Connect with us

Published

on

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.”

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 

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Fossil fuel expansion threatens COP31 hosts’ credibility, experts warn

Published

on

Türkiye and Australia risk losing their credibility as hosts of this year’s COP31 UN climate summit if they keep betting on fossil fuels at home, climate policy experts have warned. 

As governments are expected to continue fraught talks over how to advance the global transition away from oil, coal and gas in Antalya this November, both of the co-host countries are pursuing fossil fuel expansion at home, without a national timeline to phase out their use.

Türkiye has accelerated its rollout of wind and solar energy in recent years. But that progress has yet to make a dent in the country’s dependence on fossil fuels for power, as demand growth has outpaced the renewables build-out, new analysis by Climate Action Tracker (CAT) has found.

The share of electricity generated by burning coal and fossil gas – 56% in 2025 – has barely changed since 2019, and total fossil fuel use in the power sector, and the emissions it produces, are still rising, according to the report released on Friday.

The Turkish government has also signalled that fossil fuels will remain a central component of its energy mix and has outlined plans to expand the country’s burgeoning domestic gas production in the Black Sea.

‘Need to demonstrate seriousness’

Australia, which will chair the Antalya negotiations, relies on fossil fuels for over 60% of its electricity, with coal alone still supplying 45%. According to experts, it lacks an ambitious plan to shift away from fossil fuels at home, relying heavily on carbon offsetting to reach its climate targets.

Australia is also the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter and has plans to expand its coal and gas production, which is backed by significant government subsidies. It recently upset climate groups by approving an extension of the Saraji open-cut coal mine in Queensland.  

Türkiye says it has “final decision” at COP31 despite Australia running negotiations

Jennifer Morgan, a senior fellow with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and former climate envoy for Germany, said Türkiye and Australia need to demonstrate their seriousness about their COP presidency roles by leading by example on the energy transition.

“They have made progress in renewable energy,” she told reporters this week. “But I think their credibility – and their ability to therefore bring momentum and good outcomes to the COP – will depend on their taking further action at home.” 

Türkiye’s electrification homework

The co-hosts’ fossil fuel policies are being scrutinised in the run-up to the annual UN climate summit, with much riding on the signal climate diplomacy sends on the energy transition.

Türkiye has so far stopped short of putting any overt political capital behind the fossil fuel transition itself. It has instead been rallying support for a new global electrification target of 35% by 2035, seen as the centrepiece of this year’s non-negotiated Action Agenda put forward by Ankara.

Electrification emerges as COP31 priority

COP31 president Murat Kurum said last week the push to electrify economies – through measures like electric vehicles and heat pumps – will “automatically” lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

Türkiye’s own energy plan projects the country’s electrification rate would fall short on the global target and only hit 25% by 2035, according to the CAT report, which called for a “substantial step-change” in electrification policies and the deployment of more renewable power and grid infrastructure. 

Coal still dominant

CAT’s analysts also warned that, without a parallel phase-out of fossil fuels, rising electricity demand risks being met in part by coal and gas, failing to deliver the emissions reductions the electrification target is meant to achieve. 

Türkiye has had some success in its clean energy build-out: the share of electricity generation from wind and solar rose to 22% in 2025, up from 12% in 2020, according to the CAT report.

But coal’s role in Türkiye’s electricity mix has also grown, in both its share and absolute terms, over the past decade. And while reliance on fossil gas has declined overall, it still plays an important role in Ankara’s energy policy, which is pushing to boost domestic gas production in the Black Sea.

Pilot boats assist the Osman Gazi as it navigates the Bosphorus on its way to the Black Sea on May 29, 2025 in Istanbul, Turkey. The platform will dock at the Filyos Port in the Black Sea and will stay for a 20 year mission and will provide double the natural gas intake of Turkey to 20 million cubic meters per day. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

Pilot boats assist the Osman Gazi as it navigates the Bosphorus on its way to the Black Sea on May 29, 2025 in Istanbul, Turkey. The platform will dock at the Filyos Port in the Black Sea and will stay for a 20 year mission and will provide double the natural gas intake of Turkey to 20 million cubic meters per day. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

Dr Niklas Höhne from the NewClimate Institute said the government could demonstrate leadership as COP31 president by building on its recent successes in increasing its renewable energy capacity and announcing targets and plans to phase out coal and gas ahead of the summit.

According to CAT, Türkiye should phase out coal by 2040 and fossil gas by 2045 at the latest to align its power sector with global efforts to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C above preindustrial times. 

Türkiye quiet on fossil fuel roadmap

Ümit Şahin, coordinator of climate change studies at the Istanbul Policy Center (IPM), said Türkiye’s strategy is to approach the fossil fuel debate exclusively from the “end-use point of view”.

“I don’t expect any push from the Turkish presidency to the producer countries in terms of fossil fuel production,” he told reporters.

Neither does Şahin believe the Turkish presidency will throw its political weight behind another big-ticket item for COP31: a new global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. 

Brazil took on the responsibility to voluntarily draft this document outside of the formal negotiations as a way to break the deadlock at last year’s UN summit in Belém when governments clashed over whether to develop one. 

The outgoing COP30 presidency will deliver the roadmap in early November – but it will be up to Türkiye and Australia to guide countries towards a decision on how the blueprint will be taken forward, either inside or outside the negotiations.

Leadership needed

Australia’s Chris Bowen, COP31’s president of negotiations, promised to lobby producing countries to deliver a “meaningful step forward” on the fossil fuel transition in an interview with The Guardian earlier this year. But he has been quiet on the role Australia sees for the fossil fuel transition roadmap. 

Natalie Jones, senior policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said the COP31 co-presidents “must provide clear leadership” on this process.

“This roadmap cannot be left in a dusty drawer,” she told journalists. “Rather, it must be translated into action, with all countries identifying what elements they can adopt or develop in their own national roadmap.”

    Like Türkiye, Australia has yet to produce a national blueprint for winding down coal, gas and oil. Rather than moving toward a phase-out, state and federal governments have kept expanding fossil fuel licensing over the past year, according to a new analysis published this month by Climate Analytics.

    Under existing policy, both coal and gas are on track to remain in Australia’s power system as late as 2050 – a trajectory the report defines as incompatible with the 1.5C limit the country says it’s committed to. 

    No binding end dates for the Netherlands

    Analysts are watching out for national transition roadmaps as a bellwether for governments that claim to be leaders in the global shift away from fossil fuels.

    The climate and environment ministers of Colombia and the Netherlands, which are co-hosting the Santa Marta conference, embrace on the podium during the high-level segment in Santa Marta, Colombia, April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development)

    The climate and environment ministers of Colombia and the Netherlands, which are co-hosting the Santa Marta conference, embrace on the podium during the high-level segment in Santa Marta, Colombia, April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development)

    The Netherlands, which co-hosted the first fossil fuel transition conference in Santa Marta this year, published its own domestic roadmap earlier this week. The document followed through on a pledge that “leadership on transitioning away from fossil fuels must be backed by concrete action, not just ambitious words”, said a spokesperson for Stientje van Veldhoven, the Dutch minister for climate policy.

    But experts criticised the plan for failing to set a binding end date for the country’s fossil fuel production and use. While targeting a rapid increase in renewables capacity, the Dutch government only commits to phasing out oil, gas and coal “in the energy and feedstock system to eventually zero, and to minimise fossil use” by 2050. 

    Yvo de Boer, a former Dutch diplomat and executive secretary of the UN climate body, said the Dutch roadmap falls short of what’s needed to give industry the confidence to deploy capital in support of the energy transition with greater predictability. 

    “Ultimately, a roadmap without deadlines is nothing more than a footpath paved with good intentions,” he added, writing on LinkedIn. 

    The post Fossil fuel expansion threatens COP31 hosts’ credibility, experts warn appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Fossil fuel expansion threatens COP31 hosts’ credibility, experts warn

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    How clean energy can boost business for Africa’s food producers

    Published

    on

    Despite millions of dollars in grants and technical help for African businesses to power farming and other food production activities with renewable energy, most efforts remain stuck at the early stages because they struggle to find the investors, markets and expertise they need to grow.

    This was the message from a coalition of global institutions working on energy, water and agriculture at this month’s Africa Food Systems Forum in Kigali, Rwanda.

    “Energy, agriculture, water and nutrition actors rarely design solutions together,” the Agri-Energy Coalition said in a Call to Action on powering food systems with clean energy.

    Using more renewables – especially solar power – to drive food systems would reduce food losses, ensure year-round availability and affordability of healthy foods, and improve productivity, income and resilience among farmers, food processors and other small enterprises, the coalition added.

    In an interview with Climate Home News at the forum, Olamide Niyi-Afuye, CEO of the Africa Minigrid Developers Association (AMDA) – a body representing private-sector developers of small-scale, off-grid electricity systems across the continent – said its members are starting to recognise this interdependence and are increasingly considering businesses that combine energy with agricultural activities.

      This, Niyi-Afuye added, could lead to greater supply and use of clean power for key processes like irrigation, food processing and storage, creating new sources of revenue for both sectors.

      CHN: Conversations at the Africa Food Systems Forum highlighted how organisations working in energy and agriculture often operate in silos. What has hampered their collaboration, and how has that affected Africa’s economic development?

      A: Most mini-grid companies in Africa were primarily incentivised to achieve connections. If you look at some ongoing projects, you see a cost-per-connection model [of revenue]. When a subsidy is tied to achieving a connection, regardless of whether it is a productive connection, you might not notice the problem until five years down the line, when you realise the cash flows are not what you projected.

      Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal

      So now we’re in a “come-to-Jesus moment” as an industry, where we’re righting the wrongs and adjusting our business models to make sure companies do not go bust and there is some level of sustainability over the long term.

      The saying is not wrong that we’ve been working in our own silos because we’ve focused on the smaller things instead of the helicopter view. There needs to be cross-pollination [between the energy and agriculture sectors] because, if we are thinking about industrialisation, energy is a key driver of industrialisation. We will not achieve that if we’re not in the room and part of those conversations.

      CHN: Productive use of energy is intended to ensure electricity access goes beyond lighting homes to improving livelihoods, creating jobs and powering equipment. But what happens when farmers cannot afford the equipment they need to do that? How can energy, agriculture and equipment players work together to make the transition more accessible?

      A: That’s why we’re having conversations with companies set up to de-risk the agriculture sector. By leveraging that connection, we’re able to aggregate potential energy needs and develop instruments that make equipment more affordable through bulk procurement.

      We can have arrangements that make it easier for farmers and food producers to lease equipment and eventually own it over a period. There’s no real pressure to recover the capital very quickly because you’re looking at scale.

      Rice farmer Danjuma Okuwa adjusts his newly installed electric rice milling machine at his compound in Rukubi, Nasarawa, Nigeria, September 27, 2022. (Thomson Reuters Foundation/Afolabi Sotunde)

      Rice farmer Danjuma Okuwa adjusts his newly installed electric rice milling machine at his compound in Rukubi, Nasarawa, Nigeria, September 27, 2022. (Thomson Reuters Foundation/Afolabi Sotunde)

      There is a whole lot across the agricultural value chain that needs energy, from farming and harvesting to food processing and value-addition. We need to understand the energy needs across the value chain and bring our members in to provide solutions.

      Developers do not necessarily need to provide every productive-use solution themselves. They can partner with equipment suppliers, financiers, agribusinesses and other service providers to enable customers to use electricity productively. The objective is simple: do not just electrify communities; enable economic activity that uses that electricity.

      CHN: When Africa’s industrialisation is discussed, you hear things like renewables cannot provide enough baseload, while some food processors are sceptical about switching to renewable energy because of these concerns about reliability. What is your response?

      A: It’s not a controversial statement to say that a typical baseload is usually from the grid, and it’s usually from multiple sources including renewable energy. For large-scale operations, we can look at blending multiple sources of energy. But how do we solve the problem of a mid-sized farmer? We can solve it with a mini-grid using renewable energy.

      Comment: Every country needs a model to help optimise its energy transition

      If you go to a small farmer in a rural area, they don’t care about what source of energy they’re getting. They just want something that can help them get from A to B. If you look at the direct energy needs of farmers and food processors, I’m sure 90 percent of their consumption can be solved by renewable energy. Let’s start with that problem first. Then, as they scale, they might need to ramp up, and we can start talking about a bigger baseload.

      CHN: How much agricultural value is lost because farmers and food businesses lack reliable, affordable electricity?

      A: If you look at, for example, the fact that we need to maybe plant tomatoes or strawberries in Jos before it gets to Lagos [Nigeria], which most likely is by road, I can assure you that a good chunk, if not stored properly, would be bad by then. So the fact that we do not have energy is in itself a lost opportunity to maximise the potential of the agriculture sector. So until we’ve solved the energy problem, we will not salvage waste – and for me that is a lost opportunity.

      CHN: AGRA, an institution focused on scaling agricultural innovations to help smallholder farmers, estimates a massive shortfall between current investments in the continent’s food systems and what is actually needed to build a resilient, profitable agricultural economy – to the tune of $180 billion per year. Can integrating energy into food systems help bridge that gap?

      A: Yes – if energy can help unlock the potential to earn more money, investors will follow the money. Investments go where there is certainty, and until there is certainty around cash flow and revenue, investment will be limited.

      My vision is to see more Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) being signed between energy players and the agriculture sector. We can start by getting people into the room, understanding their pain points, crafting a framework and documentation that works for both parties, and then seeing deals happen.

      This interview was shortened and edited for clarity.

      The post How clean energy can boost business for Africa’s food producers appeared first on Climate Home News.

      How clean energy can boost business for Africa’s food producers

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Human security relies on adapting to the world’s new climate reality

      Published

      on

      Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio is a senior advisor on adaptation and resilience with the United Nations Foundation and Mattias Söderberg is global climate lead at Danish NGO DanChurchAid.

      Recent extreme events – from wildfires and heatwaves in Europe to flash flooding following a glacier collapse in Nepal – have shocked and devastated communities, bringing years of warnings about such climate impacts to the doorstep of communities around the world.

      One thing is certain: the new climate reality is here – and the adaptation strategies designed for yesterday’s world are no longer sufficient.

      Attribution science has since shown that the hotter and more frequent heatwaves we’re experiencing around the world would have been virtually impossible without today’s high concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate shocks are now so severe that they reverberate through supply chains, food and water systems, financial markets and the movement of people.

        They must be a catalyst for a new way of thinking about adaptation and resilience, and how we finance solutions that work. A failure to invest in adaptation in one region can create costs far beyond it, which is why the concept of shared resilience is critical for leaders to grasp.

        Investment not charity

        At the UN General Assembly (UNGA 81) this month, leaders have an opportunity to translate today’s urgency into concrete commitments on adaptation and loss and damage finance ahead of COP31.

        Those commitments are needed to underpin global stability, shared prosperity and human security. Governments should use this moment to show what a new response looks like: finance that reaches communities faster, supports locally grounded solutions, strengthens national systems, and helps countries prepare before the next shock arrives.

        If we want sustained economic growth, food and water security, and resilient and prosperous societies across every region, adaptation must be at the heart of today’s development and security agenda. It cannot be just a future planning consideration or a narrow issue for climate ministries. Adaptation is now everyone’s business – and it must be financed fast and fair.

        UN Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly framed climate finance as an investment rather than charity, warning that “a world in climate chaos cannot be a world at peace” and describing human security as freedom from the chronic and sudden disruptions that climate change multiplies.

        What’s more, adaptation delivers a real return-on-investment, with researchers estimating that every dollar invested produces $10 in benefits, saving lives, protecting livelihoods, and reducing the costs of future disasters.

        Hitting adaptation limits

        The urgency to scale adaptation systematically is growing. The newly released “Limiting Overshoot” report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) confirms what scientists have long warned: exceeding global warming of 1.5C is now unavoidable under current policies. Yet, how high temperatures rise – and how long the world remains above the 1.5C threshold – will determine whether communities, economies and entire ecosystems can keep pace.

        There are limits to adaptation. When we breach those limits, lives and livelihoods are lost, and people and ecosystems suffer greatly. We cannot simply build yesterday’s infrastructure a little stronger and assume it will be enough.

        Nepal flood destruction shows “limits to adaptation”, scientists say

        We need to fundamentally change the systems that determine how societies anticipate, absorb and recover from both immediate and evolving non-linear climate shocks. This includes transforming physical systems, such as infrastructure, and the governance systems that affect where and how we live to how we maintain our health and wellbeing.

        Finance today is nowhere near the scale of the challenge.

        The UNEP “Adaptation Gap Report 2025” estimates the shortfall in adaptation finance in developing countries at $284 billion–$339 billion a year – roughly 12 to 14 times current international public flows of around $26 billion. That gap is a development, economic and human security problem, especially for the most vulnerable populations who have contributed the least to causing the climate crisis.

        Building resilience into financial systems

        There are already signs of what a more systemic adaptation response could look like. Communities around the world are delivering practical solutions at local level, even as adaptation finance remains notoriously, and appallingly, difficult to access. Cyclone-resistant homes, local forecasting capacities, drought-resistant crops, heat insurance for pregnant informal workers and mangrove restoration are rooted in local knowledge and lived experience, while delivering benefits far beyond the communities where they originate from.

        But local innovation alone is not enough; the systems around it need to be resilient too.

        Jamaica offers one example. The country has built a multi-layered disaster-risk financing framework, including a catastrophe bond and contingency funds, through sustained fiscal discipline and proactive investment. Its debt-to-GDP ratio fell from around 147% in 2012 to around 62% in 202-25. That groundwork matters when disaster strikes.

        Hurricane Melissa’s destruction shows need for climate resilience push

        Following Hurricane Melissa, Jamaica was able to secure billions of dollars in reconstruction financing from multilateral banks – finance that might otherwise have been much harder to access. The lesson is clear: resilience can be built into the financial architecture of a country before a crisis arrives. That is the shift we now need to make at scale.

        The foundations already exist – in Kingston’s fiscal reforms, in early-warning systems from the Sahel to the Pacific, and in every community that adapted before disaster struck. What is still missing is the political will, and the finance, to take what works and put it to work everywhere, at the speed our world’s new climate reality demands.

        To hear more on this issue from high-level officials and experts, sign up for this event during Climate Week NYC, at 8am EDT on September 24 (in person or online), moderated by Climate Home News Editor Megan Rowling: Adapting to the New Climate Reality: Why Accelerating Impacts Demand New Responses.

        The post Human security relies on adapting to the world’s new climate reality appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Human security relies on adapting to the world’s new climate reality

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com