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.
Climate Change
Adopting low-cost ‘healthy’ diets could cut food emissions by one-third
Choosing the “least expensive” healthy food options could cut dietary emissions by one-third, according to a new study.
In addition to the lower emissions, diets composed of low-cost, healthy foods would cost roughly one-third as much as a diet of the most-consumed foods in every country.
The study, published in Nature Food, compares prices and emissions associated with 440 local food products in 171 countries.
The researchers identify some food groups that are low in both cost and emissions, including legumes, nuts and seeds, as well as oils and fats.
Some of the most widely consumed foods – such as wheat, maize, white beans, apples, onions, carrots and small fish – also fall into this category, the study says.
One of the lead authors tells Carbon Brief that while food marketing has promoted the idea that eating environmentally friendly diets is “very fancy and expensive”, the study shows that such diets are achievable through cheap, everyday foods.
Meanwhile, a separate Nature Food study found that reforming the policies that reduce taxes on meat products in the EU could decrease food-related emissions by up to 5.7%.
Costs and emissions
The study defines a healthy diet using the “healthy diet basket” (HDB), which is a standard based on nutritional guidelines that includes a range of food groups with the needed nutrients to provide long-term health.
Using both data on locally available products and food-specific emissions databases, the authors estimate the costs and greenhouse gas emissions of 440 food products needed for healthy diets in 171 countries.
They examine three different healthy diets: one using the most-consumed food products, one using the least expensive food products and one using the lowest-emitting food products.
Each of these diets is constructed for each country, based on costs, emissions, availability and consumption patterns.
The researchers find that a healthy diet comprising the most-consumed foods within each country – such as beef, chicken, pork, milk, rice and tomatoes – emits an average of 2.44 kilograms of CO2-equivalent (kgCO2e) and costs $9.96 (£7.24) in 2021 prices, per person and per day.
However, they find that a healthy diet with the least-expensive locally available foods in each country – such as bananas, carrots, small fish, eggs, lentils, chicken and cassava – emits 1.65kgCO2e and costs $3.68 (£2.68). That is approximately one-third of the emissions and one-third of the cost of the most-consumed products diet.
In comparison, a healthy diet with the lowest-emissions products – such as oats, tuna, sardines and apples – would emit just 0.67kgCO2e, but would cost nearly double the least-expensive diet, at $6.95 (£5.05).
This reveals the tradeoffs of affordability and sustainability – and shows that the least-expensive foods tend to produce lower emissions, according to the study.
Dr Elena Martínez, a food-systems researcher at Tufts University and one of the lead authors of the study, tells Carbon Brief this is generally true because lower-cost food production tends to use fewer fossil fuels and require less land-use change, which also cuts emissions.
Ignacio Drake is coordinator of the fiscal and economic policies at Colansa, an organisation promoting healthy eating and sustainable food systems in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Drake, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the research is a “step further” than previous work on healthy diets. He adds that the study “integrates and consolidates” previous analyses done by other groups, such as the World Bank and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
Food group differences
The research looks at six food groups: animal-sourced foods, oils and fats, fruits, legumes (as well as nuts and seeds), vegetables and starchy staples.
Animal-sourced foods – such as meat and dairy – are typically the most-emitting, and most-expensive, food group.
Within this group, the study finds that beef has the highest costs and emissions, while small fish, such as sardines, have the lowest emissions. Milk and poultry are amongst the least-expensive products for a healthy diet.
Starchy staple products also contribute to high emissions too, adds the study, because they make up such a large portion of most people’s calories.
Emissions from fruits, vegetables, legumes and oil are lower than those from animal-derived foods.
The following chart shows the energy contributions (top) and related emissions (bottom) from six major food groups in the three diets modelled by the study: lowest-cost (left), lowest-emission (middle) and most-common (right) food items.
The six food groups examined in the study are shown in different colours: animal-sourced foods (red), legumes, nuts and seeds (blue), oils and fats (purple), vegetables (green), fruits (orange) and starchy staples (yellow). The size of each box represents the contribution of that food to the overall dietary energy (top) and greenhouse gas emissions (bottom) of each diet.

Prof William Masters, a professor at Tufts University and author on the study, tells Carbon Brief that balancing food groups is important for human health and the environment, but local context is also important. For example, he points out that in low-income countries, some people do not get enough animal-sourced foods.
For Drake, if there are foods with the same nutritional quality, but that are cheaper and produce fewer emissions, it is logical to think that the “cost-benefit ratio [of switching] is clear”.
Other studies and reports have also modelled healthy and sustainable diets and, although they do not exclude animal-sourced foods, they do limit their consumption.
A recent study estimated that a global food system transformation – including a diet known as the “planetary health diet”, based on cutting meat, dairy and sugar and increasing plant-based foods, along with other actions – can help limit global temperature rise to 1.85C by 2050.
The latest EAT-Lancet Commission report found that a global shift to healthier diets could cut non-CO2 emissions from agriculture, such as methane and nitrous oxide, by 15%. The report recommends increasing the production of fruit, vegetable and nuts by two-thirds, while reducing livestock meat production by one-third.
Dr Sonia Rodríguez, head of the department of food, culture and environment at Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health, says that unlike earlier studies, which project ideal scenarios, this new study also evaluates real scenarios and provides a “global view” of the costs and emissions of diets in various countries.
Increasing access
The study points out that as people’s incomes increase, their consumption of expensive foods also increases. However, it adds, some people with high income that can afford healthy diets often consume other types of foods, due to reasons such as preferences, time and cooking costs.
The study stresses that nearly one-third of the world’s population – about 2.6 billion people – cannot afford sufficient food products required for a healthy diet.
In low-income countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, 75% of the population cannot afford a healthy diet, says the study.
In middle-income countries, such as China, Brazil, Mexico and Russia, more than half of the population can afford such a diet.
To improve the consumption of healthy, sustainable and affordable foods, the authors recommend changes in food policy, increasing the availability of food at the local level and substituting highly emitting products.
Martínez also suggests implementing labelling systems with information on the environmental footprint and nutritional quality of foods. She adds:
“We need strategies beyond just reducing the cost of diets to get people to eat climate-friendly foods.”
Drake notes that there are public and financial policies that can help reduce the consumption of unhealthy and unsustainable foods, such as taxes on unhealthy foods and sugary drinks. This, he adds, would lead to better health outcomes for countries and free up public resources for implementing other policies, such as subsidies for producing healthy food.
Separately, another recent Nature Food study looks at taxes specifically on meat products, which are subject to reduced value-added tax (VAT) in 22 EU member states.
It finds that taxing meat at the standard VAT rate could decrease dietary-related greenhouse gases by 3.5-5.7%. Such a levy would also have positive outcomes for water and land use, as well as biodiversity loss, according to the study.
The post Adopting low-cost ‘healthy’ diets could cut food emissions by one-third appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Adopting low-cost ‘healthy’ diets could cut food emissions by one-third
Climate Change
Big fishing nations secure last-minute seat to write rules on deep sea conservation
As a treaty to protect the High Seas entered into force this month with backing from more than 80 countries, major fishing nations China, Japan and Brazil secured a last-minute seat at the table to negotiate the procedural rules, funding and other key issues ahead of the treaty’s first COP.
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) pact – known as the High Seas Treaty – was agreed in 2023. It is seen as key to achieving a global goal to protect at least 30% of the planet’s ecosystems by 2030, as it lays the legal foundation for creating international marine protected areas (MPAs) in the deep ocean. The high seas encompass two-thirds of the world’s ocean.
Last September, the treaty reached the key threshold of 60 national ratifications needed for it to enter into force – a number that has kept growing and currently stands at 83. In total, 145 countries have signed the pact, which indicates their intention to ratify it. The treaty formally took effect on January 17.
“In a world of accelerating crises – climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution – the agreement fills a critical governance gap to secure a resilient and productive ocean for all,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement.
Julio Cordano, Chile’s director of environment, climate change and oceans, said the treaty is “one of the most important victories of our time”. He added that the Nazca and Salas y Gómez ridge – off the coast of South America in the Pacific – could be one of the first intact biodiversity hotspots to gain protection.
Scientists have warned the ocean is losing its capacity to act as a carbon sink, as emissions and global temperatures rise. Currently, the ocean traps around 90% of the excess planetary heat building up from global warming. Marine protected areas could become a tool to restore “blue carbon sinks”, by boosting carbon absorption in the seafloor and protecting carbon-trapping organisms such as microalgae.
Last-minute ratifications
Countries that have ratified the BBNJ will now be bound by some of its rules, including a key provision requiring countries to carry out environmental impact assessments (EIA) for activities that could have an impact on the deep ocean’s biodiversity, such as fisheries.
Activities that affect the ocean floor, such as deep-sea mining, will still fall under the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Nations are still negotiating the rules of the BBNJ’s other provisions, including creating new MPAs and sharing genetic resources from biodiversity in the deep ocean. They will meet in one last negotiating session in late March, ahead of the treaty’s first COP (conference of the parties) set to take place in late 2026 or early 2027.
China and Japan – which are major fishing nations that operate in deep waters – ratified the BBNJ in December 2025, just as the treaty was about to enter into force. Other top fishing nations on the high seas like South Korea and Spain had already ratified the BBNJ last year.
Power play: Can a defensive Europe stick with decarbonisation in Davos?
Tom Pickerell, ocean programme director at the World Resources Institute (WRI), said that while the last-minute ratifications from China, Japan and Brazil were not required for the treaty’s entry into force, they were about high-seas players ensuring they have a “seat at the table”.
“As major fishing nations and geopolitical powers, these countries recognise that upcoming BBNJ COP negotiations will shape rules affecting critical commercial sectors – from shipping and fisheries to biotechnology – and influence how governments engage with the treaty going forward,” Pickerell told Climate Home News.
Some major Western countries – including the US, Canada, Germany and the UK – have yet to ratify the treaty and unless they do, they will be left out of drafting its procedural rules. A group of 18 environmental groups urged the UK government to ratify it quickly, saying it would be a “failure of leadership” to miss the BBNJ’s first COP.
Finalising the rules
Countries will meet from March 23 to April 2 for the treaty’s last “preparatory commission” (PrepCom) session in New York, which is set to draft a proposal for the treaty’s procedural rules, among them on funding processes and where the secretariat will be hosted – with current offers coming from China in the city of Xiamen, Chile’s Valparaiso and Brussels in Belgium.
Janine Felson, a diplomat from Belize and co-chair of the “PrepCom”, told journalists in an online briefing “we’re now at a critical stage” because, with the treaty having entered into force, the preparatory commission is “pretty much a definitive moment for the agreement”.
Felson said countries will meet to “tidy up those rules that are necessary for the conference of the parties to convene” and for states to begin implementation. The first COP will adopt the rules of engagement.
She noted there are “some contentious issues” on whether the BBNJ should follow the structure of other international treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as well as differing opinions on how prescriptive its procedures should be.
“While there is this tension on how far can we be held to precedent, there is also recognition that this BBNJ agreement has quite a bit to contribute in enhancing global ocean governance,” she added.
The post Big fishing nations secure last-minute seat to write rules on deep sea conservation appeared first on Climate Home News.
Big fishing nations secure last-minute seat to write rules on deep sea conservation
Climate Change
Climate at Davos: Energy security in the geopolitical driving seat
The annual World Economic Forum got underway on Tuesday in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, providing a snowy stage for government and business leaders to opine on international affairs. With attention focused on the latest crisis – a potential US-European trade war over Greenland – climate change has slid down the agenda.
Despite this, a number of panels are addressing issues like electric vehicles, energy security and climate science. Keep up with top takeaways from those discussions and other climate news from Davos in our bulletin, which we’ll update throughout the day.
From oil to electrons – energy security enters a new era
Energy crises spurred by geopolitical tensions are nothing new – remember the 1970s oil shock spurred by the embargo Arab producers slapped on countries that had supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War, leading to rocketing inflation and huge economic pain.
But, a Davos panel on energy security heard, the situation has since changed. Oil now accounts for less than 30% of the world’s energy supply, down from more than 50% in 1973. This shift, combined with a supply glut, means oil is taking more of a back seat, according to International Energy Agency boss Fatih Birol.
Instead, in an “age of electricity” driven by transport and technology, energy diplomacy is more focused on key elements of that supply chain, in the form of critical minerals, natural gas and the security buffer renewables can provide. That requires new thinking, Birol added.
“Energy and geopolitics were always interwoven but I have never ever seen that the energy security risks are so multiplied,” he said. “Energy security, in my view, should be elevated to the level of national security today.”
In this context, he noted how many countries are now seeking to generate their own energy as far as possible, including from nuclear and renewables, and when doing energy deals, they are considering not only costs but also whether they can rely on partners in the long-term.
In the case of Europe – which saw energy prices jump after sanctions on Russian gas imports in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – energy security rooted in homegrown supply is a top priority, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in Davos on Tuesday.
Outlining the bloc’s “affordable energy action plan” in a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum, she emphasised that Europe is “massively investing in our energy security and independence” with interconnectors and grids based on domestically produced sources of power.
The EU, she said, is trying to promote nuclear and renewables as much as possible “to bring down prices and cut dependencies; to put an end to price volatility, manipulation and supply shocks,” calling for a faster transition to clean energy.
“Because homegrown, reliable, resilient and cheaper energy will drive our economic growth and deliver for Europeans and secure our independence,” she added.
Comment – Power play: Can a defensive Europe stick with decarbonisation in Davos?
AES boss calls for “more technical talk” on supply chains
Earlier, the energy security panel tackled the risks related to supply chains for clean energy and electrification, which are being partly fuelled by rising demand from data centres and electric vehicles.
The minerals and metals that are required for batteries, cables and other components are largely under the control of China, which has invested massively in extracting and processing those materials both at home and overseas. Efforts to boost energy security by breaking dependence on China will continue shaping diplomacy now and in the future, the experts noted.
Copper – a key raw material for the energy transition – is set for a 70% increase in demand over the next 25 years, said Mike Henry, CEO of mining giant BHP, with remaining deposits now harder to exploit. Prices are on an upward trend, and this offers opportunities for Latin America, a region rich in the metal, he added.
At ‘Davos of mining’, Saudi Arabia shapes new narrative on minerals
Andrés Gluski, CEO of AES – which describes itself as “the largest US-based global power company”, generating and selling all kinds of energy to companies – said there is a lack of discussion about supply chains compared with ideological positioning on energy sources.
Instead he called for “more technical talk” about boosting battery storage to smooth out electricity supply and using existing infrastructure “smarter”. While new nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors are promising, it will be at least a decade before they can be deployed effectively, he noted.
In the meantime, with electricity demand rising rapidly, the politicisation of the debate around renewables as an energy source “makes no sense whatsoever”, he added.
The post Climate at Davos: Energy security in the geopolitical driving seat appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate at Davos: Energy security in the geopolitical driving seat
-
Climate Change5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases5 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits








