Published

2 years ago

February 21, 2024

Alice Rush

At COP28 in Dubai, Carbon Brief’s Anika Patel spoke with Prof Pan Jiahua, vice-chair of the national expert panel on climate change of China, about his ideas for how to move to a zero-carbon future.

This interview covers a wide range of topics, including China’s stance on fossil fuels, the concept of an “ecological civilisation”, the usefulness of a global “loss-and-damage fund”, and prospects for distributed solar and power market reform in China. It is transcribed in full below, following a summary of key quotes.

China’s national expert committee on climate change, of which Prof Pan is vice-chair, is an advisory body under the national leaders group on climate change, energy-saving and emissions reduction.

He is also a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and director of its Research Center for Sustainable Development, as well as director of Beijing University of Technology’s Institute of Eco-Civilization Studies and a member of the China Carbon Neutral Fifty Forum.

On the philosophy of ‘ecological civilisation’: “Human beings, for their own benefit – they ignored the benefit of nature. The welfare of nature. We expose nature, we deplete our natural resources…[Under ecological civilisation] the basic idea [is] that [if we can achieve] harmony with nature [and] harmony among our nations, then we can go long into the future.”
On the success of UN climate summits: “COP is the only thing that [has lasted] over 30 years…We have different views, different arguments, different interests but, all in all, we’ve come a long way…we agreed the Paris targets – in 1990 nobody would believe that [was possible].”
On the ‘loss-and-damage fund’: “Losses and damages should be compensated, but not in a way that we divert our energy and resources for [the sake of] compensation. We should use all our energy, resources, spirits – everything – for the zero-carbon transition.”
On the ‘climate paradox’: “If you divert the limited resources for compensating losses and damages, then the zero-carbon transition would be delayed. And if you delay such a transition, there will be more and more losses and damages. I call this the climate paradox.”
On tripling renewable energy: “Tripling renewable energy is not enough. Why are we only tripling? Why not more and more, the more the better. Because look at China – [we] doubled and doubled and doubled [our renewable energy] all the time. This year we doubled installed capacity over the last year. Why shouldn’t we do more than just tripling?”
On replacing energy infrastructure: “Renewables would not require a huge amount of investment in infrastructure. Fossil fuels, coal electricity generation – the investment is very capital intensive…right? Waste of money.”
On subsidies and industrial policy: “Like a plant – in the very beginning when it’s a seed then you need to take care of it. But when it grows and becomes mature, then it can stand on its own and be competitive.”
On an alternative to a centralised electricity grid: “I use the term ‘prosumerism’. Production, consumption and storage all in one, right? You do not require a very capital intensive power grid.…And also, this is consumer sovereignty – when you have your own system, you have a say and then…you are not totally reliant on the power grid.”

On western suspicion: “Why did China suddenly become number one in zero-carbon renewables? It’s simply because the United States and Europe used anti-dumping subsidies and section 301 investigations in 2010. Then the Chinese competitive products, solar panels, were not able to go to the world market, so we thought we should…install everything inside of China and immediately China became number one in the world. Now you see the United States and Europe again say ‘no, it’s [a question of] supply chain security’. Right? This is really self-conflicting. On one hand they say ‘climate security’, on the other they say their ‘own security’.”
On phasing out fossil fuels: “We want to have everything competitive enough to phase out fossil fuels, through the market process. Not command and control.”
On abating fossil fuels: “I think that abated fossil fuels is a false statement. Because abated is not compatible, they have no competitiveness. When you abate it, it is more expensive. You think the consumers are silly? They will simply vote for competitive[ly priced] electricity.”
On the future of fossil fuels: “Fossil fuels are fossils. They are a thing of the past.”
On the ‘global stocktake’ negotiations: “[We talk about] responsibility sharing, carbon emissions reduction. But everybody will say ‘No, I will not [accept] any limits. You want to limit me, I want to do more.’ This is human psychology, right?”
On the challenges of power market reform: “Only the monopoly people will [call for] ‘reform’, and through reform they gain more power, they gain more monopoly. The prosumerism system will destroy such monopolies.”
On the urgency of ‘global boiling’: “Global warming is not global warming, it’s global boiling…Renewables are good for welfare, for wellbeing, for growing the economy, for a better environment. It’s for everybody and for the future. Fossil fuels are not for the future.”

Prof. Pan Jiahua and Anika Patel at COP28 in Dubai, UAE. — Prof Pan Jiahua and Anika Patel at COP28 in Dubai, UAE. Credit: Liang Rui

Carbon Brief: If you don’t mind, I’d like to jump straight in. I read a lot about your work on defining the concept of an ecological civilisation, which is a concept that’s not very well understood outside China. In your previous work, you’ve described it as realising harmony between humans and nature in contrast to industrial civilisation. Could you give an overview of what an ecological civilisation is and how this concept has evolved?

Pan Jiahua: Well, from [the beginning of] human civilisation, from primitive agrarian society, human beings have relied somewhat completely on nature. The ability to live more comfortably was very limited and then, with technological innovation and the industrial revolution, we have entered the new era: the industrial stage. A sort of industrial civilisation.

Under industrial civilisation, we have an ethical principle, which is utilitarian. Measurement of happiness in human beings – we would like to be happy – and how to measure happiness? Then the British philosophers, they invented the idea of utilitarianism, which means that, once you have some sort of self-interest, self-achievement or self-realisation, then you are happy. And then happy, you need some sort of measurement. That is utilitarianism, everything is useful, everything brings you benefits, then you would be happier, right? This is utilitarian. And then the measurement in economic terminology, that is utility right? Everything has a utility and then that brings happiness to human beings. So that is utilitarianism, and then when there is no utility, then there is nothing to bring you happiness.

So this is the philosophy, the ethical foundation or ethical principle. And let’s put it another way: because of this ethical principle, that means that everybody tries to optimise his own utility. At the same time, when he maximises his own utility, he tries to provide services to other people and then the social welfare, social wellbeing in total is further improved, right? So this is the whole idea of the industrial revolution and industrialisation, that everybody would benefit.

But now, because human beings, for their own benefit – they ignored the benefit of nature. The welfare of nature. We expose nature, we deplete our natural resources, you know? And then nature is depleted and nature is destroyed, damaged, lost. And then we found that: “Oh my god, this is not sustainable.” We need to change back our principle, and not be utilitarian. We need to have something in harmony with nature, right?

Now, when we talk about security, right? Under an industrial utilitarian principle, security just [means] your own security – like the United States, like Donald Trump saying “America first”. The others, they are nobody, just America first. Others are secondary or tertiary or not important at all, only the United States is the most important. Right? Let’s get a slogan ‘America First’, so the others are not important and now it is the same. They talk about national security, their own security. The others, they don’t care. Like Russia’s own security. The others’ security is not on their agenda, right? So this is utilitarianism, this is self-interest. [Under the concept of ecological civilisation], security is not only for one but for all, for everybody, for man and nature.

CB: And does this include energy security?

PJH: Of course, energy security is one of many securities. So we need to understand security through a new mentality. This mentality has security for all. All the securities are important and should be treated equally, not that one security is superior to the others, all securities are important, should be treated equally, right? So this is harmony between man and nature. That means that not only in the United States, Russia, China, other developing countries – they should be treated equally. Your security, Russian security, Chinese security, all the securities should be treated at a similar level, as equally important. So this is a harmonious society, a harmonious world, harmonious human beings. Otherwise just your own security, the others’ security, they are not secure, and then how can they be guaranteed?

So this is the logic, and then, human beings are part of society, we are part of [the community of life on] Earth. Human beings are all one race. We have so many other species. Other species should also be treated equally. Their security, the plants, the animals and all the other forms of life. They should be treated equally, their security, not only human beings’ security, the security of nature, security of better diversity. So, this is all the securities, man and nature in harmony, living in harmony with nature. This is the principle. This principle is different from utilitarianism. That means on Earth we all are one community, an Earth community, a life community, we share our own planet, we share our future, not only one nation, one race, but everybody – not only [the] current generation, but future generations as well. So this is the basic idea that [if we can achieve] harmony with nature [and] harmony among our nations, then we can go long into the future. Otherwise, there’s conflicts among our nations, conflicts among culture, and then conflicts between man and nature. And then we will not have a future.

CB: You’ve actually teed up my next question really well. Given these hopes for harmony between different countries and harmony between man and nature, do you see the seeds of harmony at COP28?

PJH: I think that COP is the only thing that [has lasted] over 30 years. In 1990, when the United Nations created the intergovernmental negotiation committee, which resulted in the UNFCCC – this was agreed in 1992, and then in 1994 it came into force. This is the only one that lasts so long. And we have different views, different arguments, different interests but, all in all, we’ve come a long way, and now we come together and we agreed the Paris targets – in 1990 nobody would believe that [was possible]. “Oh no, global warming, that’s not my business, that’s something the rich guys should do, not us poor guys.” Right? And then at Copenhagen, when the 2C target was included in the Copenhagen Accord, that was no success at all.

And then, only five or six years later in 2015, we successfully completed the Paris Agreement. Not only 2C but 1.5C as well. And now step by step we come to a consensus. 1.5C should be the target and all our efforts should be focused on complying with 1.5C, and that’s the target. I think that’s why, in the UK for COP26 in Glasgow, [we had] 1.5C and then last year, at COP27, 1.5C was reiterated and reaffirmed, and this year [2023] I think that we should have no dissenting voices, right? So this is a great achievement and that means that all human beings can reach a consensus and can go further and further continuously. In the past, we would take a step forward and then go backward. And now at the climate conferences, we always go forward and make progress all the time. So this is really great.

But now I do have a different view. That is the global stocktake. I think that this is necessary, but [within the] global stocktake there are quite a few that are on a set track – [will they] derail or progress?

One is the “loss-and-damage fund”. Some people say that, okay, the climate morale requires the most vulnerable nations to be compensated for climate damages and climate losses. When on the first sight, it is reasonable, it is based on climate morale because they are not at any fault [for climate change] and they are suffering, so they should be compensated. I have a different view. Losses and damages should be compensated, but not in a way that we divert our energy and resources for [the sake of] compensation. We should use all our energy, resources, spirits – everything – for the zero-carbon transition. Because if you divert the limited resources for compensating losses and damages, then the zero-carbon transition would be delayed. And if you delay such a transition, there will be more and more losses and damages. I call this the climate paradox. The paradox of climate and morale.

CB: So is it a battle between short-term and long-term thinking?

PJH: No, it’s not short-term and long-term. You know, the mentality is not right. The mentality is that the focus should be zero-carbon transition. Because if you spend your time, resources, energy, negotiating the losses and damages fund – who suffers and who should pay and how the resources should be allocated – this is a waste of resources and a waste of time. Instead, we should focus our attention on zero-carbon transformation. Everything should be zero-carbon. All the people, all the countries, all the parties, all the resources: zero-carbon. And then, in the future, we would minimise our losses and damages. Otherwise, we will divert limited resources and then we will not be able to concentrate our efforts on zero-carbon transformation. So this is the mentality. I think that [the purpose of the] loss and damages [should] not be for compensation but for zero-carbon transition, zero-carbon transformation, zero carbon development.

Now if we see zero-carbon development, it is high quality. For instance, solar energy. Instead of compensation for losses and damages, you install solar panels and then you have energy. That is well-being, that is income, that is ability to develop, instead of some sort of imaginary losses and damages. Right?

CB: A critic might say, firstly countries are pledging to triple global renewables – so there is still focus on mitigation – but they might also say that countries that are seeing their infrastructure destroyed, for example through conflict, have the opportunity to develop new low-carbon infrastructure.

PJH: This is wrong. For one thing, tripling renewable energy is not enough. Why are we only tripling? Why not more and more, the more the better. Because look at China – [we] doubled and doubled and doubled [our renewable energy] all the time. This year we doubled installed capacity over the last year. Why shouldn’t we do more than just tripling? Insufficient, not enough, we should do more and more and more and more, not only tripling, it is not enough.

And the second thing: when you talk about replacing energy infrastructure. Renewables would not require a huge amount of investment in infrastructure. Fossil fuels, coal electricity generation – the investment is very capital intensive. It would require investment of a huge amount of money for construction of the thermal power plants, it would require a huge amount of investment into the power grid and distribution. Right? Waste of money.

If you go to zero-carbon solar panels on top of your roof, you have your electricity. And then when it’s intermittent, you see [we have] power batteries, which are so cheap. You should go to China to have a look at power batteries – 20 years ago, who would have imagined that electric vehicles would be competitive. Even three years ago nobody [would have thought so]. And now you see, [they are] so competitive.

CB: That’s so true, in my Beijing apartment, we didn’t have solar panels, but we did have EV charging points.

PJH: Right? So that means the infrastructure, everything is under your own control, you will not be reliant on capitalists. So that is the difference, right? Infrastructure. That’s why I say the “loss-and-damages fund” does nothing. Just zero-carbon transition, zero-carbon energy, zero-carbon development, zero-carbon welfare, zero-carbon well-being.

CB: To take China as an example, do you think that there’s more public consciousness around zero-carbon development? EVs makes sense because they were subsidised until recently –

PJH: They’re not subsidised any more. But you’re right, in the past it was. Everything, at the very beginning, was. Just like how when new babies are born, you should take care of them. That’s true for everything new. That’s natural, like a plant – in the very beginning when it’s a seed then you need to take care of it. But when it grows and becomes mature, then it can stand on its own and be competitive.

CB: So then, from the consumer’s point of view, are people interested in solar panels on their rooftops, recycling, things like that?

I think that this [consumer-based approach] is comprehensive and is inclusive. Everybody can contribute, to zero-carbon, to plastics, to energy, right? If you reuse materials, then you will reduce emissions. You would delay the depletion of fossil fuels. Right? So this is one of the approaches. All approaches combined leads to consensus, which is a Chinese value.

Renewables are competitive, electrical vehicles are competitive and batteries have huge potential, and everybody has high expectations that these batteries would become more and more competitive, and then every household, every school can be an independent unit. I call it “prosumerism”. Production of solar and [wind] turbines fuels generation of electricity, that’s production right? And consumption is kitchen utensils, heat pumps, air conditioning, light, everything – consumption. And then you have your storage – power batteries, right? Because of the intermittency of solar, the challenges can be resolved through power battery storage.

So I use the term “prosumerism”. Production, consumption and storage all in one, right? You do not require a very capital intensive power grid. That’s very impressive. And also, this is consumer sovereignty – when you have your own system, you have a say and then…you are not totally reliant on the power grid. If [the grid operators] say something is wrong, then you have no control, if they increase the price, then you have to accept it, you have no argument, everything is under their control. With prosumerism, everything is under your own control. I call it consumer sovereignty.

So why should developing countries spend money and waste money on the power grid? Just [adopt] an independent prosumerist system.

CB: I think the EU and the US now recognise they need to catch up with China’s solar industry, and we see them recognising the benefits of nurturing their “baby” industries –

PJH: Let me tell you, the EU and the United States, they always say one thing and do another, they’re very contradictory. Why did China suddenly become number one in zero-carbon renewables? It’s simply because the United States and Europe used anti-dumping subsidies and section 301 investigations in 2010. Then the Chinese competitive products, solar panels, were not able to go to the world market, so we thought we should do everything ourselves – then suddenly we should install everything inside of China and immediately China became number one in the world. Now you see the United States and Europe again say “no, it’s [a question of] supply chain security”. Right? This is really self-conflicting. On one hand they say “climate security”, on the other they say their “own security”. They don’t care about others, they don’t care about the climate. Because Chinese products are the most competitive in the world. If they are competitive, then everybody gains the lowest cost for installation of solar and wind.

CB: That’s very valid from a consumer point of view. I think everyone recognises that China is growing its renewable capacity at such a high rate, but can it sustain that indefinitely? Or will renewable energy eventually plateau? And at what point will it plateau?

PJH: I think that this is a good question. You know, for everything we have a process of very, very slow progress and then, suddenly, we have acceleration and we go to maturity. Once you get to maturity, you do not [need as much support], because, [like] human beings…once you are big enough, you do not require too much to eat, you do not require more food, right?

It’s the same, when zero-carbon energy is sufficient to meet your demand, that is enough. You do not need to produce more for nothing, for wasting, right? So that answers your question, that is when we have sufficient capacity, then there’s no need to produce more for China. But we do have [to have] such capacity, [because] we need renewables. We do have to have new technologies, right? It’s progress for China.

Now I think that we are developing very fast, we want to have everything competitive enough to phase out fossil fuels, through the market process. Not command and control. Use market forces to phase out fossil fuels because now, you see solar electricity, wind electricity, it’s only a fraction of coal-fired electricity, that’s still competitive. And now the intermittency challenge is resolved through storage, because what we need is energy services. We do not require carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is nothing.

CB: To clarify, you’re not talking about phasing out unabated fossil fuels, you’re talking about phasing out all fossil fuels?

PJH: I think that abated fossil fuels is a false statement. Because abated is not compatible, they have no competitiveness. When you abate it, it is more expensive. You think the consumers are silly? They will simply vote for competitive[ly priced] electricity. Right? So, I think that abated fossil fuels is a false statement. It does not stand. You know what I mean?

It is really a silly statement. I’ll give you an example – gasoline automobiles. Nowadays in China, you see the young people, who cares to buy [gasoline vehicles]? You have no market at all, nobody cares, nobody buys. Purely electric vehicles – that’s the market. Gasoline vehicles, no matter if they are ‘abated’ or ‘unabated’ – nobody cares. This is one illustrative example. So, the [idea of] abated fossil fuels really is nonsense. Nonsense.

CB: You mean that both the idea of unabated and abated fossil fuels are nonsense?

PJH: Both. Zero-carbon renewables are so competitive. They simply bring more employment, more revenue, better health and wellbeing. Right? And they give zero-carbon emissions. There are multiple wins.

CB: We’ve seen reports of particularly local governments building more coal capacity, perhaps to boost local economic growth. What do you think it would take –

PJH: You are right. In all societies, different people and different groups have different interests. For fossil fuels, in the past they were so powerful. They want to keep their power, they want to keep their influence, they want to keep their monopoly. It’s understandable. I don’t care at all – “okay, you do it”. But the next day, you guys realised it was wrong.

So I don’t care at all, [even though] so many people say in China local governments and state power companies are investing a huge amount in coal power. Never mind. They will be phased out automatically through the market. As I said, it is not command and control [that will drive the energy transition]. It’s market forces. It’s market power. Believe in market power.

CB: I heard someone make the argument that, as China tried to control the impact that the Covid-19 outbreak had on the economy, that coal interest groups may have lost some of their power and ‘new energy’ interest groups may have gained some power. Would you agree?

PJH: Well, we really don’t need to worry about this. The coal and fossil fuels industries are very powerful – state-owned and state-dominated. Very powerful. But I think “Okay, you are powerful. But, the sooner solar is [widely adopted], everybody can do it themselves, then we do not have to rely on them. We can let them be.” No matter how powerful they are today, I have no confidence that they will continue to hold a monopoly in the future, like the automobile sector. You know, in China automobile companies were state-owned companies, and so powerful in the past.

Now the evidence shows that fossil fuels are fossils. They are a thing of the past, they have no future. That’s why I think the global stocktake at COP28, the direction is wrong. We say “Oh the emissions reduction gap.” The gap is nothing.

CB: So what language do you expect to see out of the global stocktake?

PJH: The current language is wrong. [We talk about] responsibility sharing, carbon emissions reduction. But everybody will say “No, I will not [accept] any limits. You want to limit me, I want to do more.” This is human psychology, right? And so you say “No limits, you just do what you can.”

Zero-carbon renewable energy will bring employment, growth of the economy, wellbeing and a better environment. One example is electric vehicles: 100 kilometres (km) of drive, in China’s case, requires 12 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity. 1 kWh of electricity, if you use solar together with power storage, would cost four, or at most five, US cents. Only five cents. That means that, less than one dollar – maybe 60 cents – will give you 100km distance, right? Using gasoline costs 10 times more. Consumers have the choice, it’s as simple as that.

If everybody knows that, who would say “Oh I want more fossil fuels, I want more emissions”? Emissions [would be] nothing, nobody [would need to] care about emissions. So I think that we should go in the right direction. Renewables, zero-carbon, that’s the right direction. Renewables, power batteries, electric vehicles, heat pumps. All of these are [good] for development, for quality of growth, for quality of living. That is the right direction, instead of [focusing on] “limit, limit, reduction, reduction”. Psychologically, nobody would accept limits. So that’s the logic – for growth, for the environment, for better wellbeing, that’s the logic.

CB: Will this be accelerated by expected reforms to the power spot market?

PJH: The power spot market, that’s also what the monopoly people will say. Right? And then if we [adopt the] prosumerism system, there’s no need to reform, right? We have millions and billions of [sources for] prosumerism. One household is a prosumerist unit. The market has nothing to do with the individual prosumerist system. Right?

So only the monopoly people will [call for] “reform”, and through reform they gain more power, they gain more monopoly. The prosumerism system will destroy such monopolies. I have my own system, I consume the electricity I generate, I can have everything stored in my own battery and I drive my electric vehicle. I have an independent, self-sufficient system. With monopolies – like the oil companies – the price is so volatile, because they want it to be volatile, so they can monopolise more and they can control the price. Now with electric vehicles, the oil companies are not able to control the drivers. Reform has nothing to do with it.

CB: Moving towards a zero-carbon society?

PJH: Exactly, that’s why [we are advocating for] the prosumerism system…we are going to do it inside China and then we’re going to introduce it to the world. We see a zero-carbon energy prosumerism system as a solution to a carbon neutral world. And then, in the prosumerist system, all the oil companies, all the fossil fuels – they are nobody, they are nothing. Consumers, households, they won’t care [about the fate of these companies]. That’s the solution, instead of price reform – that’s really the wrong direction. I am very confident that we have a solution, that’s the zero-carbon prosumerism system.

CB: Thank you professor. And, for my last question: do you talk to your friends and family about climate change?

PJH: Of course! Global warming is not global warming, it’s global boiling. We cannot stand, our biodiversity cannot stand, our future will not be able to sustain. So we have a solution – that’s renewables, and just renewables. Renewables are good for welfare, for wellbeing, for growing the economy, for a better environment. It’s for everybody and for the future. Fossil fuels are not for the future.

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Pan Jiahua appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Pan Jiahua

Climate Change

Looking Ahead to a Deepening Affordability Crisis, an Election and the Threat of an AI Investment Bubble

Published

14 hours ago

January 10, 2026

Alice Rush

Seven experts weigh in on what they expect in 2026.

By Dan Gearino

U.S. energy markets and policy are heading toward the equivalent of a multicar pileup in 2026.

Looking Ahead to a Deepening Affordability Crisis, an Election and the Threat of an AI Investment Bubble

Climate Change

DeBriefed 9 January 2026: US to exit global climate treaty; Venezuelan oil ‘uncertainty’; ‘Hardest truth’ for Africa’s energy transition

Published

1 day ago

January 9, 2026

Alice Rush

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

This week

US to pull out from UNFCC, IPCC

CLIMATE RETREAT: The Trump administration announced its intention to withdraw the US from the world’s climate treaty, CNN reported. The move to leave the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in addition to 65 other international organisations, was announced via a White House memorandum that states these bodies “no longer serve American interests”, the outlet added. The New York Times explained that the UNFCCC “counts all of the other nations of the world as members” and described the move as cementing “US isolation from the rest of the world when it comes to fighting climate change”.

MAJOR IMPACT: The Associated Press listed all the organisations that the US is exiting, including other climate-related bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The exit also means the withdrawal of US funding from these bodies, noted the Washington Post. Bloomberg said these climate actions are likely to “significantly limit the global influence of those entities”. Carbon Brief has just published an in-depth Q&A on what Trump’s move means for global climate action.

Oil prices fall after Venezuela operation

UNCERTAIN GLUT: Global oil prices fell slightly this week “after the US operation to seize Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro created uncertainty over the future of the world’s largest crude reserves”, reported the Financial Times. The South American country produces less than 1% of global oil output, but it holds about 17% of the world’s proven crude reserves, giving it the potential to significantly increase global supply, the publication added.

TRUMP DEMANDS: Meanwhile, Trump said Venezuela “will be turning over” 30-50m barrels of oil to the US, which will be worth around $2.8bn (£2.1bn), reported BBC News. The broadcaster added that Trump claims this oil will be sold at market price and used to “benefit the people of Venezuela and the US”. The announcement “came with few details”, but “marked a significant step up for the US government as it seeks to extend its economic influence in Venezuela and beyond”, said Bloomberg.

Around the world

MONSOON RAIN: At least 16 people have been killed in flash floods “triggered by torrential rain” in Indonesia, reported the Associated Press.
BUSHFIRES: Much of Australia is engulfed in an extreme heatwave, said the Guardian. In Victoria, three people are missing amid “out of control” bushfires, reported Reuters.
TAXING EMISSIONS: The EU’s landmark carbon border levy, known as “CBAM”, came into force on 1 January, despite “fierce opposition” from trading partners and European industry, according to the Financial Times.
GREEN CONSUMPTION: China’s Ministry of Commerce and eight other government departments released an action plan to accelerate the country’s “green transition of consumption and support high-quality development”, reported Xinhua.
ACTIVIST ARRESTED: Prominent Indian climate activist Harjeet Singh was arrested following a raid on his home, reported Newslaundry. Federal forces have accused Singh of “misusing foreign funds to influence government policies”, a suggestion that Singh rejected as “baseless, biased and misleading”, said the outlet.
YOUR FEEDBACK: Please let us know what you thought of Carbon Brief’s coverage last year by completing our annual reader survey. Ten respondents will be chosen at random to receive a CB laptop sticker.

47%

The share of the UK’s electricity supplied by renewables in 2025, more than any other source, according to Carbon Brief analysis.

Latest climate research

Deforestation due to the mining of “energy transition minerals” is a “major, but overlooked source of emissions in global energy transition” | Nature Climate Change
Up to three million people living in the Sudd wetland region of South Sudan are currently at risk of being exposed to flooding | Journal of Flood Risk Management
In China, the emissions intensity of goods purchased online has dropped by one-third since 2000, while the emissions intensity of goods purchased in stores has tripled over that time | One Earth

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

Captured

The US, which has announced plans to withdraw from the UNFCCC, is more responsible for climate change than any other country or group in history, according to Carbon Brief analysis. The chart above shows the cumulative historical emissions of countries since the advent of the industrial era in 1850.

Spotlight

How to think about Africa’s just energy transition

African nations are striving to boost their energy security, while also addressing climate change concerns such as flood risks and extreme heat.

This week, Carbon Brief speaks to the deputy Africa director of the Natural Resource Governance Institute, Ibrahima Aidara, on what a just energy transition means for the continent.

Carbon Brief: When African leaders talk about a “just energy transition”, what are they getting right? And what are they still avoiding?

Ibrahima Aidara: African leaders are right to insist that development and climate action must go together. Unlike high-income countries, Africa’s emissions are extremely low – less than 4% of global CO2 emissions – despite housing nearly 18% of the world’s population. Leaders are rightly emphasising universal energy access, industrialisation and job creation as non-negotiable elements of a just transition.

They are also correct to push back against a narrow narrative that treats Africa only as a supplier of raw materials for the global green economy. Initiatives such as the African Union’s Green Minerals Strategy show a growing recognition that value addition, regional integration and industrial policy must sit at the heart of the transition.

However, there are still important blind spots. First, the distributional impacts within countries are often avoided. Communities living near mines, power infrastructure or fossil-fuel assets frequently bear environmental and social costs without sharing in the benefits. For example, cobalt-producing communities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or lithium-affected communities in Zimbabwe and Ghana, still face displacement, inadequate compensation, pollution and weak consultation.

Second, governance gaps are sometimes downplayed. A just transition requires strong institutions (policies and regulatory), transparency and accountability. Without these, climate finance, mineral booms or energy investments risk reinforcing corruption and inequality.

Finally, leaders often avoid addressing the issue of who pays for the transition. Domestic budgets are already stretched, yet international climate finance – especially for adaptation, energy access and mineral governance – remains far below commitments. Justice cannot be achieved if African countries are asked to self-finance a global public good.

CB: Do African countries still have a legitimate case for developing new oil and gas projects, or has the energy transition fundamentally changed what ‘development’ looks like?

IA: The energy transition has fundamentally changed what development looks like and, with it, how African countries should approach oil and gas. On the one hand, more than 600 million Africans lack access to electricity and clean cooking remains out of reach for nearly one billion people. In countries such as Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania, gas has been framed to expand power generation, reduce reliance on biomass and support industrial growth. For some contexts, limited and well-governed gas development can play a transitional role, particularly for domestic use.

On the other hand, the energy transition has dramatically altered the risks. Global demand uncertainty means new oil and gas projects risk becoming stranded assets. Financing is shrinking, with many development banks and private lenders exiting fossil fuels. Also, opportunity costs are rising; every dollar locked into long-lived fossil infrastructure is a dollar not invested in renewables, grids, storage or clean industry.

Crucially, development today is no longer just about exporting fuels. It is about building resilient, diversified economies. Countries such as Morocco and Kenya show that renewable energy, green industry and regional power trade can support growth without deepening fossil dependence.

So, the question is no longer whether African countries can develop new oil and gas projects, but whether doing so supports long-term development, domestic energy access and fiscal stability in a transitioning world – or whether it risks locking countries into an extractive model that benefits few and exposes countries to future shocks.

CB: What is the hardest truth about Africa’s energy transition that policymakers and international partners are still unwilling to confront?

IA: For me, the hardest truth is this: Africa cannot deliver a just energy transition on unfair global terms. Despite all the rhetoric, global rules still limit Africa’s policy space. Trade and investment agreements restrict local content, industrial policy and value-addition strategies. Climate finance remains fragmented and insufficient. And mineral supply chains are governed largely by consumer-country priorities, not producer-country development needs.

Another uncomfortable truth is that not every “green” investment is automatically just. Without strong safeguards, renewable energy projects and mineral extraction can repeat the same harms as fossil fuels: displacement, exclusion and environmental damage.

Finally, there is a reluctance to admit that speed alone is not success. A rushed transition that ignores governance, equity and institutions will fail politically and socially, and, ultimately, undermine climate goals.

If Africa’s transition is to succeed, international partners must accept African leadership, African priorities and African definitions of development, even when that challenges existing power dynamics in global energy and mineral markets.

Watch, read, listen

CRISIS INFLAMED: In the Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo, columnist Marcelo Leite looked into the climate impact of extracting more oil from Venezuela.

BEYOND TALK: Two Harvard scholars argued in Climate Home News for COP presidencies to focus less on climate policy and more on global politics.

EU LEVIES: A video explainer from the Hindu unpacked what the EU’s carbon border tax means for India and global trade.

Coming up

10-12 January: 16th session of the IRENA Assembly, Abu Dhabi
13-15 January: Energy Security and Green Infrastructure Week, London
13-15 January: The World Future Energy Summit, Abu Dhabi
15 January: Uganda general elections

Pick of the jobs

WRI Polsky Energy Center, global director | Salary: around £185,000. Location: Washington DC; the Hague, Netherlands; New Delhi, Mumbai, or Bengaluru, India; or London
UK government Advanced Research and Invention Agency, strategic communications director – future proofing our climate and weather | Salary: £115,000. Location: London
The Wildlife Trusts, head of climate and international policy | Salary: £50,000. Location: London
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, senior manager for climate | Salary: Unknown. Location: London, UK

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 9 January 2026: US to exit global climate treaty; Venezuelan oil ‘uncertainty’; ‘Hardest truth’ for Africa’s energy transition appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 9 January 2026: US to exit global climate treaty; Venezuelan oil ‘uncertainty’; ‘Hardest truth’ for Africa’s energy transition

Climate Change

Melting Ground: Why Permafrost Matters for Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples

Published

2 days ago

January 9, 2026

Alice Rush

When people discuss climate change, most envision melting glaciers, smoke-filled skies from wildfires, or hurricanes ravaging coastlines. However, another crisis is unfolding in Canada’s North, one that is quieter but just as perilous: the melting of permafrost.

Permafrost is ground that has remained frozen for at least two years, though in many places, it has been frozen for thousands of years. It is a mix of soil, rock, and ice, and it covers almost half of Canada’s landmass, particularly in the Arctic. Think of it like the Earth’s natural deep freezer. Inside it are ancient plants, animal remains, and vast amounts of carbon that have been trapped and locked away for millennia.

As long as the permafrost stays frozen, those gases remain contained. But now, as temperatures rise and the Arctic warms nearly four times faster than the global average, that freezer door is swinging wide open.

Why the Arctic Matters to Everyone

It might be tempting to think of the Arctic as far away, remote, untouched, or disconnected from daily life in southern Canada. But the reality is that what happens in the Arctic affects everyone. Permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as is currently in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it melts, that carbon escapes in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, two of the most potent greenhouse gases.

This creates a dangerous cycle: warmer air melts permafrost, which releases greenhouse gases, and those gases in turn contribute to even greater warming of the Earth. Scientists refer to this as a “feedback loop.” If large amounts of permafrost thaw, the gases released could overwhelm even the strongest climate policies, making it almost impossible to slow global warming.

The ripple effects are already visible. Melting permafrost worsens heatwaves in Ontario, intensifies wildfires in Alberta and British Columbia, and fuels stronger Atlantic storms. Rising global temperatures also bring increased insurance premiums, higher food prices, and strained infrastructure due to new climate extremes. The Arctic may be far north, but it is the beating heart of global climate stability.

Impacts Close to Home in Canada

For northern communities, the impacts of melting permafrost are immediate and deeply personal. Buildings, schools, and homes that were once stable on frozen foundations are cracking and sinking. Road’s twist and buckle, airstrips become unsafe, and pipelines leak as the ground beneath them shifts. This is not just inconvenient; it is life-threatening, as these systems provide access to food, medical care, and basic supplies in places already cut off from southern infrastructure.

The hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, sits on the edge of the Arctic Ocean. As the permafrost beneath it thaws, the coastline is collapsing at an alarming rate of several meters each year. Entire homes have already been moved inland, and Elders warn that parts of the community may disappear into the sea within a generation. For residents, this is not just about losing land but losing ancestral ties to a place that has always been home.

In Inuvik, Northwest Territories, traditional underground ice cellars, once reliable food storage systems for generations, are collapsing into the permafrost. Families now face soaring costs to ship in groceries; undermining food security and cultural practices tied to country food.

Even the transportation routes that connect the North to the South are threatened. In the Yukon, the Dempster Highway, Canada’s only all-season road to the Arctic coast, is buckling as thawing permafrost destabilizes its foundation. Engineers are racing to repair roads that were never designed for melting ground, costing governments tens of millions of dollars each year.

And the South is not spared. The carbon released from permafrost melt contributes to the greenhouse gases driving climate extremes across Canada, including hotter summers in Toronto, devastating wildfires in Kelowna, severe flooding along the St. Lawrence, and worsening droughts on the Prairies. What melts in the North shapes life everywhere else.

Why Permafrost is Sacred in Indigenous Worldviews

For Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic, permafrost is not just frozen soil; it is a living part of their homeland and identity. Inuit, First Nations, and Métis Peoples have lived in relationship with frozen ground for thousands of years. The permafrost preserves sacred sites, traditional travel routes, and hunting lands. It has long been a source of stability, shaping the balance of ecosystems and making possible the cultural practices that sustain communities.

For Inuit in particular, permafrost has always been a trusted partner in food security. Ice cellars dug into the ground kept caribou, seal, fish, and whale meat fresh throughout the year. This practice is not only efficient and sustainable but also deeply cultural, tying families to cycles of harvest and sharing. As the permafrost melts and these cellars collapse, Inuit food systems are being disrupted. Families must rely more heavily on expensive store-bought food, which undermines both health and cultural sovereignty.

The thaw also threatens sacred spaces. Burial grounds are being disturbed, rivers and lakes are shifting, and the plants and animals that communities depend on are disappearing. In Indigenous worldviews, the land is kin alive and relational. When the permafrost melts, it signals not just an environmental crisis but a breaking of relationships that have been nurtured since time immemorial.

The Human Face of Melting Permafrost

The impacts of permafrost melt cannot be measured solely in terms of carbon emissions or financial costs. They must also be seen in the daily lives of the people who call the North home. In some communities, houses tilt and become uninhabitable, forcing residents to relocate, which disrupts family life, education, and mental health. In others, health centres and schools need constant repair, straining already limited budgets.

Travel across the land, once a predictable and safe experience, is now risky. Snowmobiles break through thinning ice. Trails flood or erode unexpectedly. Hunters face danger simply by trying to continue practices that have sustained their people for millennia.

For many Indigenous families, this is not only about the loss of infrastructure but also the loss of identity. When permafrost thaws, so do the practices tied to it: storing food, travelling safely, caring for burial sites, and teaching youth how to live in balance with the land. These changes erode culture, language, and ways of knowing that are inseparable from place.

Why the World Should Pay Attention

The melting of permafrost is not just a northern problem it is a global alarm bell. Scientists estimate that if even a fraction of the carbon stored in permafrost is released, it could equal the emissions from decades of current human activities. This is enough to derail international climate targets and lock the planet into a state of runaway warming.

This matters for everyone. Rising seas will not stop at Canada’s borders; they will flood coastal cities around the globe. Droughts and crop failures will disrupt food supplies and drive-up prices worldwide. Heatwaves will claim more lives in cities already struggling to keep cool. Economic costs will skyrocket, from insurance payouts to rebuilding disaster-hit communities. If the permafrost continues to thaw unchecked, the climate shocks of the past decade will look mild compared to what lies ahead.

But beyond the science, there is also a moral responsibility. The Arctic has contributed the least to climate change yet is suffering some of its most significant impacts. Indigenous communities, which have lived sustainably for generations, are now bearing the brunt of global emissions. For the world to ignore this crisis is to accept an injustice that will echo through history.

The Arctic is often referred to as the “canary in the coal mine” for climate change, but it is more than a warning system; it is a driver of global stability. If we lose the permafrost, we risk losing the fight against climate change altogether. Paying attention to what is happening in the Arctic is not optional. It is a test of whether humanity can listen, learn, and act before it is too late.

Moving Forward: Responsibility and Action

Addressing permafrost melt means tackling climate change at its root: cutting greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to renewable energy. Canada must lead in reducing its dependence on oil and gas while investing in clean energy and climate-resilient infrastructure. But technical fixes alone are not enough. Indigenous-led monitoring, adaptation, and governance must be supported and prioritized.

In Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, Indigenous guardians and community researchers are already combining traditional knowledge with Western science to track permafrost thaw, monitor wildlife, and pilot new forms of housing built for unstable ground. These projects demonstrate that solutions are most effective when they originate from the individuals most closely connected to the land.

For families in southern Canada, the issue may seem distant. However, the truth is that every decision matters. The energy we use, the food we waste, and the products we buy all contribute to the warming that melts permafrost. By reducing consumption, supporting Indigenous-led initiatives, and advocating for robust climate policies, households far from the Arctic can still play a role in protecting it.

The permafrost is melting. It is reshaping the Arctic, altering Canada, and posing a threat to global climate stability. However, it also offers us a choice: to continue down a path of denial, or to act guided by science, led by Indigenous knowledge, and rooted in care for the generations to come.

Blog by Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock

Image Credit : Alin Gavriliuc, Unsplash

The post Melting Ground: Why Permafrost Matters for Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.