Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Zoom screenshot from interview with Chris Skidmore

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.

The Carbon Brief Interview: Chris Skidmore

Continue Reading

Greenhouse Gases

Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes

Published

on

Drought and heatwaves occurring together – known as “compound” events – have “surged” across the world since the early 2000s, a new study shows. 

Compound drought and heat events (CDHEs) can have devastating effects, creating the ideal conditions for intense wildfires, such as Australia’s “Black Summer” of 2019-20 where bushfires burned 24m hectares and killed 33 people.

The research, published in Science Advances, finds that the increase in CDHEs is predominantly being driven by events that start with a heatwave.

The global area affected by such “heatwave-led” compound events has more than doubled between 1980-2001 and 2002-23, the study says.

The rapid increase in these events over the last 23 years cannot be explained solely by global warming, the authors note.

Since the late 1990s, feedbacks between the land and the atmosphere have become stronger, making heatwaves more likely to trigger drought conditions, they explain.

One of the study authors tells Carbon Brief that societies must pay greater attention to compound events, which can “cause severe impacts on ecosystems, agriculture and society”.

Compound events

CDHEs are extreme weather events where drought and heatwave conditions occur simultaneously – or shortly after each other – in the same region.

These events are often triggered by large-scale weather patterns, such as “blocking” highs, which can produce “prolonged” hot and dry conditions, according to the study.

Prof Sang-Wook Yeh is one of the study authors and a professor at the Ewha Womans University in South Korea. He tells Carbon Brief:

“When heatwaves and droughts occur together, the two hazards reinforce each other through land-atmosphere interactions. This amplifies surface heating and soil moisture deficits, making compound events more intense and damaging than single hazards.”

CDHEs can begin with either a heatwave or a drought.

The sequence of these extremes is important, the study says, as they have different drivers and impacts.

For example, in a CDHE where the heatwave was the precursor, increased direct sunshine causes more moisture loss from soils and plants, leading to a drought.

Conversely, in an event where the drought was the precursor, the lack of soil moisture means that less of the sun’s energy goes into evaporation and more goes into warming the Earth’s surface. This produces favourable conditions for heatwaves.

The study shows that the majority of CDHEs globally start out as a drought.

In recent years, there has been increasing focus on these events due to the devastating impact they have on agriculture, ecosystems and public health.

In Russia in the summer of 2010, a compound drought-heatwave event – and the associated wildfires – caused the death of nearly 55,000 people, the study notes.

Saint Basil's Cathedral, on Red Square, in Moscow, was affected by smog during the fires in Russia in the summer of 2010.
Saint Basil’s Cathedral, on Red Square, in Moscow, was affected by smog during the fires in Russia in the summer of 2010. Credit: ZUMA Press, Inc. / Alamy Stock Photo

The record-breaking Pacific north-west “heat dome” in 2021 triggered extreme drought conditions that caused “significant declines” in wheat yields, as well as in barley, canola and fruit production in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, says the study.

Increasing events

To assess how CDHEs are changing, the researchers use daily reanalysis data to identify droughts and heatwaves events. (Reanalysis data combines past observations with climate models to create a historical climate record.) Then, using an algorithm, they analyse how these events overlap in both time and space.

The study covers the period from 1980 to 2023 and the world’s land surface, excluding polar regions where CDHEs are rare.

The research finds that the area of land affected by CDHEs has “increased substantially” since the early 2000s.

Heatwave-led events have been the main contributor to this increase, the study says, with their spatial extent rising 110% between 1980-2001 and 2002-23, compared to a 59% increase for drought-led events.

The map below shows the global distribution of CDHEs over 1980-2023. The charts show the percentage of the land surface affected by a heatwave-led CDHE (red) or a drought-led CDHE (yellow) in a given year (left) and relative increase in each CDHE type (right).

The study finds that CDHEs have occurred most frequently in northern South America, the southern US, eastern Europe, central Africa and south Asia.

Charts showing spatial and temporal occurrences over study period
Spatial and temporal occurrence of compound drought and heatwave events over the study period from 1980 to 2023. The map (top) shows CDHEs around the world, with darker colours indicating higher frequency of occurrence. The chart in the bottom left shows how much land surface was affected by a compound event in a given year, where red accounts for heatwave-led events, and yellow, drought-led events. The chart in the bottom right shows the relative increase of each CDHE type in 2002-23 compared with 1980-2001. Source: Kim et al. (2026)

Threshold passed

The authors explain that the increase in heatwave-led CDHEs is related to rising global temperatures, but that this does not tell the whole story.

In the earlier 22-year period of 1980-2001, the study finds that the spatial extent of heatwave-led CDHEs rises by 1.6% per 1C of global temperature rise. For the more-recent period of 2022-23, this increases “nearly eightfold” to 13.1%.

The change suggests that the rapid increase in the heatwave-led CDHEs occurred after the global average temperature “surpasse[d] a certain temperature threshold”, the paper says.

This threshold is an absolute global average temperature of 14.3C, the authors estimate (based on an 11-year average), which the world passed around the year 2000.

Investigating the recent surge in heatwave-leading CDHEs further, the researchers find a “regime shift” in land-atmosphere dynamics “toward a persistently intensified state after the late 1990s”.

In other words, the way that drier soils drive higher surface temperatures, and vice versa, is becoming stronger, resulting in more heatwave-led compound events.

Daily data

The research has some advantages over other previous studies, Yeh says. For instance, the new work uses daily estimations of CDHEs, compared to monthly data used in past research. This is “important for capturing the detailed occurrence” of these events, says Yeh.

He adds that another advantage of their study is that it distinguishes the sequence of droughts and heatwaves, which allows them to “better understand the differences” in the characteristics of CDHEs.

Dr Meryem Tanarhte is a climate scientist at the University Hassan II in Morocco, and Dr Ruth Cerezo Mota is a climatologist and a researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Both scientists, who were not involved in the study, agree that the daily estimations give a clearer picture of how CDHEs are changing.

Cerezo-Mota adds that another major contribution of the study is its global focus. She tells Carbon Brief that in some regions, such as Mexico and Africa, there is a lack of studies on CDHEs:

“Not because the events do not occur, but perhaps because [these regions] do not have all the data or the expertise to do so.”

However, she notes that the reanalysis data used by the study does have limitations with how it represents rainfall in some parts of the world.

Compound impacts

The study notes that if CDHEs continue to intensify – particularly events where heatwaves are the precursors – they could drive declining crop productivity, increased wildfire frequency and severe public health crises.

These impacts could be “much more rapid and severe as global warming continues”, Yeh tells Carbon Brief.

Tanarhte notes that these events can be forecasted up to 10 days ahead in many regions. Furthermore, she says, the strongest impacts can be prevented “through preparedness and adaptation”, including through “water management for agriculture, heatwave mitigation measures and wildfire mitigation”.

The study recommends reassessing current risk management strategies for these compound events. It also suggests incorporating the sequences of drought and heatwaves into compound event analysis frameworks “to enhance climate risk management”.

Cerezo-Mota says that it is clear that the world needs to be prepared for the increased occurrence of these events. She tells Carbon Brief:

“These [risk assessments and strategies] need to be carried out at the local level to understand the complexities of each region.”

The post Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Heatwaves driving recent ‘surge’ in compound drought and heat extremes

Continue Reading

Greenhouse Gases

DeBriefed 6 March 2026: Iran energy crisis | China climate plan | Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ wind turbine

Published

on

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed. 
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week

Energy crisis

ENERGY SPIKE: US-Israeli attacks on Iran and subsequent counterattacks across the Middle East have sent energy prices “soaring”, according to Reuters. The newswire reported that the region “accounts for just under a third of global oil production and almost a fifth of gas”. The Guardian noted that shipping traffic through the strait of Hormuz, which normally ferries 20% of the world’s oil, “all but ground to a halt”. The Financial Times reported that attacks by Iran on Middle East energy facilities – notably in Qatar – triggered the “biggest rise in gas prices since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine”.

‘RISK’ AND ‘BENEFITS’: Bloomberg reported on increases in diesel prices in Europe and the US, speculating that rising fuel costs could be “a risk for president Donald Trump”. US gas producers are “poised to benefit from the big disruption in global supply”, according to CNBC. Indian government sources told the Economic Times that Russia is prepared to “fulfil India’s energy demands”. China Daily quoted experts who said “China’s energy security remains fundamentally unshaken”, thanks to “emergency stockpiles and a wide array of import channels”.

‘ESSENTIAL’ RENEWABLES: Energy analysts said governments should cut their fossil-fuel reliance by investing in renewables, “rather than just seeking non-Gulf oil and gas suppliers”, reported Climate Home News. This message was echoed by UK business secretary Peter Kyle, who said “doubling down on renewables” was “essential” amid “regional instability”, according to the Daily Telegraph.

China’s climate plan

PEAK COAL?: China has set out its next “five-year plan” at the annual “two sessions” meeting of the National People’s Congress, including its climate strategy out to 2030, according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post. The plan called for China to cut its carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 17% from 2026 to 2030, which “may allow for continued increase in emissions given the rate of GDP growth”, reported Reuters. The newswire added that the plan also had targets to reach peak coal ​in the next five years and replace 30m tonnes per year of coal with renewables.

ACTIVE YET PRUDENT: Bloomberg described the new plan as “cautious”, stating that it “frustrat[es] hopes for tighter policy that would drive the nation to peak carbon emissions well before president Xi Jinping’s 2030 deadline”. Carbon Brief has just published an in-depth analysis of the plan. China Daily reported that the strategy “highlights measures to promote the climate targets of peaking carbon dioxide emissions before 2030”, which China said it would work towards “actively yet prudently”. 

Around the world

  • EU RULES: The European Commission has proposed new “made in Europe” rules to support domestic low-carbon industries, “against fierce competition from China”, reported Agence France-Presse. Carbon Brief examined what it means for climate efforts.
  • RECORD HEAT: The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said there is a 50-60% chance that the El Niño weather pattern could return this year, amplifying the effect of global warming and potentially driving temperatures to “record highs”, according to Euronews.
  • FLAGSHIP FUND: The African Development Bank’s “flagship clean energy fund” plans to more than double its financing to $2.5bn for African renewables over the next two years, reported the Associated Press.
  • NO WITHDRAWAL: Vanuatu has defied US efforts to force the Pacific-island nation to drop a UN draft resolution calling on the world to implement a landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on climate, according to the Guardian.

98

The number of nations that submitted their national reports on tackling nature loss to the UN on time – just half of the 196 countries that are part of the UN biodiversity treaty – according to analysis by Carbon Brief.


Latest climate research

  • Sea levels are already “much higher than assumed” in most assessments of the threat posed by sea-level rise, due to “inadequate” modelling assumptions | Nature
  • Accelerating human-caused global warming could see the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit crossed before 2030 | Geophysical Research Letters covered by Carbon Brief
  • Future “super El Niño events” could “significantly lower” solar power generation due to a reduction in solar irradiance in key regions, such as California and east China | Communications Earth & Environment

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2025

UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 fell to 54% below 1990 levels, the baseline year for its legally binding climate goals, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. Over the same period, data from the World Bank shows that the UK’s economy has expanded by 95%, meaning that emissions have been decoupling from growth.

Spotlight

Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ community wind turbine

Following the recent launch of the UK government’s local power plan, Carbon Brief visits one of the country’s community-energy success stories.

The Lawrence Weston housing estate is set apart from the main city of Bristol, wedged between the tree-lined grounds of a stately home and a sprawl of warehouses and waste incinerators. It is one of the most deprived areas in the city.

Yet, just across the M5 motorway stands a structure that has brought the spoils of the energy transition directly to this historically forgotten estate – a 4.2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine.

The turbine is owned by local charity Ambition Lawrence Weston and all the profits from its electricity sales – around £100,000 a year – go to the community. In the UK’s local power plan, it was singled out by energy secretary Ed Miliband as a “pioneering” project.

‘Sustainable income’

On a recent visit to the estate by Carbon Brief, Ambition Lawrence Weston’s development manager, Mark Pepper, rattled off the story behind the wind turbine.

In 2012, Pepper and his team were approached by the Bristol Energy Cooperative with a chance to get a slice of the income from a new solar farm. They jumped at the opportunity.

Austerity measures were kicking in at the time,” Pepper told Carbon Brief. “We needed to generate an income. Our own, sustainable income.”

With the solar farm proving to be a success, the team started to explore other opportunities. This began a decade-long process that saw them navigate the Conservative government’s “ban” on onshore wind, raise £5.5m in funding and, ultimately, erect the turbine in 2023.

Today, the turbine generates electricity equivalent to Lawrence Weston’s 3,000 households and will save 87,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) over its lifetime.

Ambition Lawrence Weston’s Mark Pepper and the wind turbine.
Ambition Lawrence Weston’s Mark Pepper and the wind turbine. Artwork: Josh Gabbatiss

‘Climate by stealth’

Ambition Lawrence Weston’s hub is at the heart of the estate and the list of activities on offer is seemingly endless: birthday parties, kickboxing, a library, woodworking, help with employment and even a pop-up veterinary clinic. All supported, Pepper said, with the help of a steady income from community-owned energy.

The centre itself is kitted out with solar panels, heat pumps and electric-vehicle charging points, making it a living advertisement for the net-zero transition. Pepper noted that the organisation has also helped people with energy costs amid surging global gas prices.

Gesturing to the England flags dangling limply on lamp posts visible from the kitchen window, he said:

“There’s a bit of resentment around immigration and scarcity of materials and provision, so we’re trying to do our bit around community cohesion.”

This includes supper clubs and an interfaith grand iftar during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Anti-immigration sentiment in the UK has often gone hand-in-hand with opposition to climate action. Right-wing politicians and media outlets promote the idea that net-zero policies will cost people a lot of money – and these ideas have cut through with the public.

Pepper told Carbon Brief he is sympathetic to people’s worries about costs and stressed that community energy is the perfect way to win people over:

“I think the only way you can change that is if, instead of being passive consumers…communities are like us and they’re generating an income to offset that.”

From the outset, Pepper stressed that “we weren’t that concerned about climate because we had other, bigger pressures”, adding:

“But, in time, we’ve delivered climate by stealth.”

Watch, read, listen

OIL WATCH: The Guardian has published a “visual guide” with charts and videos showing how the “escalating Iran conflict is driving up oil and gas prices”.

MURDER IN HONDURAS: Ten years on from the murder of Indigenous environmental justice advocate Berta Cáceres, Drilled asked why Honduras is still so dangerous for environmental activists.

TALKING WEATHER: A new film, narrated by actor Michael Sheen and titled You Told Us To Talk About the Weather, aimed to promote conversation about climate change with a blend of “poetry, folk horror and climate storytelling”.

Coming up

Pick of the jobs

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 6 March 2026: Iran energy crisis | China climate plan | Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ wind turbine appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 6 March 2026: Iran energy crisis | China climate plan | Bristol’s ‘pioneering’ wind turbine

Continue Reading

Greenhouse Gases

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

Published

on

China’s leadership has published a draft of its 15th five-year plan setting the strategic direction for the nation out to 2030, including support for clean energy and energy security.

The plan sets a target to cut China’s “carbon intensity” by 17% over the five years from 2026-30, but also changes the basis for calculating this key climate metric.

The plan continues to signal support for China’s clean-energy buildout and, in general, contains no major departures from the country’s current approach to the energy transition.

The government reaffirms support for several clean-energy industries, ranging from solar and electric vehicles (EVs) through to hydrogen and “new-energy” storage.

The plan also emphasises China’s willingness to steer climate governance and be seen as a provider of “global public goods”, in the form of affordable clean-energy technologies.

However, while the document says it will “promote the peaking” of coal and oil use, it does not set out a timeline and continues to call for the “clean and efficient” use of coal.

This shows that tensions remain between China’s climate goals and its focus on energy security, leading some analysts to raise concerns about its carbon-cutting ambition.

Below, Carbon Brief outlines the key climate change and energy aspects of the plan, including targets for carbon intensity, non-fossil energy and forestry.

Note: this article is based on a draft published on 5 March and will be updated if any significant changes are made in the final version of the plan, due to be released at the close next week of the “two sessions” meeting taking place in Beijing.

What is China’s 15th five-year plan?

Five-year plans are one of the most important documents in China’s political system.

Addressing everything from economic strategy to climate policy, they outline the planned direction for China’s socio-economic development in a five-year period. The 15th five-year plan covers 2026-30.

These plans include several “main goals”. These are largely quantitative indicators that are seen as particularly important to achieve and which provide a foundation for subsequent policies during the five-year period.

The table below outlines some of the key “main goals” from the draft 15th five-year plan.

Category Indicator Indicator in 2025 Target by 2030 Cumulative target over 2026-2030 Characteristic
Economic development Gross domestic product (GDP) growth (%) 5 Maintained within a reasonable range and proposed annually as appropriate. Anticipatory
‘Green and low-carbon Reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP (%) 17.7 17 Binding
Share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption (%) 21.7 25 Binding
Security guarantee Comprehensive energy production
capacity (100m tonnes of
standard coal equivalent)
51.3 58 Binding

Select list of targets highlighted in the “main goals” section of the draft 15th five-year plan. Source: Draft 15th five-year plan.

Since the 12th five-year plan, covering 2011-2015, these “main goals” have included energy intensity and carbon intensity as two of five key indicators for “green ecology”.

The previous five-year plan, which ran from 2021-2025, introduced the idea of an absolute “cap” on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, although it did not provide an explicit figure in the document. This has been subsequently addressed by a policy on the “dual-control of carbon” issued in 2024.

The latest plan removes the energy-intensity goal and elevates the carbon-intensity goal, but does not set an absolute cap on emissions (see below).

It covers the years until 2030, before which China has pledged to peak its carbon emissions. (Analysis for Carbon Brief found that emissions have been “flat or falling” since March 2024.)

The plans are released at the two sessions, an annual gathering of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). This year, it runs from 4-12 March.

The plans are often relatively high-level, with subsequent topic-specific five-year plans providing more concrete policy guidance.

Policymakers at the National Energy Agency (NEA) have indicated that in the coming years they will release five sector-specific plans for 2026-2030, covering topics such as the “new energy system”, electricity and renewable energy.

There may also be specific five-year plans covering carbon emissions and environmental protection, as well as the coal and nuclear sectors, according to analysts.

Other documents published during the two sessions include an annual government work report, which outlines key targets and policies for the year ahead.

The gathering is attended by thousands of deputies – delegates from across central and local governments, as well as Chinese Communist party members, members of other political parties, academics, industry leaders and other prominent figures.

Back to top

What does the plan say about China’s climate action?

Achieving China’s climate targets will remain a key driver of the country’s policies in the next five years, according to the draft 15th five-year plan.

It lists the “acceleration” of China’s energy transition as a “major achievement” in the 14th five-year plan period (2021-2025), noting especially how clean-power capacity had overtaken fossil fuels.

The draft says China will “actively and steadily advance and achieve carbon peaking”, with policymakers continuing to strike a balance between building a “green economy” and ensuring stability.

Climate and environment continues to receive its own chapter in the plan. However, the framing and content of this chapter has shifted subtly compared with previous editions, as shown in the table below. For example, unlike previous plans, the first section of this chapter focuses on China’s goal to peak emissions.

11th five-year plan (2006-2010) 12th five-year plan (2011-2015) 13th five-year plan (2016-2020) 14th five-year plan (2021-2025) 15th five-year plan (2026-2030)
Chapter title Part 6: Build a resource-efficient and environmentally-friendly society Part 6: Green development, building a resource-efficient and environmentally friendly society Part 10: Ecosystems and the environment Part 11: Promote green development and facilitate the harmonious coexistence of people and nature Part 13: Accelerating the comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development to build a beautiful China
Sections Developing a circular economy Actively respond to global climate change Accelerate the development of functional zones Improve the quality and stability of ecosystems Actively and steadily advancing and achieving carbon peaking
Protecting and restoring natural ecosystems Strengthen resource conservation and management Promote economical and intensive resource use Continue to improve environmental quality Continuously improving environmental quality
Strengthening environmental protection Vigorously develop the circular economy Step up comprehensive environmental governance Accelerate the green transformation of the development model Enhancing the diversity, stability, and sustainability of ecosystems
Enhancing resource management Strengthen environmental protection efforts Intensify ecological conservation and restoration Accelerating the formation of green production and lifestyles
Rational utilisation of marine and climate resources Promoting ecological conservation and restoration Respond to global climate change
Strengthen the development of water conservancy and disaster prevention and mitigation systems Improve mechanisms for ensuring ecological security
Develop green and environmentally-friendly industries

Title and main sections of the climate and environment-focused chapters in the last five five-year plans. Source: China’s 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year plans.

The climate and environment chapter in the latest plan calls for China to “balance [economic] development and emission reduction” and “ensure the timely achievement of carbon peak targets”.

Under the plan, China will “continue to pursue” its established direction and objectives on climate, Prof Li Zheng, dean of the Tsinghua University Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development (ICCSD), tells Carbon Brief.

Back to top

What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?

In the lead-up to the release of the plan, analysts were keenly watching for signals around China’s adoption of a system for the “dual-control of carbon”.

This would combine the existing targets for carbon intensity – the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP – with a new cap on China’s total carbon emissions. This would mark a dramatic step for the country, which has never before set itself a binding cap on total emissions.

Policymakers had said last year that this framework would come into effect during the 15th five-year plan period, replacing the previous system for the “dual-control of energy”.

However, the draft 15th five-year plan does not offer further details on when or how both parts of the dual-control of carbon system will be implemented. Instead, it continues to focus on carbon intensity targets alone.

Looking back at the previous five-year plan period, the latest document says China had achieved a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7%, just shy of its 18% goal.

This is in contrast with calculations by Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which had suggested that China had only cut its carbon intensity by 12% over the past five years.

At the time it was set in 2021, the 18% target had been seen as achievable, with analysts telling Carbon Brief that they expected China to realise reductions of 20% or more.

However, the government had fallen behind on meeting the target.

Last year, ecology and environment minister Huang Runqiu attributed this to the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather and trade tensions. He said that China, nevertheless, remained “broadly” on track to meet its 2030 international climate pledge of reducing carbon intensity by more than 65% from 2005 levels.

Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that the newly reported figure showing a carbon-intensity reduction of 17.7% is likely due to an “opportunistic” methodological revision. The new methodology now includes industrial process emissions – such as cement and chemicals – as well as the energy sector.

(This is not the first time China has redefined a target, with regulators changing the methodology for energy intensity in 2023.)

For the next five years, the plan sets a target to reduce carbon intensity by 17%, slightly below the previous goal.

However, the change in methodology means that this leaves space for China’s overall emissions to rise by “3-6% over the next five years”, says Myllyvirta. In contrast, he adds that the original methodology would have required a 2% fall in absolute carbon emissions by 2030.

The dashed lines in the chart below show China’s targets for reducing carbon intensity during the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year periods, while the bars show what was achieved under the old (dark blue) and new (light blue) methodology.

China reports meeting its latest carbon-intensity target after a change in methodology.
Dashed lines: China’s carbon-intensity targets during the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th five-year plan periods. Bars: China’s achieved carbon-intensity reductions according to either the old methodology (dark blue) and the new one (light blue). The achieved reductions during the 12th and 13th five-year plans are from contemporaneous government statistics and may be revised in future. The reduction figures for the 14th five-year plan period are sourced from government statistics for the new methodology and analysis by CREA under the old methodology. Sources: Five-year plans and Carbon Brief.

The carbon-intensity target is the “clearest signal of Beijing’s climate ambition”, says Li Shuo, director at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s (ASPI) China climate hub.

It also links directly to China’s international pledge – made in 2021 – to cut its carbon intensity to more than 65% below 2005 levels by 2030.

To meet this pledge under the original carbon-intensity methodology, China would have needed to set a target of a 23% reduction within the 15th five-year plan period. However, the country’s more recent 2035 international climate pledge, released last year, did not include a carbon-intensity target.

As such, ASPI’s Li interprets the carbon-intensity target in the draft 15th five-year plan as a “quiet recalibration” that signals “how difficult the original 2030 goal has become”.

Furthermore, the 15th five-year plan does not set an absolute emissions cap.

This leaves “significant ambiguity” over China’s climate plans, says campaign group 350 in a press statement reacting to the draft plan. It explains:

“The plan was widely expected to mark a clearer transition from carbon-intensity targets toward absolute emissions reductions…[but instead] leaves significant ambiguity about how China will translate record renewable deployment into sustained emissions cuts.”

Myllyvirta tells Carbon Brief that this represents a “continuation” of the government’s focus on scaling up clean-energy supply while avoiding setting “strong measurable emission targets”.

He says that he would still expect to see absolute caps being set for power and industrial sectors covered by China’s emissions trading scheme (ETS). In addition, he thinks that an overall absolute emissions cap may still be published later in the five-year period.

Despite the fact that it has yet to be fully implemented, the switch from dual-control of energy to dual-control of carbon represents a “major policy evolution”, Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE), tells Carbon Brief. He says that it will allow China to “provide more flexibility for renewable energy expansion while tightening the net on fossil-fuel reliance”.

Back to top

Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?

“How quickly carbon intensity is reduced largely depends on how much renewable energy can be supplied,” says Yao Zhe, global policy advisor at Greenpeace East Asia, in a statement.

The five-year plan continues to call for China’s development of a “new energy system that is clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient” by 2030, with continued additions of “wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power”.

In line with China’s international pledge, it sets a target for raising the share of non-fossil energy in total energy consumption to 25% by 2030, up from just under 21.7% in 2025.

The development of “green factories” and “zero-carbon [industrial] parks” has been central to many local governments’ strategies for meeting the non-fossil energy target, according to industry news outlet BJX News. A call to build more of these zero-carbon industrial parks is listed in the five-year plan.

Prof Pan Jiahua, dean of Beijing University of Technology’s Institute of Ecological Civilization, tells Carbon Brief that expanding demand for clean energy through mechanisms such as “green factories” represents an increasingly “bottom-up” and “market-oriented” approach to the energy transition, which will leave “no place for fossil fuels”.

He adds that he is “very much sure that China’s zero-carbon process is being accelerated and fossil fuels are being driven out of the market”, pointing to the rapid adoption of EVs.

The plan says that China will aim to double “non-fossil energy” in 10 years – although it does not clarify whether this means their installed capacity or electricity generation, or what the exact starting year would be.

Research has shown that doubling wind and solar capacity in China between 2025-2035 would be “consistent” with aims to limit global warming to 2C.

While the language “certainly” pushes for greater additions of renewable energy, Yao tells Carbon Brief, it is too “opaque” to be a “direct indication” of the government’s plans for renewable additions.

She adds that “grid stability and healthy, orderly competition” is a higher priority for policymakers than guaranteeing a certain level of capacity additions.

China continues to place emphasis on the need for large-scale clean-energy “bases” and cross-regional power transmission.

The plan says China must develop “clean-energy bases…in the three northern regions” and “integrated hydro-wind-solar complexes” in south-west China.

It specifically encourages construction of “large-scale wind and solar” power bases in desert regions “primarily” for cross-regional power transmission, as well as “major hydropower” projects, including the Yarlung Tsangpo dam in Tibet.

As such, the country should construct “power-transmission corridors” with the capacity to send 420 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from clean-energy bases in western provinces to energy-hungry eastern provinces by 2030, the plan says.

State Grid, China’s largest grid operator, plans to install “another 15 ultra-high voltage [UHV] transmission ​lines” by 2030, reports Reuters, up from the 45 UHV lines built by last year.

Below are two maps illustrating the interlinkages between clean-energy bases in China in the 15th (top) and 14th (bottom) five-year plan periods.

The yellow dotted areas represent clean energy bases, while the arrows represent cross-regional power transmission. The blue wind-turbine icons represent offshore windfarms and the red cooling tower icons represent coastal nuclear plants.

Maps showing layout of key energy projects in China during 2026-2030 (top) and 2021-2025 (bottom). Source: Chinese government’s 15th five-year plan and 14th five-year plan.
Maps showing layout of key energy projects in China during 2026-2030 (top) and 2021-2025 (bottom). Source: Chinese government’s 15th five-year plan and 14th five-year plan.
Maps showing layout of key energy projects in China during 2026-2030 (top) and 2021-2025 (bottom). Source: Chinese government’s 15th five-year plan and 14th five-year plan.

The 15th five-year plan map shows a consistent approach to the 2021-2025 period. As well as power being transmitted from west to east, China plans for more power to be sent to southern provinces from clean-energy bases in the north-west, while clean-energy bases in the north-east supply China’s eastern coast.

It also maps out “mutual assistance” schemes for power grids in neighbouring provinces.

Offshore wind power should reach 100GW by 2030, while nuclear power should rise to 110GW, according to the plan.

Back to top

What does the plan signal about coal?

The increased emphasis on grid infrastructure in the draft 15th five-year plan reflects growing concerns from energy planning officials around ensuring China’s energy supply.

Ren Yuzhi, director of the NEA’s development and planning department, wrote ahead of the plan’s release that the “continuous expansion” of China’s energy system has “dramatically increased its complexity”.

He said the NEA felt there was an “urgent need” to enhance the “secure and reliable” replacement of fossil-fuel power with new energy sources, as well as to ensure the system’s “ability to absorb them”.

Meanwhile, broader concerns around energy security have heightened calls for coal capacity to remain in the system as a “ballast stone”.

The plan continues to support the “clean and efficient utilisation of fossil fuels” and does not mention either a cap or peaking timeline for coal consumption.

Xi had previously told fellow world leaders that China would “strictly control” coal-fired power and phase down coal consumption in the 15th five-year plan period.

The “geopolitical situation is increasing energy security concerns” at all levels of government, said the Institute for Global Decarbonization Progress in a note responding to the draft plan, adding that this was creating “uncertainty over coal reduction”.

Ahead of its publication, there were questions around whether the plan would set a peaking deadline for oil and coal. An article posted by state news agency Xinhua last month, examining recommendations for the plan from top policymakers, stated that coal consumption would plateau from “around 2027”, while oil would peak “around 2026”.

However, the plan does not lay out exact years by which the two fossil fuels should peak, only saying that China will “promote the peaking of coal and oil consumption”.

There are similarly no mentions of phasing out coal in general, in line with existing policy.

Nevertheless, there is a heavy emphasis on retrofitting coal-fired power plants. The plan calls for the establishment of “demonstration projects” for coal-plant retrofitting, such as through co-firing with biomass or “green ammonia”.

Such retrofitting could incentivise lower utilisation of coal plants – and thus lower emissions – if they are used to flexibly meet peaks in demand and to cover gaps in clean-energy output, instead of providing a steady and significant share of generation.

The plan also calls for officials to “fully implement low-carbon retrofitting projects for coal-chemical industries”, which have been a notable source of emissions growth in the past year.

However, the coal-chemicals sector will likely remain a key source of demand for China’s coal mining industry, with coal-to-oil and coal-to-gas bases listed as a “key area” for enhancing the country’s “security capabilities”.

Meanwhile, coal-fired boilers and industrial kilns in the paper industry, food processing and textiles should be replaced with “clean” alternatives to the equivalent of 30m tonnes of coal consumption per year, it says.

“China continues to scale up clean energy at an extraordinary pace, but the plan still avoids committing to strong measurable constraints on emissions or fossil fuel use”, says Joseph Dellatte, head of energy and climate studies at the Institut Montaigne. He adds:

“The logic remains supply-driven: deploy massive amounts of clean energy and assume emissions will eventually decline.”

Back to top

How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years?

Meanwhile, clean-energy technologies continue to play a role in upgrading China’s economy, with several “new energy” sectors listed as key to its industrial policy.

Named sectors include smart EVs, “new solar cells”, new-energy storage, hydrogen and nuclear fusion energy.

“China’s clean-technology development – rather than traditional administrative climate controls – is increasingly becoming the primary driver of emissions reduction,” says ASPI’s Li. He adds that strengthening China’s clean-energy sectors means “more closely aligning Beijing’s economic ambitions with its climate objectives”.

Analysis for Carbon Brief shows that clean energy drove more than a third of China’s GDP growth in 2025, representing around 11% of China’s whole economy.

The continued support for these sectors in the draft five-year plan comes as the EU outlined its own measures intended to limit China’s hold on clean-energy industries, driven by accusations of “unfair competition” from Chinese firms.

China is unlikely to crack down on clean-tech production capacity, Dr Rebecca Nadin, director of the Centre for Geopolitics of Change at ODI Global, tells Carbon Brief. She says:

“Beijing is treating overcapacity in solar and smart EVs as a strategic choice, not a policy error…and is prepared to pour investment into these sectors to cement global market share, jobs and technological leverage.”

Dellatte echoes these comments, noting that it is “striking” that the plan “barely addresses the issue of industrial overcapacity in clean technologies”, with the focus firmly on “scaling production and deployment”.

At the same time, China is actively positioning itself to be a prominent voice in climate diplomacy and a champion of proactive climate action.

This is clear from the first line in a section on providing “global public goods”. It says:

“As a responsible major country, China will play a more active role in addressing global challenges such as climate change.”

The plan notes that China will “actively participate in and steer [引领] global climate governance”, in line with the principle of “common,but differentiated responsibilities”.

This echoes similar language from last year’s government work report, Yao tells Carbon Brief, demonstrating a “clear willingness” to guide global negotiations. But she notes that this “remains an aspiration that’s yet to be made concrete”. She adds:

“China has always favored collective leadership, so its vision of leadership is never a lone one.”

The country will “deepen south-south cooperation on climate change”, the plan says. In an earlier section on “opening up”, it also notes that China will explore “new avenues for collaboration in green development” with global partners as part of its “Belt and Road Initiative”.

China is “doubling down” on a narrative that it is a “responsible major power” and “champion of south-south climate cooperation”, Nadin says, such as by “presenting its clean‑tech exports and finance as global public goods”. She says:

“China will arrive at future COPs casting itself as the indispensable climate leader for the global south…even though its new five‑year plan still puts growth, energy security and coal ahead of faster emissions cuts at home.”

Back to top

What else does the plan cover?

The impact of extreme weather – particularly floods – remains a key concern in the plan.

China must “refine” its climate adaptation framework and “enhance its resilience to climate change, particularly extreme-weather events”, it says.

China also aims to “strengthen construction of a national water network” over the next five years in order to help prevent floods and droughts.

An article published a few days before the plan in the state-run newspaper China Daily noted that, “as global warming intensifies, extreme weather events – including torrential rains, severe convective storms, and typhoons – have become more frequent, widespread and severe”.

The plan also touches on critical minerals used for low-carbon technologies. These will likely remain a geopolitical flashpoint, with China saying it will focus during the next five years on “intensifying” exploration and “establishing” a reserve for critical minerals. This reserve will focus on “scarce” energy minerals and critical minerals, as well as other “advantageous mineral resources”.

Dellatte says that this could mean the “competition in the energy transition will increasingly be about control over mineral supply chains”.

Other low-carbon policies listed in the five-year plan include expanding coverage of China’s mandatory carbon market and further developing its voluntary carbon market.

China will “strengthen monitoring and control” of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, the plan says, as well as implementing projects “targeting methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons” in sectors such as coal mining, agriculture and chemicals.

This will create “capacity” for reducing emissions by 30m tonnes of CO2 equivalent, it adds.

Meanwhile, China will develop rules for carbon footprint accounting and push for internationally recognised accounting standards.

It will enhance reform of power markets over the next five years and improve the trading mechanism for green electricity certificates.

It will also “promote” adoption of low-carbon lifestyles and decarbonisation of transport, as well as working to advance electrification of freight and shipping.

Back to top

The post Q&A: What does China’s 15th ‘five-year plan’ mean for climate change? appeared first on Carbon Brief.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com