Published

6 months ago

September 22, 2025

Alice Rush

Laura Clarke has been the CEO of environmental non-profit organisation ClientEarth since September 2022.

ClientEarth works in more than 60 countries, using the law to “bring about systemic change that protects the Earth”.

It has recently been involved in high-profile climate litigation cases, such as against Brazil’s Devastation Bill, against Shell’s board of directors for “failing to move away from fossil fuels fast enough” and against Cargill for “its failure to adequately deal with its contribution to soy-driven deforestation”.

Additionally, ClientEarth joined others in successfully taking the UK government to court in 2024, arguing that its climate strategy was “not fit-for-purpose and, therefore, breaches the UK Climate Change Act”.

Clarke joined the organisation after spending two decades in diplomatic roles across Africa, Asia and Europe, including being British high commissioner to New Zealand, governor of the Pitcairn Islands and high commissioner to Samoa.

Clarke on what ClientEarth does: “If you get the right laws in place, you change the rules of the game.”
On the International Court of Justice ruling: “It strengthens climate litigation and will absolutely open the door to even more litigation.”
On ‘lawfare’: “I think if you use the law in the right way, it can really help build agency and build public buy-in for environmental action.”
On ‘slapp’ suit tactics: “It is a very aggressive tool, the chill effect can be enormous and it’s hugely anti-democratic.”
On multilateral cooperation: “Geopolitics are really tough…But I think that doesn’t mean that you give up. There’s no space, there’s no time for defeatism.”
On attribution science: “[It] opens a greater prospect for class action, for damages cases against these big emitters.”
On cases using such science: “Lots of people will be thinking about [such cases] now, with that very close collaboration between the science community and the legal community.”
On what’s next for climate litigation: “I think climate litigation, in terms of fossil fuels, is very well established. What’s next? We’ll see a lot more on ‘Big Food’.”
On holding companies liable: “I think the human rights angle at the country and government level is very powerful.”

On the ‘Trojan Horse’ of local pollution: “The cost to the US of these unplugged oil and gas wells is estimated to be $1.5bn in terms of the climate impact, the health impact, the pollution [and] the cost of cleaning it up.”
On the ESG backlash: “Whatever the political weather, whether ESG is in or out, what doesn’t change, a bit like gravity, is the materiality of climate risk.”
On operating in China: “We work very differently in different places. And that’s really important.”
On David Gilmour’s charitable gift: “It was the most amazing gift from David Gilmour that has enabled us to scale what we do, to expand [and] to expand internationally.”
On the ‘art of the possible’: “Sometimes we carry a big stick of litigation, but it’s always about thinking creatively.”
On her experiences in the South Pacific: “It’s not just about climate. It’s about everything. It’s about how we live our lives, how businesses operate [and] how governments think.”
On COP30: “It’s really critical at this COP30 that we do see countries come together with ambition and not just putting forward new nationally determined contributions, but really having a plan for what that looks like in the real world.”
On the need for climate laws: “Turkey recently agreed its first-ever climate law. But there are others where it would be hugely beneficial.”

Listen to this interview:

CarbonBrief · The Carbon Brief Interview: Laura Clarke

Carbon Brief: Please can we just begin with you explaining briefly what ClientEarth is and does? Can you give us a couple of recent examples of where you’ve had a legal victory or win – and why you see that as a win?

Laura Clarke: Yes, absolutely. Well, there’s quite a lot there. So ClientEarth is a legal environmental nonprofit. We’ve got 300 people globally and we work across the full lifecycle of the law, essentially using the law to try and accelerate climate and environmental action and get to those positive tipping points faster.

So that means we work on what the right laws are that you need. Because if you get the right laws in place, you change the rules of the game. We support governments with drafting climate legislation. We work on regulatory reform for the energy transition, for example. So we strengthen the laws.

We litigate to hold governments and corporations to account for what they’re doing, to try and change mindsets, shift [and] accelerate action there.

Now we also do what we call “build the field”. So we work with lots of partners globally, we train judges, lawyers, prosecutors [and] work with community groups, so they’re also using the law to defend the environment and uphold their rights. So there’s a lot there and there’s a lot of advocacy as well.

But, of course, it’s normally our big-piece litigation that hits the headlines. And you asked for a few examples there. Most recently, I think a really lovely example is a case that we brought and we supported in Spain [where] community groups were suffering from the extreme pollution caused by industrial pig and poultry farming that was affecting their human rights. It was polluting their water, polluting their air [and] people were getting really ill.

We brought this case in Galicia in Spain and the court ruled that a clean and healthy environment is interdependent with human rights and ordered the authorities to take action to ensure the pollution was cleaned up [and] pay compensation to those citizens.

It’s cases like that that are important, both in terms of the experience of those communities who are living there on the front line of the impacts, but they’re also important in terms of the precedent that it sets. Because that’s a court saying very, very clearly that there is a human-rights obligation on authorities to take action on the environment, a clean and healthy environment, which includes, of course, tackling climate change [and] stopping pollution, [that this] is critical for human health and human rights.

So, it’s one example. I can give more if you want…

CB: Well, there’s a very notable kind of case that many of our audience would have heard about in the summer, which is the International Court of Justice, which made headlines around the world when it issued this landmark advisory opinion on climate change. In practice, though, how does that actually change things? For example, in terms of reparations, the opinion talks about a need to establish a “sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus linking a wrongful act to climate damages”. So how might that actually play out and be achieved in practical terms? In your work, for example, how does something like the ICJ opinion change or move the dial?

LC: So the ICJ opinion is hugely important. It’s a hugely important and authoritative articulation of what states’ obligations are on climate change under international law. So that’s hugely relevant for any courts in any country when they’re hearing litigation. This decision will be on their tables, right on their desks. They will be having regard to it, because it sets out very clearly that states have an obligation under international law to take action on climate change. [That] they need to regulate companies [and] countries that are historic emitters have a greater responsibility. So it’s hugely important in terms of really understanding what states need to do.

It doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism. It is an advisory opinion. [But] it’s a decision from the highest court in the world, [so] it is authoritative in terms of cases that are brought at the national level, at the regional level, in regional bodies, for example. And it’s also really useful in terms of really putting the pressure on states and as an advocacy tool in the run-up to big events like COP30 in Belém, the climate change conference.

You ask about how it would work in terms of damages claims? Under international law, there’s a long-established principle of transboundary harm, for example, so that could come into play there.

I think it’s still quite hard to really draw a direct line from the ICJ advisory opinion to right now. You’re absolutely going to have damages claims from climate vulnerable countries against big emitting countries, but it strengthens the arm of those communities that are calling for action. It strengthens climate litigation and will absolutely open the door to even more litigation on this front.

CB: Where do you stand on the strategic use of, as some choose to characterise it, “lawfare“, as a campaigning and legal strategy amid all the current geopolitical headwind? At the moment, populist politicians and their media allies are working hard, it seems, to paint lawyers and judges as “elitists” who are using courts to frustrate and block the “will of the people”, as they describe it. I’m particularly thinking of the US, where the rule of law and climate legislation are both under intense political attack. So where do you stand on the strategic use of what people are calling “lawfare”?

LC: So, I think it’s more important now than ever, when you have these really challenging political winds, geopolitical winds, when you have this political polarisation [and people are making] an attempt to say, “well, if you care about environmental issues, that inevitably puts you in a certain political bracket”.

I think the law is critically important in lifting us from that sort of polarisation. It’s not political to want to breathe clean air. It’s not political to want to drink clean water or ensure that your children have a safe and livable climate. And, so, I think if you use the law in the right way, it can really help build agency and build public buy-in for environmental action.

So we have a number of cases, clean-air cases with the local communities – the pig farming pollution case that I talked about and a case on zombie oil wells in Colorado – which are designed to increase the number of people who feel like they’re getting their arms around these things and using the law to achieve better outcomes. I think that’s one thing. It’s not a matter of politics, [it’s] actually, what are people’s needs and rights and how do we use the law to achieve those?

I think the other thing is that, regardless of what’s happened with politics, if you get something in law, in legislation that builds in a longer-term time horizon, which can insulate a little bit from the politics of the day. So that’s really important.

It is getting more heated, particularly in the States, but you’re seeing also strategic litigation from organisations like us that are trying to get progressive environmental outcomes from their work, but you’re also getting your big Slapp [strategic lawsuits against public participation] suits, so “strategic litigation against public participation”. The most famous one recently, of course, being Energy Transfer against Greenpeace in the US, calling for $660m in terms of costs.

So that sort of thing is on the increase. That’s always top right of our risk register, that idea that those who are seeking to delay the transition or stop the transition will see us as a threat and will come after us with some sort of defamation.

CB: Do you need to go toe-to-toe with those kinds of legal [challenges]? The way that the opposition, some might say, are kind of using law or undermining the law or, however their tactics play out, [so] you need to step up and go into that fight, as opposed to not being sucked into that. I’m just intrigued about the strategy.

LC: So, what’s the strategy for dealing with this sort of “lawfare” from big oil companies, say? It’s about being incredibly careful. That’s the first thing. So we’ve done a lot as ClientEarth in the environmental movement on saying, how do you defend against Slapp suits? What does the proper due diligence look like?

But, also, there are important measures in place on anti-Slapp legislation, which is really important to defend, because it is a very aggressive tool, the chill effect can be enormous and it’s hugely anti-democratic.

So I think it’s about not stopping this work and [being] there to push for a clean and healthy environment, to defend [the] planet and people, but it’s about doing it in a very careful way and always being alert to the risks.

International Court of Justice (ICJ) considers the obligations countries have in the fight against climate change, the Hague, Netherlands. Credit: ANP / Alamy Stock Photo

CB: So, more broadly, in terms of international law, if you like, amid an era of war crimes and human rights abuses in Gaza, Ukraine, beyond, etc, many have expressed a loss of faith in the potency of international law. What could this mean specifically for global climate treaties and the sort of multilateral cooperation required to tackle a global commons challenge, such as climate change?

LC: So, look, I think there’s no getting away from the fact that the world is a really scary place right now. It’s very uncertain. Geopolitics are really tough. Multilateralism is under strain. But I think that doesn’t mean that you give up. There’s no space, there’s no time for defeatism. And it’s about how we work through different multilateral channels to drive the work necessary?

COP in Belém is going to be critically important. A huge amount of work [is] going into that [and into] saying this is about implementation, about doing what we said we would do. Countries need to be coming forward with their new nationally determined contributions. And, yes, some countries will step away; the US, of course, has left the Paris Agreement. But that doesn’t mean that that cooperation at multilateral level stops. We need to find different ways of enhancing it.

And, at the same time, alongside all that diplomacy and multilateralism, you’ve got what’s happening in the economy, right? You’ve got the renewable revolution, [which is] absolutely scaling exponentially. You’ve got countries seeing that this is the way to secure growth, but also national security resilience and a cleaner way, a healthier way of life for citizens. So there is a lot of that real-world action being taken.

And you see it, for example, in China, which is way ahead in terms of renewable tech. [China is] absolutely seeing the economic advantage, the advantage for its citizens and the geopolitical advantage as well. So, I think progress can often go in fits and starts, and it’s about working out which talent you’ve got to sort of keep pushing on every front, but some will sometimes be more fruitful than others.

CB: So changing gear a little bit. I’m interested in the evidence base that the lawyers in your organisation will work with and take into court. Attribution science is a growing academic field, with climate scientists increasingly exploring the causal and probabilistic links between the numerous impacts of health economic issues, including those of extreme weather events. There has been a push to attribute even extreme weather to corporate emissions as well. So how might advances in attribution science shape climate litigation?

LC: Yes, it’s a really interesting developing frontier in climate litigation. Really interesting. And you will know about the case that was just earlier this year, Lliuya vs. RWE in Germany. This is the Peruvian farmer who took a case against RWE, the German energy company, essentially saying that his farm was at risk from glaciers melting as a result of climate change.

So it was really [a] very, very interesting attribution science claim. Now the court confirmed that corporate businesses can be held liable for their emissions. So that’s a hugely important precedent. [But] it didn’t actually rule that Lliuya was entitled to compensation because it didn’t find on that front.

But that’s really important. And, you know, as you say, attribution science – there was a really interesting article on it in Nature just a couple of months back – attribution science has come on so far in [its] ability to say, “well, this is what’s happening in terms of climate impacts, this is how it connects to emissions”. And it is only a matter of time before you get successful cases that show this extreme weather event or this sea level rise, or this temperature rise is directly attributable in proportion to the emissions of this company. Because, particularly these big fossil fuel companies, they are collectively – I think, Saudi Aramco as one company, if its emissions were a country, it’d be the fourth biggest [emitting] country in the world. So there’s a huge amount there.

Why is that exciting in the real world? Because then you open a greater prospect for class action, for damages cases against these big emitters. And when those really, really scale, saying “actually, fossil fuel company A is responsible for all this damage that’s been done to our way of life, to our community, to our economy”. When those damage claims scale, those really, really change the calculations and the business model of those companies.

CB: I’m interested in the timescale of that and also actually taking that science into court. In terms of the robustness of the science, if you like, in terms of a lawyer actually presenting it as evidence in a court case, you suggested we’re moving towards that? Can you give a sense of time? Is that many years away before you anticipate that there are some territories and countries with their legal systems that are probably more likely to accept that kind of evidence and in terms of a legal victory downstream of that?

LC: So, I’m not a scientist, but I think these are cases that lots of people will be thinking about now, with that very close collaboration between the science community and the legal community. And, as with any new frontier, if you like, in terms of legal, environmental activism, climate litigation, there will be cases that are attempted and that don’t win, and then some that will. And, of course, judges will require a very, very high evidentiary burden, looking at that attribution. But I think it’s a promising and interesting area.

CB: More widely, where is climate litigation going in the years ahead? How is it going to evolve? What are your sort of predictions or thoughts on that?

LC: Yes, so I think there’s a lot to talk about here – I think climate litigation, in terms of fossil fuels, is very well established. What’s next? We’ll see a lot more on ‘Big Food’. There’s the spotlight shifting to Big Food, both in terms of these massive food companies that have these huge supply chains, and that’s a question of emissions. It’s also a question of environmental degradation, deforestation [and] human rights abuses. So I think that’s one to look out for.

We’ll see even more human rights cases, on, for example, extreme heat. I think that’s going to be increasing as we’re in the era of climate consequences, right? We’re already seeing places becoming hard to live in. So there will be extreme heat human rights cases.

We’ll see increasing cases around the petrochemicals industry and what that does to human health. We’ve talked about attribution science. I sometimes talk about the under-the-radar enablers of the status quo, right? So you can’t build a new oil pipeline without the insurance, without the management consultancy, without the legal contracting, without the advertising companies. And, so, I think it’s really important that these professional services companies really look at what they’re responsible for.

CB: So you think it’s these – it sounds like you’re saying that it’s these companies and corporates that are potentially more liable and open to legal kinds of cases against them, as opposed to [fossil-fuel companies] per se…

LC: I think both. But I think in [different] countries you have to pick quite carefully to avoid unintended consequences or impact. But I think the human rights angle at the country and government level is very powerful, because it’s very well understood in governments that you have to look after your citizens and, actually, if you’re not protecting them from very severe climate impacts, you’re not doing your job. So I think we’ll see more of those human rights cases directed at the obligations of states, but then a lot also on corporates and what corporates need to do.

And trying to fix lots of the absolutely egregious practices that are underway. We’ve got a really, really exciting case live in the US at the moment, which is about unplugged oil and gas wells. There are 2.1m unplugged oil and gas wells across the US and the reason for that is that the fossil fuel company owns the oil well, makes all the profit, but towards the end of its life, sells that oil well on to a shell company. And, at the point, when the oil well needs to be plugged, made safe [and] the area around it remediated, that shell company goes bust, right?

And so, essentially, Big Oil are evading what are called their asset retirement obligations through very complex bankruptcy and fraud. And, so, we are bringing a case on behalf of Colorado landowners who often are faced with the impacts and the costs of this pollution, and our case is really designed to shift that accountability, so really making a reality of the polluter pays principle. Saying, “actually, it’s not OK to put private profit at the expense of public good, and your business model will be very, very different if you actually have to account for the damage that you’re doing, environmentally, for asset retirement obligations”. All these things. And that will actually shift how the economics of it work and that will help accelerate action.

CB: It is presumably easier to win over public sympathy for a case, if you’re dealing with local pollution, even if it’s a Trojan horse for a wider atmospheric pollution issue, it’s actually the local element…

LC: It’s very local and so what happens is, when Big Oil evades its asset retirement obligations, that lands on the local authorities, on the taxpayer, on the local landowners. And we’re talking about massive methane leaks. We’re talking about poisoning of the local land [and] kids getting ill. It’s a very, very real issue. And, actually, it points also to a really interesting point about the leverage of successful climate litigation.

So the costs to the US of these unplugged oil and gas wells is estimated to be $1.5bn in terms of the climate impact, the health impact, the pollution [and] the cost of cleaning it up. [So], if we succeed in in shifting the accountability for just 10% of those oil and gas wells, then that’s $150m saved, right? And our case costs $1.5m, so there’s a bit of maths there.

But the point is, if you can shift through corporate law, shift some of these corporate practices that are totally unjust, then you’re really getting to a point where the playing field is more level between the fossil fuels of the past and the energy of the future.

CB: Talking of corporates, we’re in this era of ESG [environmental, social and governance] backlash. And it feels like we’ve gone in recent years from a sort of dynamic of greenwashing amongst corporates to a kind of greenhushing. And how is that all affecting your work at ClientEarth, that sort of shift backlash against ESG?

LC: So I think what’s important to hold on to – whatever the political weather, whether ESG is in or out, what doesn’t change, a bit like gravity, is the materiality of climate risk, right? What will climate change mean for your business, for your operations, for your bottom line [and] what is your long-term commercial viability?

And there’s an amazing open letter written in March by people representing 50% of the UK’s food industry, talking about the materiality of climate risk and biodiversity risk for the food industry at large.

It’s a huge issue for companies everywhere and sometimes they might be doing less in terms of the PR and posturing around it, but any company that is thinking seriously about its long-term commercial viability is thinking about climate and biodiversity risk. They’re putting steps in place and they should also be advocating for the right regulation so that it is a level playing field.

CB: ClientEarth operates in a variety of countries. How does ClientEarth interact with environmental law enforcement in countries with more closed judicial systems, such as China?

LC: Yes, we work very differently in different places. And that’s really important. So, in Europe, we do lots of litigation advocacy.

In China, it’s a very different model. We’re there at the invitation of the Supreme Court of China. We’ve been there for a long time now and [have] been training environmental judges in environmental law, because it’s not enough to have the right laws in place. You need to make sure that those are enforced. And we’ve also been supporting the Supreme People’s Procuratorate in developing public interest environmental litigation.

So we’re not doing the litigation ourselves. We’re bringing our expertise from the rest of the world to support them. And, actually, the results are really quite amazing in terms of the number of cases that have been brought now by public-interest litigators in China focused on pollution, cleaning up the rivers [and] cleaning up air pollution. Most recently, we supported a case on mist nets that trap birds. So, mist nets that are used in agriculture and trap and kill birds.

So it’s a very different way of working. We work very much in collaboration with the authorities. You know, with the permission of the authorities, the invitation of the authorities, having a really, really significant impact.

And another thing we did was provide advice on no longer financing coal in the “belt and road initiative”. And that was a decision that went all the way up through the authorities, and then was implemented. And so the avoided emissions, avoided fossil-fuel infrastructure from that is important, too.

So it’s all about working out where we can have the greatest impact? Where do we need to be and how do we need to work in that context to get the greatest return for the planet?

CB: I suspect not everyone knows this about ClientEarth, but, in 2019, before your time as CEO, admittedly, Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour kind of famously auctioned off some of his guitars and gave all the proceeds to support your work. I think it was reported at the time that it raised something like $21m or something incredible.

So, how has that gift been used? I mean, that probably did massively transform the finances and opportunities for ClientEarth. But how does that actually trickle into your work downstream?

LC: Oh, it’s been hugely important, and it was the most amazing gift from David Gilmour that has enabled us to scale what we do, to expand [and] to expand internationally.

So we now have a much larger presence in China. We’ve opened a programmatic office in the US. We’ve been able to build our teams here, but also build our capability around our communications, our fundraising, for example. So it’s just strengthened us as an organisation.

But, importantly, also we’ve used it to really develop our ability to innovate and to bring really, really exciting test cases. So, hugely, hugely important. It’s led to a sort of very rapid growth, which sometimes brings problems, but it’s been hugely valuable in terms of the impact that we can have.

CB: You personally have a very interesting CV with time deployed as a diplomat across lots of locations with a variety of, actually, environmental impacts, notably from climate change, which must have been apparent to you in your role at those times. How have those experiences shaped your current role at ClientEarth and your sort of thinking in your role?

LC: Yes, I loved being a diplomat and I often say that diplomacy, at its best, it’s about the art of the possible. How do you build connections? How do you understand other people? How do you collaborate to effect change? And I really think about this work as the art of the possible. Yes, sometimes we carry a big stick of litigation, but it’s always about thinking creatively. If we use the law at the right place at the right time, how can we get to these positive tipping points for us to accelerate the change we need?

And I think what I bring is that sense of, how do we collaborate? How can we be creative and use the law in a creative way? But, importantly, how do we build those friendships, networks [and] influence? Because none of this – this is all a team sport, right?

These problems that we face are so all-encompassing. The law plays one part, but it has to be with business, with government, with the science, with the arts and culture, the hearts-and-mind piece. And so how do we all come at these issues collectively, but from different angles to really try and drive the change that’s needed.

CB: I think you’ll be able to list all your postings. But you’ve got experience in Oceania, Asia, Africa, wherever, all over the planet in terms of those climate impacts. Where can you remember occasions or locations where it’s been almost like an epiphany moment, where you’ve seen real impact?

LC: Yes, I mean, it’s always been a huge focus for me, but it was when I was in New Zealand – I was high commissioner to New Zealand and high commissioner to Samoa and governor of the Pitcairn Islands. And when you spend a lot of time in the South Pacific and you go to these small island developing states – and I didn’t just go to Samoa, I travelled all around the Pacific in my role – climate change there is existential, you know. They’ve got no time for culture wars, [no questioning whether] is it happening? Is it not? It is an existential and a day-to-day lived reality, whether that’s about sea level rise, whether it’s about their economy [or] whether it’s a loss of livelihoods. And so that, for me, made me want to work on these issues full-time.

But I also saw, from my role as governor of Pitcairn, I saw the impact of plastic pollution. So Henderson Island in Pitcairn is one of the most plastic-polluted territories in the world, even though it’s uninhabited, and we did a lot of work there to clean up the plastic, study its impact on the natural environment [and] communicate that to the world.

And then, on the other side, on the more positive side, Pitcairn has got a massive marine protected area and we did a lot of science expeditions studying what the effect is of that marine protected area on the health of the oceans and marine life there, which was really, really inspiring.

And so I sort of came, thinking holistically about these issues [and] the art of the possible. But, you know, it’s not just about climate. It’s about everything. It’s about how we live our lives, how businesses operate [and] how governments think. How do we get away from that short-term thinking to thinking in the longer intergenerational sort of ways, is really important.

Plastic pollution on Henderson Island, South Pacific. Credit: Michael Brooke / Alamy Stock Photo

CB: So, final question. As we head towards COP30, I’m intrigued about two things: what ClientEarth’s role will be at COP30, but also, how do you think Brazil’s domestic politics might affect the outcome? I’m thinking particularly of the dynamics behind Brazil’s devastation bill, which I believe ClientEarth has been actively focused on.

LC: Look, I think it’s really, really challenging to have those dynamics domestically. And [Brazilian president] Lula did veto – well, veto or amended – that bill, but we mended the most devastating elements of it. But, clearly, the politics there is really hard. You’re seeing a lot in terms of new permits being issued for oil-and-gas extraction. So that’s really hard. It hampers a [COP] presidency.

It’s not the first time, of course, that a presidency has been holding multiple truths in its hands at the same time; that importance of international climate coordination and then the sort of messy domestic politics. But, you know, it’s really critical at this COP30 that we do see countries come together with ambition and not just putting forward new nationally determined contributions, but really having a plan for what that looks like in the real world.

It’s one thing to make a commitment internationally. It’s another thing to turn that into real-world changes.

And ClientEarth has been advocating, along with global legislators and WWF, for a next generation of climate laws, because that’s really how you close that gap between the international commitment and the real world change, and how you provide certainty, predictability for businesses, for all of the economy. And so we’ve supported a number of countries on their climate laws. We’re advocating for other countries to adopt next-generation climate laws to really make a reality of those international commitments.

CB: Is there a particular country where you think that effort is most needed on climate law? Can you think of…

LC: There are a number, and when we’re seeing, and I mean, for example, Turkey recently agreed its first-ever climate law. But there are others where it would be hugely beneficial, where there are still no climate laws, and others where it needs updating.

CB: OK, Laura, thank you so much for taking the time.

LC: It’s been a pleasure. Really nice, really nice to talk to you. Thanks a lot.

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Interview: ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke

Greenhouse Gases

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

Published

3 weeks ago

March 6, 2026

Alice Rush

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

Greenhouse Gases

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

Published

3 weeks ago

March 6, 2026

Alice Rush

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 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. 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

8 March: Colombia parliamentary election
9-19 March: 31st Annual Session of the International Seabed Authority, Kingston, Jamaica
11 March: UN Environment Programme state of finance for nature 2026 report launch

Pick of the jobs

London School of Economics and Political Science, fellow in the social science of sustainability | Salary: £43,277-£51,714. Location: London
NORCAP, innovative climate finance expert | Salary: Unknown. Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
WBHM, environmental reporter | Salary: $50,050-$81,330. Location: Birmingham, Alabama, US
Climate Cabinet, data engineer | Salary: hourly rate of $60-$120 per hour. Location: Remote anywhere in the US

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

Greenhouse Gases

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

Published

3 weeks ago

March 6, 2026

Alice Rush

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?
What does the plan say about China’s climate action?
What is China’s new CO2 intensity target?
Does the plan encourage further clean-energy additions?
What does the plan signal about coal?
How will China approach global climate governance in the next five years?
What else does the plan cov er?

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
‘Green and low-carbon	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.

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