Published

5 months ago

June 30, 2025

Alice Rush

Jonathan Brearley became chief executive of the UK’s energy regulator Ofgem in 2020.

Since then, he has seen the organisation through the Covid-19 pandemic, the impact of Russia’s war in Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis.

In January, it was announced that Brearley will continue in the role until 2030, the target date for the UK’s electricity system to run on clean power.

This gives him an important position in overseeing the country’s electricity and gas networks, as well as the energy markets, retailers and consumer prices during a period of huge transition.

Carbon Brief sat down with Brearley to discuss the energy network, “zonal” pricing, the Spanish blackout and what is next for protecting customers from high energy prices.

On the next decade: “If you fast forward to 10 years’ time…our energy is going to come from lots of different places.”
On electricity network rollout: “We should have built the network faster.”
On Ofgem’s scope: “If I think back to…2020, I don’t think I’d have imagined how fast we would change the things that we do.”
On price control frameworks: “If we get that right, if we get that infrastructure on time, then that takes the country to a much more stable and secure place.”
On zonal pricing: “There are benefits, economic benefits, from single pricing, but it brings uncertainty…[I]t’s a balanced judgment. It’s not just a slam dunk.”
On the clean-power 2030 goal: “The interaction between zonal and clean power is this question of cost of capital and uncertainty.”
On protecting customers: “We are trying to have a stable system…one that allows us to manage this international volatility that, quite frankly, no government or regulator can control.”
On the Spanish blackout: “I think we’ll all have to be vigilant.”

On zero-carbon power: “The job for all of us is to be really careful about the security of supply.”
On “rebalancing” energy-bill policy costs: “We’ll all have to be mindful of the distributional consequences of any change.”
On equity in the transition: “There’s a really big challenge for all of us, [around] how are we going to get some of this kit into people’s homes.”
On energy bills: “There’s greater awareness and I think greater importance in people’s lives.”
On misinformation: “We see part of our job as being that sort of authoritative voice.”
On the role of gas: “It’s about diversifying [the energy system] so that, were a shock to hit, we would be in a much more attenuated place.”
On wind “constraint” costs: “The best way to avoid constraint costs is to have the network to transport the electricity, ”
On customers and the energy transition: “There is a really interesting discussion we should have publicly, about how customers are going to see this change.”

Carbon Brief: How do you think the UK’s energy system will look in a decade and what will it mean for consumers?

Jonathan Brearley: So, I might answer that by just stepping back and thinking about how it’s already changed, and therefore how it might change in the future.

If you go back to 10 years ago when we started this low-carbon transition journey really, it was all about growing energy at the back end. So different forms of power generation, in particular, and to be honest, my life, your life, everyone’s life, has not really changed much in the way we use energy. Most of us still heat our homes using the same kind of heaters, usually gas heaters. We still use electricity in the same way we did, frankly, in the 70s and 80s.

But if you fast forward to 10 years’ time – and you’re beginning to see this already, actually increasingly – our energy is going to come from lots of different places. So it’s going to come, for example, from solar panels, which we may have on our roofs. We may be using our cars both for sourcing their fuel from electricity, but also being used to help us manage our own energy within our homes.

So I think this is all going to become very real and very visible for families and for businesses.

I think the question for me is, how do we make sure that that transition is a positive one, and how can we make sure that people get the benefits of that? And I think the benefits could be really big.

CB: Sort of implicit in what you just said is a bit of the fact that we thought a lot about the generation, we thought about the renewables, but the networks for something that feels like it’s only really become a focus in the last couple of years.

Do you think that we should have paid more attention to that sooner? Or do you think lots of people were, but it just wasn’t getting the sort of media attention that renewables were?

JB: So I think, without a doubt – and I’ve said this many times with hindsight – we should have built the network faster. You know, it’s clear that we now need to build fast to meet the ambition of renewables that we have.

Now, some of that is about how those ambitions change over time. But quite frankly, we’ve got a huge task now to get our networks in place. And you know, in a system where the place we generate is going to change, the type of generation we have is going to change, we need the network to match. And that’s really what Ofgem’s focus has been for a number of years now, to try and get that going. And quite frankly, I think it is going quite fast.

CB: Do you think that Ofgem’s scope and focus have changed an awful lot, in even just the last five years or since the energy crisis?

JB: Hugely. I mean, I think it’s changed hugely. Even if I think back to when I was CEO in 2020, I don’t think I’d have imagined how fast we would change the things that we do.

So take that network’s kind of piece. Even in 2020, we were still running price controls pretty much in the way we’ve run them before, [whereas] right now, our network regulation is starting from the understanding that pace is important. The speed at which we move, the speed at which we get investment in the system, is the best way we are going to protect customers.

So with something we called ASTI, the accelerated strategic transmission investment program. We have a whole programme now focused on making sure that, as far as possible, our kind of regulation of the money doesn’t get in front of project development.

Now, quite frankly, we’re about to come out with RIIO, our price control settlement. I think what we will say to the industry, to ourselves, to industry and to government, is, “look, there’s a massive challenge now. We’re making this money available, but we have to deliver, and that means making sure we get that network on time so that this new system we’re building works for the whole country.”

CB: How’s RIIO going to change from previous price framework periods?

JB: Well, I think there are two elements for me. First of all, we have to make sure that we invest in the system that we have. So all infrastructure regulators, in my opinion, need to learn the lessons from the last 10 years to make sure that the system we have maintains high [level of] security of supply and delivers high-quality services to customers.

But also, we are sort of embarking on this big build program to make sure that we are ready to take on all of this new generation.

Now, if we get that right, if we get that infrastructure on time, then that takes the country to a much more stable and secure place, which is something that I think in today’s world that customers will value extremely, hugely.

CB: With talking about the networks and how much is changing, you previously said you would support a shift to zonal pricing. Given how fraught the debate is, could you give me some of the core reasons behind backing such a shift?

JB: So look, I’ve shared my personal view on this and, quite frankly, that’s a Jonathan Brearley view, not a view of the whole organisation. And the reason I say that is because this is a really balanced argument.

So the problem we will all have is how to make sure we can run this new system as efficiently as possible. So, how do we minimise payments to generators to switch off because we simply can’t move their power around? And how do we make sure that the operation of our batteries, our interconnectors and our generators all fit together?

There are basically two options. There’s zonal pricing, which I prefer, because I think when you get there – even though it’s a long journey – this adapts more organically and more easily.

But there is a path you take where you adapt the national system that we have. You probably have to change your transmission charging and probably have to do more planning of infrastructure that could take you to somewhere near the same place.

Now I know the secretary of state is balancing those two things together. The argument is fairly simple in my mind: there are benefits, economic benefits, from single pricing, but it brings uncertainty. The question is, does that uncertainty drive up the cost of capital so much that it actually outweighs the benefits that you might get? And that’s what he’ll be grappling with.

Either way, we’ll support him in that delivery. I’ve given my view, but it’s a balanced judgment. It’s not just a slam dunk.

CB: You mentioned within that, that zonal pricing is a long journey. Do you think that the timeframe within which it could be implemented could potentially jeopardise [the government’s target of] clean power by 2030?

JB: So I think the interaction between zonal and clean power is this question of cost of capital and uncertainty. That’s the same trade-off I’ve just laid out and that’s where I think will be on the secretary of state’s mind when he makes that decision.

CB: In the shorter term, we’ve already touched on how things have changed since the energy price crisis and that being driven by surging gas prices in particular.

How much can Ofgem do to protect customers and consumers from similar situations in the future, given that gas still has such a role in setting wholesale market prices?

JB: Well, look, I mean I think that’s our mission. We’ve all got to learn collectively from the last few years. When you distill it back – all the regulatory detail, all of the conversations about how we manage technically – we found ourselves in a situation where this country’s energy needs were, in the vast majority, being provided by an international gas market that we don’t control.

Now, we saw the impact when we had to withdraw from Russia as a major supplier and we saw the price spikes we saw in 2022-24. What all of us want to do is build a system where we never face that kind of situation again.

So the thing about building the infrastructure we’re talking about, both through networks and through the upcoming auctions for offshore wind and onshore wind, is that we will have a system that is much more stable.

So there’s some very early analysis that we’re doing that I don’t have sort of full figures for, that asks the question, “Well, imagine we had a gas crisis in 2030 when this is all built”. And the early indications from that analysis are actually [that] we would be a lot better off as a country.

The main thing we are trying to do is have a stable system, a system that’s more within our domestic control, not totally within our domestic control, but one that allows us to manage this international volatility that, quite frankly, no government or regulator can control.

CB: Talking about international volatility, we’ve had the report this week from the Spanish government into the causes of the blackout. Then we’ve also had [grid operator] Redeia sort of pushing back against certain elements of it.

What is Ofgem taking from that situation, to learn about how it could manage potentially similar situations in the UK?

JB: Well, I think it’s still early days. We’re still digesting the report and we will make sure that we, the system operator and the network companies and indeed, the generators learn from what happened in Spain.

I guess, stepping back from the specifics, there are some reasons to take comfort. I think we have thought a lot about things like system inertia and some of the problems you might get when you see thermal generation declining, but I think we’ll all have to be vigilant. This is a big change and we’ll have to make sure the system works in all scenarios.

And look, the thing about incidents such as what happened in Spain is that they are great ways for us to make sure our system is more resilient. But there’s nothing I’ve seen from the reports yet that makes me think that there’s something we’re absolutely missing in the UK. But as I say, early days and much more work to do to get through that.

CB: With Britain being an islanded grid, it strikes me as being very different from the one in Spain.

Are there any particular countries that Ofgem can look at, sort of learn lessons from, or do you always sort of have to take a step back and go, but we are an island, we don’t have the level of interconnection that other places do, and we do need to be slightly more independent because of that.

JB: Well, that’s an interesting question. I suppose that as we look at our interconnection program, we’re going to build out up to roughly around 18 gigawatts (GW) of interconnection. So I don’t think we are going to be an island in 10 years’ time, coming back to sort of where we started.

There is always a question, if you are more separate from another market, as to how you manage, particularly looking back at the gas crisis. If you look at our gas market and how we connect to Europe, and what we might need from them. But I don’t think we’re so different that we can’t take lessons from European countries either.

And actually, I think when you look at Spain, Portugal and their interaction with France, one of the things I hear is a question that’s being asked is, should you have more interconnection for Spain, because, actually, there weren’t many outlets to begin to share some of these sorts of factors that play.

CB: That’s interesting, because I think lots of the focus has just been on how Spain was interconnected with Portugal, and that was almost a problem for Portugal.

JB: Well, that’s right, but if you look at the two of them together and how they connect to the rest of Europe, I don’t know the numbers, but I would imagine it’s a million miles away from where we are.

CB: With Britain expected to have periods of zero-carbon electricity generation for the first time this year, what are the biggest challenges Ofgem is facing in facilitating this transition?

JB: Well, I think it’s a really positive step. Now, let’s be clear, we will all be vigilant. And I imagine Fintan [Slye] and the system operator will be super vigilant, to make sure they understand how the system will work and how they’ll manage some of the changes that a zero-carbon system brings.

But it’s a great step forward and I think as we gradually get into this, the job for all of us is to be really careful about the security of supply, to remember that that is always the customer’s number one concern, and to begin to learn the lessons.

The thing for me is this great change that Ed Miliband is instituting through 2030, the new generation, the new network. For me, it’s all now about the efficiency of that. Making sure that’s efficient, economic and delivers what customers need.

Now the other thing, I think from the gas crisis is, although there are still tensions between the trilemma – I think we can’t pretend the trilemma has completely gone away – they are much lower than when I started 10 years ago, where we had a real sort of trade off between very high cost renewables and very low cost thermal.

So I think there’s a lot of work for us to do, but look, I’m glad we’ve made that step, and I hope it continues to do so.

CB: Do you think there needs to be work to rebalance the levies on electricity bills to sort of continue to tackle some of these core imbalances in the cost to consumers?

JB: So another trilemma is levies on electricity, what you might put on gas and what a taxpayer might take. You know, as a regulator without a fiscal mandate, of course I would love the taxpayer to take more of the burden, but I don’t face the challenges that the chancellor faces.

I think there is always going to be a question in the current system as to how, if you want people to take up electricity as their option for heating and for transport, how you make that economic, particularly through heating. But the thing we’ll all have to be mindful of is the distributional consequences of any change.

So what we think broadly is actually what you’ve got to do is step back and think about those customers that are really struggling. So, if you have low-income customers that are finding it hard in today’s market as is, how are you going to protect them through any transition?

And I think that goes beyond the question about levies actually. I think systemically, we need to do more for affordability, to give ourselves flexibility, to make changes like that that might make the system more efficient.

CB: Do you think the energy industry as a whole is doing enough to ensure that everyone is brought along with the transition? That everyone gets the benefits of being able to charge an EV at home and stuff like that, even if it requires quite a big upfront cost. Are we doing enough overall?

JB: So the thing I want to recognise is that, particularly for suppliers, but actually across the industry, people have worked really hard to protect vulnerable customers. You know, we’ve had things to work through, like prepayment meters, but most companies now have really focused on trying to make sure they understand customers in difficult financial circumstances, for example.

Now there’s always more we can do, and as a regulator, we’re always going to be pushing to make that response better. So [things like a] quick response to people in debt, making sure that you get them onto an affordable repayment plan and you work hard with those families to get them back in a more stable position.

I’m really pleased with the government’s announcement today [19 June 2025] that there’s more people going to get the “warm home discount”, and we’re going to play our part in that. We’re going to introduce debt relief initiatives that tackle the stock of debt that’s been left over since the crisis. So things are beginning to move.

In the short term, I think that as we make this transition, there’s a really big challenge for all of us, which you’ve highlighted, which is how are we going to get some of this kit into people’s homes, for people that aren’t able to finance that themselves? So I’m looking to the “warm homes plan”. I was pleased to see that was money allocated in the spending review [for the warm homes plan], where we will actually be [able to] support some of the most vulnerable customers to benefit from this.

And look, there’s a myth out there that I think we should challenge, that poorer or lower-income households and vulnerable customers don’t want to engage with this market.

I mean, interestingly, I’ve talked to a lot to [EV] charging companies for example, and they’ll point out to me, they’ll point out to me that a lot of EV users are people who’ve got those through disability payments and are engaging in a more flexible market and are seeing those benefits.

So the more of that we can create, the better I think it will spread the benefits of the change.

CB: It’s interesting. Why do you think there is less awareness that people who are considered sort of lower income aren’t as engaged?

JB: So there is some evidence, actually. So some of the consumer work we’ve done does say that, in general, if you have vulnerabilities, you might engage less with things like switching. But I think we’ve got to be imaginative about this. And if you have policy and policy funding, then there must be a much better way to get people involved.

Like I say, when you see people getting electric vehicles, for example, through personal independence allocations, things like that, then you can see people do engage. So there’s plenty of scope there to do more.

CB: Do you think there’s a greater awareness of what goes into energy bills than there was five years ago or before the energy crisis? And does that change how consumers then interact with you and what they call for from Ofgem?

JB: Well, I’ll tell you one thing that I’ve done now for three or four years, which is, I’ve phoned customers up individually. And so my teams find me someone – they do pre-warn them – and I phone them up and ask very general questions.

So I don’t go in there with a series of specifics, I just say, “how do you feel about your energy company? How would you feel about your energy provision? And what would you change?”

And I guess that the change that I am noticing, for understandable reasons, is that it’s much more front of mind than it’s ever been before.

So I think back to sort of when I started in Ofgem in 2015, I told people what I did, there was sort of moderate interest, put it that way. Now, everybody has an opinion about what should happen and the way we should configure the system.

So I think there’s, there’s greater awareness, and I think greater importance in people’s lives. You know, people have seen the impact of high prices, and most people have the question, well, how do I help myself get out of that?

CB: From Ofgem’s point of view, are there any specific areas where you think there’s mis- or disinformation that’s particularly harming your work, particularly in the media?

JB: So, you know, there is [currently] a much wider debate now about net-zero, and I think that is a shift. So right the way back when we developed the Climate Change Act in 2006/7, we had a House of Commons that I think had five dissenting votes out of the whole House – something like that, certainly less than 10. [Five Conservative MPs voted against the bill.]

So we are seeing a much more vigorous debate about what we should do. Now my view is we should also welcome that we all need to test our plans and test what we’re doing, but I think we have to be careful to ground that, as far as possible, in the analysis.

What we do, when we talk about the impact of what we do, we try and ground that as best we can within the economics we have within this building and the things that we see outside of there. I think that’s hard when the debate becomes more emotional, but that is, we see part of our job as being that sort of authoritative voice, basing things as far as we can on the evidence that we see.

CB: Do you think it would be useful if there was a clearer presentation of things like curtailment costs in the media?

JB: So the system operator does do work on sharing the curtailment costs, so they do and will share their analysis around this. I think the question is, how those might change over time, and being clear on the range of possibilities there.

The problem we have – and look, I’ve been around this very long time, is that projections are just projections. So I was looking back at some projections on constraint costs from 10 years ago, and put it this way, they were way out.

You know, I also always talk about my time in the department in the early sort of 2010s we thought the idea that solar was going to take off in the UK to be completely mad, because it was six times the market price and we have no sun in Britain. That was a kind of general statement. And both of those things have turned out to be wrong.

So one of the things I think we’re all going to have to get used to is understanding that the range of possibilities is still quite wide, and it’s how you have the debate within that, how you talk about how you manage risks.

The thing that we focus on as a result of that is to say, “look, let’s have a look at our portfolio of energy”. As I say, it’s majority gas. What we’re doing, I think, through the infrastructure bill that we’re putting in place, is really moving to a place that’s more stable.

There’s not going to be no gas in 2030, there’s plenty of gas in both our heating system and indeed, there’ll still be gas in our electricity system. But it’s about diversifying that so that were a shock to hit, we would be in a much more attenuated place. And I think that’s better for all customers.

CB: So I know I asked you what the UK energy system will look like in the next 10 years, but what’s on Ofgem’s plate for the near future? What’s next for you? What’s your biggest focus?

JB: Well, our big thing in the next couple of weeks will be RIIO. Now that is on network price control.

To be open, when I first came into Ofgem in 2016, that was a large part of my job. I came as networks director at that point, or networks partner, I think it was called.

And what we’re going to see, I think again, is the regulator moving fast to unlock the investment we need to build this system. So we’ve worked very hard for the companies, now we are always, unashamedly going to challenge them on the amount of money they need and the returns that they get, but equally, we are thoughtful about the pace at which we need to put this infrastructure in place.

As I say, coming out of this will have an impact on customers’ bills, because we have to fund the infrastructure that we are paying for. But we do think that is offset, really, by two things.

First of all, a reduction in those constraint costs, because the best way to avoid constraint costs is to have the network to transport the electricity, but also to get out of this volatility, so to be away from a place where we are as vulnerable as we were in 2022. So that’s what’s on our mind in terms of the conclusions that we’ll come out with.

But it’s a big challenge. The challenge is to us, to industry, to government. Now, what do we need to do? We need to unlock the money as those projects progress. The government needs to make sure that planning permission is there, that we have nothing in terms of the sort of wider regulatory landscape that gets in the way. And the network companies need to deliver, [as] we are giving them a vast amount of money on behalf of customers. This would be fantastic for customers if those projects get in the ground, but if they’re delayed, then I think customers have a right to be asking the question why.

CB: Is there anything else you like to add? Anything you think more people should talk about that no one ever asks you about?

JB: Oh, that’s a very good question. What should people talk about that they don’t ask about? I’ll tell you what we should talk about is – almost going back to the first question – I think there is a really interesting discussion we should have publicly, about how customers are going to see this change.

You know, how is it going to look and feel? Where regulators are terrible is in thinking about the shape of services. You know, how do you design something that people really want? You’ve got some great companies out there doing it. A lot of the retailers are now getting involved in this conversation. You’ve got a lot of small startups.

But I do think, once we continue the debate about the investment that we need, the next question is, “well, how does this work for people?” So I’m really excited by things like the government’s “warm homes plan”, because I think that is a really good way to get a conversation about what infrastructure do we need, how do we best use it, and how do we change all of our lives for the better?

The interview was conducted by Molly Lempriere at Ofgem’s head office in Canary Wharf, London, on 19 June 2025.

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Interview: Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley

Greenhouse Gases

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Published

11 hours ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

By Elissa Tennant

Healthy forests are a key part of the climate puzzle — and they’ve been a big part of our advocacy in 2025!

In January of this year, CCL volunteers sent 7,100 messages to Congress urging them to work together to reduce wildfire risk. Soon after, the Fix Our Forests Act was introduced in the House as H.R. 471 and passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 279–141.

At our Conservative Climate Conference and Lobby Day in March, we raised the Fix Our Forests Act as a secondary ask in 47 lobby meetings on Capitol Hill. The next month, an improved version of the bill was then introduced in the Senate as S. 1462 and referred to the Senate Agriculture Committee.

The bill was scheduled for a committee vote in October. CCLers placed more than 2,000 calls to senators on the committee and generated a flurry of local media in their states before the vote. In October, the bill passed the Senate Agriculture Committee with strong bipartisan support.

It’s clear that this legislation has momentum! As the Fix Our Forests Act now awaits a floor vote in the Senate, let’s take a look back at our 2025 advocacy efforts to advance this bill — and why it’s so important.

Protecting forests and improving climate outcomes

Wildfires are getting worse. In the U.S., the annual area burned by wildfires has more than doubled over the past 30 years. In California alone, the acreage burned by wildfires every year has more than tripled over the past 40 years.

American forests currently offset 12% of our annual climate pollution, with the potential to do even more. We need to take action to reduce wildfire, so forests can keep doing their important work pulling climate pollution out of the atmosphere.

The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act:

Protects America’s forests by supporting time-tested tools, like prescribed fire and reforestation, that make our forests healthy and able to better withstand and recover from severe wildfire and other extreme weather.
Protects communities across the nation by reducing wildfire risks to people, homes, and water supplies and adopting new technologies.
Protects livelihoods by supporting rural jobs and recreation areas and sustaining the forests that house and feed us.

CCL supports this bill alongside many organizations including American Forests, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Western Fire Chiefs Association, The Federation of American Scientists and more.

A deeper dive into our efforts

All year long, CCL’s Government Relations staff has been in conversation with congressional offices to share CCL’s perspective on the legislation and understand the opportunities and challenges facing the bill. Our Government Relations team played a key role in helping us understand when and how to provide an extra grassroots push to keep the bill moving.

Starting Sept. 9 through the committee vote, CCLers represented by senators on the Senate Agriculture Committee made 2,022 calls to committee members in support of FOFA. CCL also signed a national coalition letter to Senate leadership in support of the bill, joining organizations like the American Conservation Coalition Action, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and more.

In October, we launched a local media initiative in support of FOFA, focused on states with senators on the Agriculture Committee. Volunteers published letters to the editor and op-eds in California, Minnesota, Colorado, and more. In one state, the senator’s office saw a CCLer’s op-ed in the local newspaper, and reached out to schedule a meeting with those volunteers to discuss the bill! CCL’s Government Relations team joined in to make the most of the conversation.

As soon as the committee vote was scheduled for October 21, our Government Relations staff put out a call for volunteers to generate local endorsement letters from trusted messengers. CCL staff prepared short endorsement letter templates for each state that chapters could personalize and submit to their senator’s office. Each version included clear instructions, contact info, and space for volunteers to add their local context, like a short story or relevant example of how wildfires have impacted their area.

Then, CCL state coordinators worked with the CCL chapters in their states to make sure they prepared and sent the signed letters to the appropriate senate office, and to alert CCL’s Government Affairs staff so they could follow up and keep the conversation going on Capitol Hill.

Individually, our voices as climate advocates struggle to break through and make change. But it’s this kind of coordinated nationwide effort, with well-informed staff partnering with motivated local volunteers, that makes CCL effective at moving the needle in Congress.

On October 21, the Fix Our Forests Act officially passed the Senate Agriculture Committee with a vote of 18-5.

Building on the momentum

After committee passage, FOFA is now waiting to be taken up by the full Senate for a floor vote. It’s not clear yet if it will move as a standalone bill or included in a package of other legislation.

But to continue building support, we spent a large portion of our Fall Conference training our volunteers on the latest information about the bill, and we included FOFA as a primary ask in our Fall Lobby Week meetings.

Volunteers are now messaging all senators in support of FOFA. If you haven’t already, add your voice by sending messages to your senators about this legislation. With strategy, organization, and a group of dedicated people, we can help pass the Fix Our Forests Act, reducing wildfire risk and helping forests remove more climate pollution.

Help us keep the momentum going! Write to your Senator in support of the Fix Our Forests Act.

The post Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025 appeared first on Citizens' Climate Lobby.

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Greenhouse Gases

DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out

Published

18 hours ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

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

This week

Deadly floods in Asia

MOUNTING DEVASTATION: The Associated Press reported that the death toll from catastrophic floods in south-east Asia had reached 1,500, with Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand most affected and hundreds still missing. The newswire said “thousands” more face “severe” food and clean-water shortages. Heavy rains and thunderstorms are expected this weekend, it added, with “saturated soil and swollen rivers leaving communities on edge”. Earlier in the week, Bloomberg said the floods had caused “at least $20bn in losses”.

CLIMATE CHANGE LINKS: A number of outlets have investigated the links between the floods and human-caused climate change. Agence France-Presse explained that climate change was “producing more intense rain events because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and warmer oceans can turbocharge storms”. Meanwhile, environmental groups told the Associated Press the situation had been exacerbated by “decades of deforestation”, which had “stripped away natural defenses that once absorbed rainfall and stabilised soil”.

‘NEW NORMAL’: The Associated Press quoted Malaysian researcher Dr Jemilah Mahmood saying: “South-east Asia should brace for a likely continuation and potential worsening of extreme weather in 2026 and for many years.” Al Jazeera reported that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies had called for “stronger legal and policy frameworks to protect people in disasters”. The organisation’s Asia-Pacific director said the floods were a “stark reminder that climate-driven disasters are becoming the new normal”, the outlet said.

Around the world

REVOKED: The UK and Netherlands withdrew $2.2bn of financial backing from a controversial liquified natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique, Reuters reported. The Guardian noted that TotalEnergies’ “giant” project stood accused of “fuelling the climate crisis and deadly terror attacks”.
REVERSED: US president Donald Trump announced plans to “significantly weaken” Biden-era fuel efficiency requirements for cars, the New York Times said.
RESTRICTED: EU leaders agreed to ban the import of Russian gas from autumn 2027, the Financial Times reported. Meanwhile, Reuters said it is “likely” the European Commission will delay announcing a plan on auto sector climate targets next week, following pressure to “weaken” a 2035 cut-off for combustion engines.
RETRACTED: An influential Nature study that looked at the economic consequences of climate change has been withdrawn after “criticism from peers”, according to Bloomberg. [The research came second in Carbon Brief’s ranking of the climate papers most covered by the media in 2024.]
REBUKED: The federal government of Canada faced a backlash over an oil pipeline deal struck last week with the province of Alberta. CBC News noted that First Nations chiefs voted “unanimously” to demand the withdrawal of the deal and Canada’s National Observer quoted author Naomi Klein as saying that the prime minister was “completely trashing Canada’s climate commitments”.
RESCHEDULED: The Indonesian government has cancelled plans to close a coal plant seven years early, Bloomberg reported. Meanwhile, Bloomberg separately reported that India is mulling an “unprecedented increase” in coal-power capacity that could see plants built “until at least 2047”.

$518 billion a year

The projected coastal flood damages for the Asia-Pacific region by 2100 if current policies continue, according to a Scientific Reports study covered this week by Carbon Brief.

Latest climate research

More than 100 “climate-sensitive rivers” worldwide are experiencing “large and severe changes in streamflow volume and timing” | Environmental Research Letters
Africa’s forests have switched from a carbon sink into a source | Scientific Reports
Increasing urbanisation can “substantially intensify warming”, contributing up to 0.44C of additional temperature rise per year through 2060 | 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

A new target for developed nations to triple adaptation finance by 2035, agreed at the COP30 climate summit, would not cover more than a third of developing countries’ estimated needs, Carbon Brief analysis showed. The chart above compares a straight line to meeting the adaptation finance target (blue), alongside an estimate of countries’ adaptation needs (grey), which was calculated using figures from the latest UN Environmental Programme adaptation gap report, which were based on countries’ UN climate plans (called “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs).

Spotlight

Inclusivity at the IPCC

This week, Carbon Brief speaks to an IPCC lead author researching ways to improve the experience of global south scientists taking part in producing the UN climate body’s assessments.

Hundreds of climate scientists from around the world met in Paris this week to start work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) newest set of climate reports.

The IPCC is the UN body responsible for producing the world’s most authoritative climate science reports. Hundreds of scientists from across the globe contribute to each “assessment cycle”, which sees researchers aim to condense all published climate science over several years into three “working group” reports.

The reports inform the decisions of governments – including at UN climate talks – as well as the public understanding of climate change.

The experts gathering in Paris are the most diverse group ever convened by the IPCC.

Earlier this year, Carbon Brief analysis found that – for the first time in an IPCC cycle – citizens of the global south make up 50% of authors of the three working group reports. The IPCC has celebrated this milestone, with IPCC chair Prof Jim Skea touting the seventh assessment report’s (AR7’s) “increased diversity” in August.

But some IPCC scientists have cautioned that the growing involvement of global south scientists does not translate into an inclusive process.

“What happens behind closed doors in these meeting rooms doesn’t necessarily mirror what the diversity numbers say,” Dr Shobha Maharaj, a Trinidadian climate scientist who is a coordinating lead author for working group two (WG2) of AR7, told Carbon Brief.

Global south perspective

Motivated by conversations with colleagues and her own “uncomfortable” experience working on the small-islands chapter of the sixth assessment cycle (AR6) WG2 report, Maharaj – an adjunct professor at the University of Fiji – reached out to dozens of fellow contributors to understand their experience.

The exercise, she said, revealed a “dominance of thinking and opinions from global north scientists, whereas the global south scientists – the scientists who were people of colour – were generally suppressed”.

The perspectives of scientists who took part in the survey and future recommendations for the IPCC are set out in a peer-reviewed essay – co-authored by 20 researchers – slated for publication in the journal PLOS Climate. (Maharaj also presented the findings to the IPCC in September.)

The draft version of the essay notes that global south scientists working on WG2 in AR6 said they confronted a number of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) issues, including “skewed” author selection, “unequal” power dynamics and a “lack of respect and trust”. The researchers also pointed to logistical constraints faced by global south authors, such as visa issues and limited access to journals.

The anonymous quotations from more than 30 scientists included in the essay, Maharaj said, are “clear data points” that she believes can advance a discussion about how to make academia more inclusive.

“The literature is full of the problems that people of colour or global south authors have in academia, but what you don’t find very often is quotations – especially from climate scientists,” she said. “We tend to be quite a conservative bunch.”

Road to ‘improvement’

Among the recommendations set out in the essay are for DEI training, the appointment of a “diversity and inclusion ombudsman” and for updated codes of conduct.

Marharaj said that these “tactical measures” need to occur alongside “transformative approaches” that help “address value systems, dismantle power structures [and] change the rules of participation”.

With drafting of the AR7 reports now underway, Maharaj said she is “hopeful” the new cycle can be an improvement on the last, pointing to a number of “welcome” steps from the IPCC.

This includes holding the first-ever expert meeting on DEI this autumn, new mechanisms where authors can flag concerns and the recruitment of a “science and capacity officer” to support WG2 authors.

The hope, Maharaj explained, is to enhance – not undermine – climate science.

“The idea here was to move forward and to improve the IPCC, rather than attack it,” she said. “Because we all love the science – and we really value what the IPCC brings to the world.”

Watch, read, listen

BROKEN PROMISES: Climate Home News spoke to communities in Nigeria let down by the government’s failure to clean up oil spills by foreign companies.

‘WHEN A ROAD GOES WRONG’: Inside Climate News looked at how a new road from Brazil’s western Amazon to Peru has become a “conduit for rampant deforestation and illegal gold mining”.

SHADOWY COURTS: In the Guardian, George Monbiot lamented the rise of investor-state dispute settlements, which he described as “undemocratic offshore tribunals” that are already having a “chilling effect” on countries’ climate ambitions.

Coming up

1-12 December: UN Environment Assembly 7, Nairobi, Kenya
7 December: Hong Kong legislative elections
11 December: Falkland Islands legislative assembly elections

Pick of the jobs

Greenpeace International, engagement manager – climate and energy | Salary: Unknown. Location: Various
The Energy, newsletter editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Australia (remote)
University of Groningen, PhD position in motivating people to contribute to societal transitions | Salary: €3,059-€3,881 per month. Location: Groningen, the Netherlands

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 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 5 December: Deadly Asia floods; Adaptation finance target examined; Global south IPCC scientists speak out

Greenhouse Gases

Cropped 3 December 2025: Extreme weather in Africa; COP30 roundup; Saudi minister interview

Published

3 days ago

December 3, 2025

Alice Rush

We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

Key developments

COP30 roundup

FOOD OFF THE MENU: COP30 wrapped up in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém, with several new announcements for forest protection, but with experts saying that food systems were seemingly “erased” from official negotiations, Carbon Brief reported. Other observers told the Independent that the lack of mention of food in some of the main negotiated outcomes was “surprising” and “deeply disappointing”. The outlet noted that smallholder farmers spend an “estimated 20 to 40% of their annual income on adaptive measures…despite having done next to nothing to contribute to the climate crisis”.

‘BITTERSWEET’: Meanwhile, Reuters said that the summit’s outcomes for trees and Indigenous peoples were “unprecedented”, but “bittersweet”. It noted that countries had “unlocked billions in new funds for forests” through the Tropical Forest Forever Facility. (For more on that fund, see Carbon Brief’s explainer.) However, the newswire added, “nations failed to agree on a plan to keep trees standing as they have repeatedly promised to do in recent summits”. Mongabay noted that pledges to the new forest fund totalled “less than a quarter of the $25bn initially required for a full-scale rollout”.

‘MIXED OUTCOMES’: A separate piece in Mongabay said that COP30 “delivered mixed outcomes” for Indigenous peoples. One positive outcome was a “historic pledge to recognise Indigenous land tenure rights over 160m hectares” of tropical forest land, the outlet said. This was accompanied by a monetary pledge of $1.8bn to support “Indigenous peoples, local and Afro-descendant communities in securing land rights over the next five years”, it added. However, Mongabay wrote, there were some “major disappointments” around the summit’s outcomes, particularly around the absence of mention of critical minerals and fossil-fuel phaseout in the final texts.

Africa on edge

SOMALIA DROUGHT: Somalia officially declared a drought emergency last month “after four consecutive failed rainy seasons left millions at risk of hunger and displacement”, allAfrica reported, with 130,000 people in “immediate life-threatening need”. According to Al Jazeera, more than 4.5 million people “face starvation”, as “failed rains and heat devastated” the country, with displaced communities also “escaping fighting” in their villages and aid cuts impacting relief. Down to Earth, meanwhile, covered an Amnesty International report that demonstrated that Somalia failed to “implement a functional social-security system for the marginalised, particularly those negatively affected by drought”.

COCOA CRASH: Ivory Coast’s main cocoa harvest is expected to “decline sharply for [the] third consecutive year” due to erratic rainfall, crop disease, ageing farms and poor investment, Reuters reported. Africa Sustainability Matters observed that the delayed implementation of the EU’s deforestation law – announced last week – could impact two million smallholder farmers, who may see “delays in certification processes ripple through payment cycles and export volumes”. Meanwhile, SwissInfo reported that the “disconnect between high global cocoa prices and the price paid to farmers” is leading to “unprecedented cocoa smuggling” in Ghana.

‘FERTILISER CRISIS’: Nyasa Times reported that, “for the first time”, Malawian president Peter Mutharika admitted that the country is “facing a planting season…for which his government is dangerously unprepared”. According to the paper, Mutharika acknowledged that the country is “heading into the rains without adequate fertiliser and with procurement dangerously behind schedule” at a meeting with the International Monetary Fund’s Africa director. “We are struggling with supplies… We are not yet ready in terms of fertiliser,” Mutharika is quoted as saying, with the paper adding that his administration is “overwhelmed” by a fertiliser crisis.

News and views

PLANT TALKS COLLAPSE: “Decade-long” talks aimed at negotiating new rules for seed-sharing “collapsed” after week-long negotiations in Lima, Euractiv reported. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture allows “any actor to access seed samples of 64 major food crops stored in public gene banks”, but “virtually no money flows back to countries that conserve and share seed diversity”, the outlet said. Observers “criticised the closed-door nature of the final talks”, which attempted to postpone a decision on payments until 2027, it added.

UNSUSTAINABLE: The UK food system is driving nature loss and deepening climate change, according to a new WWF report. The report analysed the impacts on nature, climate and people of 10 UK retailers representing 90% of the domestic grocery market. Most of the retailers committed in 2021 to halving the environmental impact of the UK grocery market by 2030. However, the report found that the retailers are “a long way off” on reducing their emissions and sourcing products from deforestation-free areas.

GREY CARBON: A “flurry” of carbon-credit deals “covering millions of hectares of landmass” across Africa struck by United Arab Emirates-based firm Blue Carbon on the sidelines of COP28 “have gone nowhere”, according to a joint investigation by Agence-France Presse and Code for Africa. In Zimbabwe – where the deal included “about 20% of the country’s landmass” – national climate change authorities said that the UAE company’s memorandum of understanding “lapsed without any action”. AFP attempted multiple ways to contact Blue Carbon, but received no reply. Meanwhile, research covered by New Scientist found that Africa’s forests “are now emitting more CO2 than they absorb”.

UK NATURE: The UK government released an updated “environmental improvement plan” to help England “meet numerous legally binding goals” for environmental restoration, BusinessGreen reported. The outlet added that it included measures such as creating “wildlife-rich habitats” and boosting tree-planting. Elsewhere, a study covered by the Times found that England and Wales lost “almost a third of their grasslands” in the past 90 years. The main causes of grassland decline were “increased mechanisation on farms, new agrochemicals and crop-growing”, the Times said.

IN DANGER: The Trump administration proposed changes to the US Endangered Species Act that “could clear the way for more oil drilling, logging and mining” in key species habitats, reported the New York Times. This act is the “bedrock environmental law intended to prevent animal and plant extinctions”, the newspaper said, adding that one of the proposals could make it harder to protect species from future threats, such as the effects of climate change. It added: “Environmental groups are expected to challenge the proposals in court once they are finalised.”

‘ALREADY OVERSTRETCHED’: Producing enough food to feed the world’s growing population by 2050 “will place additional pressure on the world’s already overstretched” resources, according to the latest “state of the world’s land and water resources” report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The report said that degradation of agricultural lands is “creating unprecedented pressure on the world’s agrifood systems”. It also found that urban areas have “more than doubled in size in just two decades”, consuming 24m hectares “of some of the most fertile croplands” in the process.

Spotlight

Saudi minister interviewed

During the second week of COP30 in Belém, Carbon Brief’s Daisy Dunne conducted a rare interview with a Saudi Arabian minister.

Dr Osama Faqeeha is deputy environment minister for Saudi Arabia and chief adviser to the COP16 presidency on desertification.

Carbon Brief: Thank you very much for agreeing to this interview. You represent the Saudi Arabia COP16 presidency on desertification. What are your priorities for linking desertification, biodiversity and climate change at COP30?

Dr Osama Faqeeha: First of all, our priority is to really highlight the linkages – the natural linkage – between land, climate and biodiversity. These are all interconnected, natural pillars for Earth. We need to pursue actions on the three together. In this way, we can achieve multiple goals. We can achieve climate resilience, we can protect biodiversity and we can stop land degradation. And this will really give us multiple benefits – food security, water security, climate resilience, biodiversity and social goals.

CB: Observers have accused Saudi Arabia, acting on behalf of the Arab group, of blocking an ambitious outcome on a text on synergies between climate change and biodiversity loss, under the item on cooperation with international organisations. [See Carbon Brief’s full explanation.] What is your response?

OF: We support synergies in the action plans. We support synergies in the financial flows. We support synergies in the political [outcome]. What we don’t support is trying to reduce all of the conventions. We don’t support dissolving the conventions. We need a climate convention, we need a biodiversity convention and we need a desertification convention. There was this incident, but the discussion continued after that and has been clarified. We support synergies. We oppose dissolution. This way we dilute the issues. No. This is a challenge. But we don’t have to address them separately. We need to address them in a comprehensive way so that we can really have a win-win situation.

CB: But as the president of the COP16 talks on desertification, surely more close work on the three Rio conventions would be a priority for you?

OF: First of all, we have to realise the convention is about land. Preventing land degradation and combating drought. These are the two major challenges.

CB: We’re at COP30 now and we’re at a crucial point in the negotiations where a lot of countries have been calling for a roadmap away from fossil fuels. What is Saudi Arabia’s position on agreeing to a roadmap away from fossil fuels?

OF: I think the issue is the emissions, it’s not the fuel. And our position is that we have to cut emissions regardless. In Saudi Arabia, in our nationally determined contribution [NDC], we doubled [the 2030 emissions reductions target] – from 130MtCO2 to 278MtCO2 – on a voluntary basis. So we are very serious about cutting emissions.

CB: The presidency said that some countries see the fossil-fuel roadmap as a red line. Is Saudi Arabia seeing a fossil-fuel roadmap as a red line for agreement in the negotiations?

OF: I think people try to put pressure on the negotiation to go in one way or another. And I think we should avoid that because, trying to demonise a country, that’s not good. Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Paris Agreement. Saudi Arabia made the Paris Agreement possible. We are committed to the Paris Agreement.

[Carbon Brief obtained the “informal list” of countries that opposed a fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30, which included Saudi Arabia.]

CB: You mention that you feel sometimes the media demonises Saudi Arabia. So could you clarify, what do you hope to be Saudi Arabia’s role in guiding the negotiations to conclusion here at this COP?

OF: I think we have to realise that there is common but differentiated responsibilities. We have developed countries and developing countries. We have to realise that this is very well established in the convention. We can reach the same end point, but with different pathways. And this is what the negotiation is all about. It’s not one size fits all. What works with a certain country may not work with another country. So, I think people misread the negotiations. We, as Saudi Arabia, officially announced that we will reach carbon neutrality by 2060 – and we are putting billions and billions of dollars to reach this goal. But it doesn’t mean that we agree on everything. On every idea. We agree to so many things, you never hear that. Saudi Arabia agrees on one thousand points and we disagree on one point, then suddenly it becomes the news. Now, why does the media do that? Maybe that gives them more attention. I don’t know. But all I can tell you is that Saudi Arabia is part of the process. Saudi Arabia is making the process work.

This interview has been edited for length.

Watch, read, listen

NEW CHALLENGE: CNN discussed the environmental impacts of AI usage and how scientists are using it to conserve biodiversity.

AMAZON COP: In the Conversation, researchers argued that hosting COP30 in the Amazon made the “realities of climate and land-use change jarringly obvious” and Indigenous voices “impossible to ignore”.

DUBIOUS CLAIMS: DeSmog investigated an EU-funded “campaign blitz” that “overstated the environmental benefits of eating meat and dairy, while featuring bizarre and misleading claims”.

WASP’S NEST: In a talk for the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery, Prof Seirian Sumner explained the “natural capital” of wasps and why it is important to “love the unlovable parts of nature”.

New science

Climate change can “exacerbate” the abundance and impacts of plastic pollution on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems | Frontiers in Science
The North Sea region accounts for more than 20% of peatland-related emissions within the EU, UK, Norway and Iceland, despite accounting for just 4% of the region’s peatland area | Nature Communications
Economic damages from climate-related disasters in the Brazilian Amazon rose 370% over 2000-22, with farming experiencing more than 60% of total losses | Nature Communications