outside its territorial waters without “environmental oversight”, reported Agence France-Presse.
Prof Lavanya Rajamani, an expert in international environmental law at the University of Oxford, told Carbon Brief that, while dealing with US unilateralism and “self-interest” is not new to the environmental movement, the way “in which they’re pursuing that self-interest – this time on their own, without any legal justification” has changed. She continued:
“We have to see this not as a remaking of international law, but as a flagrant breach of international law.”
While this is a “testing moment”, Rajamani believes that other states contending with a “powerful, idiosyncratic and unpredictable actor” are not “giving up on decades of multilateralism…they just asking how they might address this moment without fundamentally destabilising” the international legal order.
What next for the treaty?
Last Friday, China announced its bid to host the BBNJ treaty’s secretariat in Xiamen – “a coastal hub that sits on the Taiwan Strait”, reported the South China Morning Post.
China and Brussels currently vie as the strongest contenders for the seat of global ocean governance, given that Chile made its hosting offer days before the country elected a far-right president.
To Thambisetty, preparatory BBNJ meetings in March can serve as an important “pocket of sanity” in a turbulent world. She concluded:
“The rest of us have to find a way to navigate the international order. We have to work towards better times.”
Watch, read, listen
OWN GOAL: For Backchannel, Zimbabwean climate campaigner Trust Chikodzo called for Total Energies to end its “image laundering” at the Africa Cup of Nations.
MATERIAL WORLD: In a book review for the Baffler, Thea Riofrancos followed the “unexpected genealogy” of the “energy transition” outlined in Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’s More and More and More: An All-Consuming History.
REALTY BITES: Inside Climate News profiled Californian climate policy expert Neil Matouka, who built a plugin to display climate risk data that real-estate site Zillow removed from home listings.
Coming up
- 26 January: International day of clean energy
- 27 January: India-EU summit, New Delhi
- 31 January: Submit inputs on food systems and climate change for a report by the UN special rapporteur on climate change
- 1 February: Costa Rica elections
Pick of the jobs
- British Antarctic Survey, boating officer | Salary: £31,183. Location: UK and Antarctica
- National Centre for Climate Research at the Danish Meteorological Institute, climate science leader | Salary: NA. Location: Copenhagen, with possible travel to Skrydstrup, Karup and Nuuk
- Mongabay, journalism fellows | Stipend: $500 per month for 6 months. Location: Remote
- Climate Change Committee, carbon budgets analyst | Salary: £47,007-£51,642. 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 23 January 2026: Trump’s Davos tirade; EU wind and solar milestone; High seas hope appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 23 January 2026: Trump’s Davos tirade; EU wind and solar milestone; High seas hope
The UK government has released its long-awaited “warm homes plan”, detailing support to help people install electric heat pumps, rooftop solar panels and insulation in their homes.
It says up to 5m households could benefit from £15bn of grants and loans earmarked by the government for these upgrades by 2030.
Electrified heating and energy-efficient homes are vital for the UK’s net-zero goals, but the plan also stresses that these measures will cut people’s bills by “hundreds of pounds” a year.
The plan shifts efforts to tackle fuel poverty away from a “fabric-first” approach that starts with insulation, towards the use of electric technologies to lower bills and emissions.
Much of the funding will support people buying heat pumps, but the government has still significantly scaled back its expectations for heat-pump installations in the coming years.
Beyond new funding, there are also new efficiency standards for landlords that could result in nearly 3m rental properties being upgraded over the next four years.
In addition, the government has set out its ambition for scaling up “heat networks”, where many homes and offices are served by communal heating systems.
Carbon Brief has identified the key policies laid out in the warm homes plan, as well as what they mean for the UK’s climate targets and energy bills.
- Why do homes matter for UK climate goals?
- What is the warm homes plan?
- What is included in the warm homes plan?
- What does the warm homes plan mean for energy bills?
- What has been the reaction to the plan?
Why do homes matter for UK climate goals?
Buildings are the second-largest source of emissions in the UK, after transport. This is largely due to the gas boilers that keep around 85% of UK homes warm.
Residential buildings produced 52.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2024, around 14% of the nation’s total, according to the latest government figures.
Fossil-fuel heating is by far the largest contributor to building emissions. There are roughly 24m gas boilers and 1.4m oil boilers on the island of Great Britain, according to the National Energy System Operator (NESO).
This has left the UK particularly exposed – along with its gas-reliant power system – to the impact of the global energy crisis, which caused gas prices – and energy bills – to soar.
At the same time, the UK’s old housing stock is often described as among the least energy efficient in Europe. A third of UK households live in “poorly insulated homes” and cannot afford to make improvements, according to University College London research.
This situation leads to more energy being wasted, meaning higher bills and more emissions.
Given their contribution to UK emissions, buildings are “expected to be central” in the nation’s near-term climate goals, delivering 20% of the cuts required to achieve the UK’s 2030 target, according to government adviser the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
(Residential buildings account for roughly 70% of the emissions in the buildings sector, with the rest coming from commercial and public-sector buildings.)
Over recent years, Conservative and Labour governments have announced various measures to cut emissions from homes, including schemes to support people buying electric heat pumps and retrofitting their homes.
However, implementation has been slow. While heat-pump installations have increased, they are not on track to meet the target set by the previous government of 600,000 a year by 2028.
Meanwhile, successive schemes to help households install loft and wall insulation have been launched and then abandoned, meaning installation rates have been slow.
At the same time, the main government-backed scheme designed to lift homes out of fuel poverty, the “energy company obligation” (ECO), has been mired in controversy over low standards, botched installations and – according to a parliamentary inquiry – even fraud.
(The government announced at the latest budget that it was scrapping ECO.)
The CCC noted in its most recent progress report to parliament that “falling behind on buildings decarbonisation will have severe implications for longer-term decarbonisation”.
What is the warm homes plan?
The warm homes plan was part of the Labour party’s election-winning manifesto in 2024, sold at the time as a way to “cut bills for families” through insulation, solar and heat pumps, while creating “tens of thousands of good jobs” and lifting “millions out of fuel poverty”.
It replaces ECO, introduces new support for clean technologies and wraps together various other ongoing policies, such as the “boiler upgrade scheme” (BUS) grants for heat pumps.
The warm homes plan was officially announced by the government in November 2024, stating that up to 300,000 households would benefit from home upgrades in the coming year. However, the plan itself was repeatedly delayed.
In the spending review in June 2025, the government confirmed the £13.2bn in funding for the scheme pledged in the Labour manifesto, covering spending between 2025-26 and 2029-30.
The government said this investment would help cut bills by up to £600 per household through efficiency measures and clean technologies such as heat pumps, solar panels and batteries.
After scrapping ECO at the 2025 budget, the treasury earmarked an extra £1.5bn of funding for the warm homes plan over five years. This is less than the £1bn annual budget for ECO, which was funded via energy bills, but is expected to have lower administrative overheads.
In the foreword to the new plan, secretary of state Ed Miliband says that it will deliver the “biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history”. He adds:
“The warm homes plan [will]…cut bills, tackle fuel poverty, create good jobs and get us off the rollercoaster of international fossil fuel markets.”
Miliband argues in his foreword that the plan will “spread the benefits” of technologies such as solar to households that would otherwise be unable to afford them. He writes: “This historic investment will help millions seize the benefits of electrification.” Miliband concludes:
“This is a landmark plan to make the British people better off, secure our energy independence and tackle the climate crisis.”
What is included in the warm homes plan?
The warm homes plan sets out £15bn of investment over the course of the current parliament to drive uptake of low-carbon technologies and upgrade “up to” 5m homes.
A key focus of the plan is energy security and cost savings for UK households.
The government says its plan will “prioritise” investment in electrification measures, such as heat pumps, solar panels and battery storage. This is where most of the funding is targeted.
However, it also includes new energy-efficiency standards to encourage landlords to improve conditions for renters.
Some policies were notable due to their absence, such as the lack of a target to end gas boiler sales. The plan also states that, while it will consult on the use of hydrogen in heating homes, this is “not yet a proven technology” and therefore any future role would be “limited”.
New funding
Technologies such as heat pumps and rooftop solar panels are essential for the UK to achieve its net-zero goals, but they carry significant up-front costs for households. Plans for expanding their uptake therefore rely on government support.
Following the end of ECO in March, the warm homes plan will help fill the gap in funding for energy-efficiency measures that it is expected to leave.
As the chart below shows, a range of new measures under the warm homes plan – including a mix of grants and loans – as well as more funding for existing schemes, leads to an increase in support out to 2030.
One third of the total funding – £5bn in total – is aimed at low-income households, including social housing tenants. This money will be delivered in the form of grants that could cover the full cost of upgrades.
The plan highlights solar panels, batteries and “cost-effective insulation” for the least energy-efficient homes as priority measures for this funding, with a view to lowering bills.
There is also £2.7bn for the existing boiler upgrade scheme, which will see its annual allocation increase gradually from £295m in 2025-26 to £709m in 2029-30.
This is the government’s measure to encourage better-off “able to pay” households to buy heat pumps, with grants of £7,500 towards the cost of replacing a gas or oil-fired boiler. For the first time, there will also be new £2,500 grants from the scheme for air-to-air heat pumps (See: Heat pumps.)
A key new measure in the plan is £2bn for low- and zero-interest consumer loans, to help with the cost of various home upgrades, including solar panels, batteries and heat pumps.
Previous efforts to support home upgrades with loans have not been successful. However, innovation agency Nesta says the government’s new scheme could play a central role, with the potential for households buying heat pumps to save hundreds of pounds a year, compared to purchases made using regular loans.
The remaining funding over the next four years includes money assigned to heat networks and devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which are responsible for their own plans to tackle fuel poverty and household emissions.
Heat pumps
Heat pumps are described in the plan as the “best and cheapest form of electrified heating for the majority of our homes”.
The government’s goal is for heat pumps to “increasingly become the desirable and natural choice” for those replacing old boilers. At the same time, it says that new home standards will ensure that new-build homes have low-carbon heating systems installed by default.
Despite this, the warm homes plan scales back the previous government’s target for heat-pump installations in the coming years, reflecting the relatively slow increase in heat-pump sales. It also does not include a set date to end the sale of gas boilers.
The plan’s central target is for 450,000 heat pumps to be installed annually by 2030, including 200,000 in new-build homes and 250,000 in existing homes.
This is significantly lower than the previous target – originally set in 2021 under Boris Johnson’s Conservative government – to install 600,000 heat pumps annually by 2028.
Meeting that target would have meant installations increasing seven-fold in just four years, between 2024 and 2028. Now, installations only need to increase five-fold in six years.
As the chart below shows, the new target is also considerably lower than the heat-pump installation rate set out in the CCC’s central net-zero pathway. That involved 450,000 installations in existing homes alone by 2030 – excluding new-build properties.
Some experts and campaigners questioned how the UK would remain on track for its legally binding climate goals given this scaled-back rate of heat-pump installations.
Additionally, Adam Bell, policy director at the thinktank Stonehaven, writes on LinkedIn that the “headline numbers for heat pump installs do not stack up”.
Heat pumps in existing homes are set to be supported primarily via the boiler upgrade scheme and – according to Bell – there is not enough funding for the 250,000 installations that are planned, despite an increased budget.
The government’s plan relies in part on the up-front costs of heat pump installation “fall[ing] significantly”. According to Bell, it may be that the government will reduce the size of boiler upgrade scheme grants in the future, hoping that costs will fall sufficiently.
Alternatively, the government may rely on driving uptake through its planned low-cost loans and the clean heat market mechanism, which requires heating-system suppliers to sell a growing share of heat pumps.
Rooftop solar
Rooftop solar panels are highlighted in the plan as “central to cutting energy bills”, by allowing households to generate their own electricity to power their homes and sell it back to the grid.
At the same time, rooftop solar is expected to make a “significant contribution” to the government’s target of hitting 45-47 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity by 2030.
As it stands, there is roughly 5.2GW of solar capacity on residential rooftops.
Taken together, the government says the grants and loans set out in the warm homes plan could triple the number of homes with rooftop solar from 1.6m to 4.6m by 2030.
It says that this is “in addition” to homes that decide to install rooftop solar independently.
Efficiency standards
The warm homes plan says that the government will publish its “future homes standard” for new-build properties, alongside necessary regulations, in the first quarter of 2026.
On the same day, the government also published its intention to reform “energy performance certificates” (EPCs), the ratings that are supposed to inform prospective buyers and renters about how much their new homes will cost to keep warm.
The current approach to measuring performance for EPCs is “unreliable” and thought to inadvertently discourage heat pumps. It has faced long-standing calls for reform.
As well as funding low-carbon technologies, the warm homes plan says it is “standing up for renters” with new energy-efficiency standards for privately and socially rented homes.
Currently, private renters – who rely on landlords to invest in home improvements – are the most likely to experience fuel poverty and to live in cold, damp homes.
Landlords will now need to upgrade their properties to meet EPC ratings B and C across two new-style EPC metrics by October 2030. There are “reasonable exemptions” to this rule that will limit the amount landlords have to spend per property to £10,000.
In total, the government expects “up to” 1.6m homes in the private-rental sector to benefit from these improvements and “up to” 1.3m social-rent homes.
These new efficiency standards therefore cover three-fifths of the “up to” 5m homes helped by the plan.
The government also published a separate fuel poverty strategy for England.
Heat networks
The warm homes plan sets out a new target to more than double the amount of heating provided using low-carbon heat networks – up to 7% of England’s heating demand by 2035 and a fifth by 2050.
This involves an injection of £1.1bn for heat networks, including £195m per year out to 2030 via the green heat network fund, as well as “mobilising” the National Wealth Fund.
The plan explains that this will primarily benefit urban centres, noting that heat networks are “well suited” to serving large, multi-occupancy buildings and those with limited space.
Alongside the plan, the government published a series of technical standards for heat networks, including for consumer protection.
What does the warm homes plan mean for energy bills?
The warm homes plan could save households “hundreds on energy bills” for those whose homes are upgraded, according to the UK government.
This is in addition to two changes announced in the budget in 2025, which are expected to cut energy bills for all homes by an average of £150 a year.
This included the decisions to bring ECO to an end when the current programme of work wraps up at the end of the financial year and for the treasury to cover three-quarters of the cost of the “renewables obligation” (RO) for three years from April 2026.
Beyond this, households that take advantage of the measures outlined in the plan can expect their energy bills to fall by varying amounts, the government says.
The warm homes plan includes a number of case studies that detail how upgrades could impact energy bills for a range of households. For example, it notes that a social-rented two-bedroom semi-detached home that got insulation and solar panels could save £350 annually.
An owner-occupier three-bedroom home could save £450 annually if it gets solar panels and a battery through consumer loans offered under the warm homes plan, it adds.
Similar analysis published by Nesta says that a typical household that invests in home upgrades under the plan could save £1,000 a year on its energy bill.
It finds that a household with a heat pump, solar panels and a battery, which uses a solar and “time of use tariff”, could see its annual energy bill fall by as much as £1,000 compared with continuing to use a gas boiler, from around £1,670 per year to £670, as shown in the chart below.
Ahead of the plan being published, there were rumours of further “rebalancing” energy bills to bring down the cost of electricity relative to gas. However, this idea failed to come to fruition in the warm homes plan.
This would have involved reducing or removing some or all of the policy costs currently funded via electricity bills, by shifting them onto gas bills or into general taxation.
This would have made it relatively cheaper to use electric technologies such as heat pumps, acting as a further incentive to adopt them.
Nesta highlights that in the absence of further action with regard to policy costs, the electricity-to-gas price ratio is likely to stay at around 4.1 from April 2026.
What has been the reaction to the plan?
Many of the commitments in the warm homes plan were welcomed by a broad range of energy industry experts, union representatives and thinktanks.
Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, described it as a “really important step forward”, adding:
“Electrifying homes is the best way to cut bills for good and escape the yoyo of fossil fuel costs.”
Dhara Vyas, chief executive of the trade body Energy UK, said the government’s commitment to spend £15bn on upgrading home heating was “substantial” and would “provide certainty to investors and businesses in the energy market”.
On LinkedIn, Camilla Born, head of the campaign group Electrify Britain, said the plan was a “good step towards backing electrification as the future of Britain, but it must go hand in hand with bringing down the costs of electricity”.
However, right-leaning publications and politicians were critical of the plan, focusing on how a proportion of solar panels sold in the UK are manufactured in China.
According to BBC News, two-thirds (68%) of the solar panels imported to the UK came from China in 2024.
In an analysis of the plan, the Guardian’s environment editor Fiona Harvey and energy correspondent Jillian Ambrose argued that the strategy is “all carrot and no stick”, given that the “longstanding proposal” to ban the installation of gas boilers beyond 2035 has been “quietly dropped”.
Christopher Hammond, chief executive of UK100, a cross-party network of more than 120 local authorities, welcomed the plan, but urged the government to extend it to include public buildings.
The government’s £3.5bn public sector decarbonisation scheme, which aimed to electrify schools, hospitals and council buildings, ended in June 2025 and no replacement has been announced, according to the network.
The post Q&A: What UK’s ‘warm homes plan’ means for climate change and energy bills appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What UK’s ‘warm homes plan’ means for climate change and energy bills
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s China Briefing.
China Briefing handpicks and explains the most important climate and energy stories from China over the past fortnight. Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
Tasks for 2026
‘GREEN RESOLVE’: The Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) said at its annual national conference that it is “essential” to “maintain strategic resolve” on building a “beautiful China”, reported energy news outlet BJX News. Officials called for “accelerating green transformation” and “strengthening driving forces” for the low-carbon transition in 2026, it added. The meeting also underscored the need for “continued reduction in total emissions of major pollutants”, it said, as well as for “advancing source control through carbon peaking and a low-carbon transition”. The MEE listed seven key tasks for 2026 at the meeting, said business news outlet 21st Century Business Herald, including promoting development of “green productive forces”, focusing on “regional strategies” to build “green development hubs” and “actively responding” to climate change.
CARBON ‘PRESSURE’: China’s carbon emissions reduction strategy will move from the “preparatory stages” into a phase of “substantive” efforts in 2026, reported Shanghai-based news outlet the Paper, with local governments beginning to “feel the pressure” due to facing “formal carbon assessments for the first time” this year. Business news outlet 36Kr said that an “increasing number of industry participants” will have to begin finalising decarbonisation plans this year. The entry into force of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism means China’s steelmakers will face a “critical test of cost, data and compliance”, reported finance news outlet Caixin. Carbon Brief asked several experts, including the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Li Shuo, what energy and climate developments they will be watching in 2026.
COAL DECLINE: New data released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) showed China’s “mostly coal-based thermal power generation fell in 2025” for the first time in a decade, reported Reuters, to 6,290 terawatt-hours (TWh). The data confirmed earlier analysis for Carbon Brief that “coal power generation fell in both China and India in 2025”, marking the first simultaneous drop in 50 years. Energy news outlet International Energy Net noted that wind generation rose 10% to 1,053TWh and solar by 24% to 1,573TWh.
EV agreement reached
‘NORMALISED COMPETITION’?: The EU will remove tariffs on imports of electric vehicles (EV) made in China if the manufacturers follow “guidelines on minimum pricing” issued by the bloc, reported the Associated Press. China’s commerce ministry stated that the new guidelines will “enable Chinese exporters to address the EU’s anti-subsidy case concerning Chinese EVs in a way that is more practical, targeted and consistent with [World Trade Organization] rules”, according to the state-run China Daily. An editorial by the state-supporting Global Times argued that the agreement symbolised a “new phase” in China-EU economic and trade relations in which “normalised competition” is stabilised by a “solid cooperative foundation”.
SOLAR REBATES: China will “eliminate” export rebates for solar products from April 2026 and phase rebates for batteries out by 2027, said Caixin. Solar news outlet Solar Headlines said that the removal of rebates would “directly test” solar companies’ profitability and “fundamentally reshape the entire industry’s growth logic”. Meanwhile, China imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of “solar-grade polysilicon” from the US and Korea, said state news agency Xinhua.
OVERCAPACITY MEETINGS: The Chinese government “warned several producers of polysilicon…about monopoly risks” and cautioned them not to “coordinate on production capacity, sales volume and prices”, said Bloomberg. Reuters and China Daily covered similar government meetings on “mitigat[ing] risks of overcapacity” with the battery and EV industries, respectively. A widely republished article in the state-run Economic Daily said that to counter overcapacity, companies would need to reverse their “misaligned development logic” and shift from competing on “price and scale” to competing on “technology”.
High prices undermined home coal-to-gas heating policy
SWITCHING SHOCK: A video commentary by Xinhua reporter Liu Chang covered “reports of soaring [home] heating costs following coal-to-gas switching [policies] in some rural areas of north China”. Liu added that switching from coal to gas “must lead not only to blue skies, but also to warmth”. Bloomberg said that the “issue isn’t a lack of gas”, but the “result of a complex series of factors including price regulations, global energy shocks and strained local finances”.
-
Sign up to Carbon Brief’s free “China Briefing” email newsletter. All you need to know about the latest developments relating to China and climate change. Sent to your inbox every Thursday.
HEATED DEBATE: Discussions of the story in China became a “domestically resonant – and politically awkward – debate”, noted the current affairs newsletter Pekingnology. It translated a report by Chinese outlet Economic Observer that many villagers in Hebei struggled with no access to affordable heating, with some turning back to coal. “Local authorities are steadily advancing energy supply,” People’s Daily said of the issue, noting that gas is “increasingly becoming a vital heating energy source” as part of China’s energy transition. Another People’s Daily article quoted one villager saying: “Coal-to-gas conversion is a beneficial initiative for both the nation and its people…Yet the heating costs are simply too high.”
DEJA-VU: This is not the first time coal-to-gas switching has encountered challenges, according to research by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, with nearby Shanxi province experiencing a similar situation. In Shanxi, a “lack of planning, poor coordination and hasty implementation” led to demand outstripping supply, while some households had their coal-based heating systems removed with no replacement secured. Others were “deterred” from using gas-based systems due to higher prices, it said.
More China news
- LOFTY WORDS: At Davos, vice-premier He Lifeng reaffirmed commitments to China’s “dual-carbon” goals and called for greater “global cooperation on climate change”, reported Caixin.
- NOT LOOKING: US president Donald Trump, also at Davos, said he was not “able to find any windfarms in China”, adding China sells them to “stupid” consumers, reported Euronews. China installed wind capacity has ranked first globally “for 15 years consecutively”, said a government official, according to CGTN.
- ‘GREEN’ FACTORIES: China issued “new guidelines to promote green [industrial] microgrids” including targets for on-site renewable use, said Xinhua. The country “pledged to advance zero-carbon factory development” from 2026, said another Xinhua report.
- JET-FUEL MERGER: A merger of oil giant Sinopec with the country’s main jet-fuel producer could “aid the aviation industry’s carbon reduction goals”, reported Yicai Global. However, Caixin noted that the move could “stifl[e] innovation” in the sustainable air fuel sector.
- NEW TARGETS: Chinese government investment funds will now be evaluated on the “annual carbon reduction rates” achieved by the enterprises or projects they support, reported BJX News.
- HOLIDAY CATCH-UP: Since the previous edition of China Briefing in December, Beijing released policies on provincial greenhouse gas inventories, the “two new” programme, clean coal benchmarks, corporate climate reporting, “green consumption” and hydrogen carbon credits. The National Energy Administration also held its annual work conference.
Spotlight
Why gas plays a minimal role in China’s climate strategy
While gas is seen in some countries as an important “bridging” fuel to move away from coal use, rapid electrification, uncompetitiveness and supply concerns have suppressed its share in China’s energy mix.
Carbon Brief explores the current role of gas in China and how this could change in the future. The full article is available on Carbon Brief’s website.
The current share of gas in China’s primary energy demand is small, at around 8-9%.
It also comprises 7% of China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion, adding 755m tonnes of CO2 in 2023 – twice the total CO2 emissions of the UK.
Gas consumption is continuing to grow in line with an overall uptick in total energy demand, but has slowed slightly from the 9% average annual rise in gas demand over the past decade – during which time consumption more than doubled.
The state-run oil and gas company China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) forecast in 2025 that demand growth for the year may slow further to just over 6%.
Chinese government officials frequently note that China is “rich in coal” and “short of gas”. Concerns of import dependence underpin China’s focus on coal for energy security.
However, Beijing sees electrification as a “clear energy security strategy” to both decarbonise and “reduce exposure to global fossil fuel markets”, said Michal Meidan, China energy research programme head at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
A dim future?
Beijing initially aimed for gas to displace coal as part of a broader policy to tackle air pollution.
Its “blue-sky campaign” helped to accelerate gas use in the industrial and residential sectors. Several cities were mandated to curtail coal usage and switch to gas.
(January 2026 saw widespread reports of households choosing not to use gas heating installed during this campaign despite freezing temperatures, due to high prices.)
Industry remains the largest gas user in China, with “city gas” second. Power generation is a distant third.
The share of gas in power generation remains at 4%, while wind and solar’s share has soared to 22%, Yu Aiqun, research analyst at the thinktank Global Energy Monitor, told Carbon Brief. She added:
“With the rapid expansion of renewables and ongoing geopolitical uncertainties, I don’t foresee a bright future for gas power.”
However, gas capacity may still rise from 150 gigawatts (GW) in 2025 to 200GW by 2030. A government report noted that gas will continue to play a “critical role” in “peak shaving”.
But China’s current gas storage capacity is “insufficient”, according to CNPC, limiting its ability to meet peak-shaving demand.
Transport and industry
Gas instead may play a bigger role in the displacement of diesel in the transport sector, due to the higher cost competitiveness of LNG – particularly for trucking.
CNPC forecast that LNG displaced around 28-30m tonnes of diesel in the trucking sector in 2025, accounting for 15% of total diesel demand in China.
However, gas is not necessarily a better option for heavy-duty, long-haul transportation, due to poorer fuel efficiency compared with electric vehicles.
In fact, “new-energy vehicles” are displacing both LNG-fueled trucks and diesel heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs).
Meanwhile, gas could play a “more significant” role in industrial decarbonisation, Meidan told Carbon Brief, if prices fall substantially.
Growth in gas demand has been decelerating in some industries, but China may adopt policies more favourable to gas, she added.
An energy transition roadmap developed by a Chinese government thinktank found gas will only begin to play a greater role than coal in China by 2050 at the earliest.
Both will be significantly less important than clean-energy sources at that point.
This spotlight was written by freelance climate journalist Karen Teo for Carbon Brief.
Watch, read, listen
EV OUTLOOK: Tu Le, managing director of consultancy Sino Auto Insights, spoke on the High Capacity podcast about his outlook for China’s EV industry in 2026.
‘RUNAWAY TRAIN’: John Hopkins professor Jeremy Wallace argued in Wired that China’s strength in cleantech is due to a “runaway train of competition” that “no one – least of all [a monolithic ‘China’] – knows how to deal with”.
‘DIRTIEST AND GREENEST’: China’s energy engagement in the Belt and Road Initiative was simultaneously the “dirtiest and greenest” it has ever been in 2025, according to a new report by the Green Finance & Development Center.
INDUSTRY VOICE: Zhong Baoshen, chairman of solar manufacturer LONGi, spoke with Xinhua about how innovation, “supporting the strongest performers”, standards-setting and self-regulation could alleviate overcapacity in the industry.
$574bn
The amount of money State Grid, China’s main grid operator, plans to invest between 2026-30, according to Jiemian. The outlet adds that much of this investment will “support the development and transmission of clean energy” from large-scale clean-energy bases and hydropower plants.
New science
- The combination of long-term climate change and extremes in rainfall and heat have contributed to an increase in winter wheat yield of 1% in Xinjiang province between 1989-2023 | Climate Dynamics
- More than 70% of the “observed changes” in temperature extremes in China over 1901-2020 are “attributed to greenhouse gas forcing” | Environmental Research Letters
China Briefing is written by Anika Patel and edited by Simon Evans. Please send tips and feedback to china@carbonbrief.org
The post China Briefing 22 January 2026: 2026 priorities; EV agreement; How China uses gas appeared first on Carbon Brief.
China Briefing 22 January 2026: 2026 priorities; EV agreement; How China uses gas
-
Greenhouse Gases6 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change6 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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
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 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”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits