Published

12 months ago

December 25, 2024

Alice Rush

The Academy of Macroeconomic Research (AMR) is a research institution under the direct supervision of China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the ministry in charge of economic development and planning.

As a “national high-end thinktank”, the AMR’s Energy Research Institute is a well-respected body conducting energy transition research and providing vital suggestions on the energy transition to Beijing.

At this year’s COP29 in Baku, it launched the executive summary of 2024 China Energy Transformation Outlook (CETO), a key report describing China’s pathways to net-zero.

The launch was attended by a number of high-level officials, including climate envoy Liu Zhenmin and the head of the International Energy Agency, Dr Fatih Birol.

Carbon Brief’s Wanyuan Song was granted a rare – and lengthy – joint interview with its director general, Prof Lyu Wenbin, and director, Prof Bai Quan, who is also the lead author of the report, to hear their views about China’s energy transition.

On China’s commitment to climate action: “Climate change doesn’t just affect China, it affects every country in the world…Climate change is not fake. It is happening and we are all on the same boat.”
On international collaboration: “The joint work [on energy transition pathways] was meant to allow for a deeper grasp of the problems, making the research findings more scientific and [suggestions] more reasonable.”
On an early emissions peak: “[W]e would love to try our best…but we can’t rule out all possibilities to peak even earlier than planned.”
On updates in this year’s outlook: [This year w]e have also placed more emphasis on international cooperation.”
On the need for global cooperation: “To achieve the best scenario, China shouldn’t be the only country that puts efforts into energy transition.”

On stimulus and carbon reduction: “China’s ‘two new’ (“两新”) policy – large-scale equipment renewals and trade-ins of consumer goods – is one of [the policies]. The first three aspects [of ‘two new’] directly promote carbon reduction.”
On managing electricity grids and markets: “China has never faced this kind of challenge before. The demand for electricity is huge, and soaring.”
On China’s coal use: “With renewable energy becoming more powerful and energy storage becoming cheaper and more flexible, coal plants can play the role of ‘firefighters’ in the system – used in an electricity crisis whenever it is needed.”
On the role of “green hydrogen”: “[I]t is very expensive at the moment…Commercial and technology innovation are needed to reduce costs.”
On calls for greater ambition from China: “It can’t be the case that developing countries need to cut more emissions than developed countries – that would break the UN’s principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’.”

CB: Why is China so determined to achieve its energy transition and combat climate change?

Bai Quan: Climate change doesn’t just affect China, it affects every country in the world. No one is excluded from it. China is one of the victims of extreme weather. The horrifying typhoon in Shanghai in recent months has blown windows off of skyscrapers – Shanghai didn’t have that many typhoons in the past. Autumn in Qinghai province [in west China] used to be cool and dry, but now it has become rainy. The weather forecast [once] said there was light rain in Beijing, but the heavy rain in the neighbouring province Hebei drowned people. Summer is getting hotter and winter is getting colder – this is climate change, and no one can survive alone. If Shanghai was drowned, would London be spared, would New York be OK? Climate change is not fake. It is happening and we are all on the same boat.

Combating climate change is a must, it is one of our core needs, and the primary thing we need to do to secure life and production. Low-carbon issues have been part of China’s policy for a long time but it wasn’t as big of a focus until President Xi vouched for climate action with the “dual-carbon” goal. The [“dual-carbon” goal] promise to the world is serious and, after President Xi announced it in 2020, it has become a hot topic [in media and among ordinary people]. The energy transition, as a sustainable solution, helps the “dual-carbon” goal to be realised.

CB: Your institute is working with national and international partners to produce an annual “China energy transformation outlook”. Can you tell me how that collaboration came about and what the aims of the project are?

Lyu Wenbin: The Chinese government has proposed the “dual-carbon” goal, and the energy transition is an important part of this process. Now that a goal has been clearly set, what we should do to deliver it is to choose the best pathway. Our research was conducted along with the Danish Energy Agency and Columbia University. The joint work was meant to allow for a deeper grasp of the problems, making the research findings more scientific and [suggestions] more reasonable.

CB: We covered your CETO 2023 report, in which you listed three stages of transformation. The first of these phases is the peaking phase, which lasts until 2030. With China rapidly expanding renewable energy this year and hitting its wind and solar capacity targets six years early, do you think China could peak even earlier than planned – “before 2030”?

BQ: There are many uncertainties and changes in the world economy, geopolitics and even military actions at the moment. Uncertainty also exists in climate change. China’s electricity consumption grew faster than expected and we would love to try our best to overcome all the difficulties to meet China’s carbon peaking goal before 2030, but we can’t rule out all possibilities to peak even earlier than planned.

CB: What differences are there in your outlook for China’s energy transition this year, compared to 2023?

BQ: The scenarios are different, although they are basically aligned. We have also placed more emphasis on international cooperation. The report itself has absorbed experiences from different places, such as Denmark’s experience in heating, for modelling, pathway design and other suggestions in the report. We would be very interested in discussing more new ideas and sharing our experience with everyone else.

CB: What would be needed for China to realise the most ambitious energy transition scenario featured in your report?

BQ: To achieve the best scenario, China shouldn’t be the only country that puts efforts into energy transition. China, as a developing country, at the government level and at the individual level, has already done a lot. The energy transition needs global cooperation. More people will realise the urgent need to combat climate change if we all join hands together. Solving some problems, such as commercialising hydrogen, also needs more joint research.

CB: You have previously said China’s energy transition relies on comprehensive policy support for green industry, “effective” investment in the green and low-carbon sector as well as promoting green consumption. Do you see signs of this in government plans for economic stimulus?

BQ: Yes, many! China’s “two new” (“两新”) policy – large-scale equipment renewals and trade-ins of consumer goods – is one of them. In the document issued by the State Council [China’s central government], there are four aspects: “implementing equipment updates, trade-in of consumer goods, recycling, and improving standards”.

The first three aspects directly promote carbon reduction. The first one is to service industrial sectors, the second one is to serve the general public, and the third one is for China’s “circular economy”. The last aspect indirectly serves energy saving and carbon reduction goals, by setting standards [for energy usage, emissions and recycling] to prevent people from re-purchasing outdated equipment with low energy efficiency.

In the past, it was difficult to recycle old production equipment, such as large motors. One obstacle is the challenge of acquiring a “first receipt” to be eligible for tax deductions. [Scrapped product sellers often cannot provide the purchase receipt – the “first receipt” – to the resource recycling companies for value-added tax deductions.] The new policy allows an ordinary invoice to be used for pre-tax deduction, solving the problem. This is a very important incentive to meet the 2027 goals [of the “two new” policy].

For the ordinary people, the “two new” policy also benefits their daily life. For example, they can receive subsidies for about 10-20% of a new purchase, with up to 2,000 yuan ($276) to trade-in a new fridge. [Trade-in subsidies for home appliances cover fridges, washing machines, televisions, air conditioners and computers.] They can get new energy saving electronics appliances at a very low price.

The “two new” policy documents clearly state the delineation of responsibilities of both the central and local governments, including funding they should provide. [The central government accounts for about 90% of funding and has issued a 300bn yuan ($41bn) bond to support this effort.] China holds regular press conferences stating progress on the “two new” policy, including on the renewal of outdated solar and wind equipment.

Another vital policy is the “guidelines to ramp up green transition of economic, social development” issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council. [See Carbon Brief’s China Briefing for more.] That is to say, it’s not just the [state-affiliated] State Council that promotes the “green transformation”, the Central Committee [the leading body of the Communist party] also really values it. There was a green transition policy before, but this new policy is a top-level design of “full green transition” [across every aspect of society]. It is a blueprint of China’s transition in industry, building [construction], transportation, energy and many other areas. Together with the “two new”, which is an implementation document for this top-level design, we now have both a direction and a manual for the energy transition.

CB: China is attempting to upgrade its electricity grids and markets to manage the variability of wind and solar power. What are the biggest challenges it faces in this area?

BQ: China has never faced this kind of challenge before. The demand for electricity is huge, and soaring. Reforms in the electricity pricing system and grid management are underway, and so are many other reforms. These reforms need to be economical, fair and feasible. Reforms, in general, have less impact on the rich than the poor. In the end, we can’t just ignore energy safety and cut electricity supply, nor ignore the poor being unable to afford it. This is a big challenge for the government to achieve in such a short time, especially if we are to peak carbon before 2030. Current price reform, in terms of whole reform effort, is happening very quickly, with the medium-to-long term contract reforms, as well as the spot market and the ancillary market reforms. However, it is a complicated matter, with each province facing different situations. Industrial usage and civilian usage are also different – we need to protect ordinary people’s needs.

CB: There has been significant international criticism of China’s decision to use coal-fired power plants as “flexibility providers” in its energy transition. Will coal continue to be necessary for China’s energy mix as it approaches carbon neutrality in 2060 and beyond, and how effective are China’s current efforts to develop low-carbon coal-fired power?

BQ: China’s principle is “construction new before destruct old” (先立后破), which is also translated as “build before breaking”. [See Carbon Brief’s articles from 2021 and 2022 for background.] The challenge China faces is different [from other countries], our electricity consumption is growing too fast. Energy security for us is most important, and cutting coal out completely does not match the basic principle of energy supply. What we can do is to increase the share of green electricity when improving the overall quantity and quality of electricity supply. Power grids also need to improve capacity for electricity generated from renewable sources, to counter their variable nature. Energy storage is an ideal solution for us, but it is too expensive at the moment.

The only pragmatic solution at the moment is asking coal plants to “tiao feng” (调峰, part-load operation, which means run below full-capacity). The old design of a coal-fired power plant was to operate for 5,500 hours annually, but they are at about 4,000 hours now. With renewable energy becoming more powerful and energy storage becoming cheaper and more flexible, coal plants can play the role of “firefighters” in the system – used in an electricity crisis whenever it is needed.

Overall, electricity is the core of future development. Reforms in electricity generation, power grids, electricity usage and electricity demand are all needed. Developing countries in particular face harder challenges. It is not only China – Vietnam and India also are exploring solutions to their power problems. Therefore, we emphasise global cooperation, which is vital for finding a solution for us all.

CB: Will “green hydrogen” play a significant role in China’s future energy mix and, if so, when do you think it will be deployed at scale?

BQ: Yes. Green hydrogen is a great alternative for fossil fuels in the chemical industry and the transportation sector. We were excited about it when it was first discovered, but it is very expensive at the moment. To deploy green hydrogen, commercial and technology innovation are needed, to reduce costs.

China’s carbon pricing has not reached the chemical industry yet, but it might change with changes in the market. The commercialisation of hydrogen is very important, a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle needs to be affordable. We face the same problem that the EU faces and we would love to learn from them.

CB: Recent research has suggested that China should reduce emissions to at least 30% below 2023 levels by 2035, to align with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5C. Some Chinese scientists have called this 30% figure “too ambitious”. Do you think a 30% reduction would be achievable?

BQ: I haven’t read the paper so can’t comment on it. I am not sure if there are suggestions for other countries in this research paper. [International expectations for China’s climate goals] need to be fair for China, as a developing country. [They] need to consider the shared responsibilities of the developed countries, including the US and EU. It can’t be the case that developing countries need to cut more emissions than developed countries – that would break the UN’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”. China has not yet reached carbon peak, it still has some ways to go.

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Lyu Wenbin and Prof Bai Quan appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Lyu Wenbin and Prof Bai Quan

Greenhouse Gases

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Published

1 day ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

By Elissa Tennant

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting forests and improving climate outcomes

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

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

The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act:

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

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

A deeper dive into our efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building on the momentum

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

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

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

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

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

Our Fix Our Forests advocacy in 2025

Greenhouse Gases

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

Published

1 day ago

December 5, 2025

Alice Rush

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

This week

Deadly floods in Asia

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

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

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

Around the world

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

$518 billion a year

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

Latest climate research

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

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

Captured

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

Spotlight

Inclusivity at the IPCC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global south perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road to ‘improvement’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch, read, listen

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

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

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

Coming up

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

Pick of the jobs

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

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

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

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

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

Greenhouse Gases

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

Published

3 days ago

December 3, 2025

Alice Rush

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

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

Key developments

COP30 roundup

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

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

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

Africa on edge

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

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

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

News and views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spotlight

Saudi minister interviewed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This interview has been edited for length.

Watch, read, listen

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

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

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

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

New science

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