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

DeBriefed 30 January 2026: Fire and ice; US formally exits Paris; Climate image faux pas

Published

2 days ago

January 30, 2026

Alice Rush

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

This week

Fire and ice

OZ HEAT: The ongoing heatwave in Australia reached record-high temperatures of almost 50C earlier this week, while authorities “urged caution as three forest fires burned out of control”, reported the Associated Press. Bloomberg said the Australian Open tennis tournament “rescheduled matches and activated extreme-heat protocols”. The Guardian reported that “the climate crisis has increased the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, including heatwaves and bushfires”.

WINTER STORM: Meanwhile, a severe winter storm swept across the south and east of the US and parts of Canada, causing “mass power outages and the cancellation of thousands of flights”, reported the Financial Times. More than 870,000 people across the country were without power and at least seven people died, according to BBC News.

COLD QUESTIONED: As the storm approached, climate-sceptic US president Donald Trump took to social media to ask facetiously: “Whatever happened to global warming???”, according to the Associated Press. There is currently significant debate among scientists about whether human-caused climate change is driving record cold extremes, as Carbon Brief has previously explained.

Around the world

US EXIT: The US has formally left the Paris Agreement for the second time, one year after Trump announced the intention to exit, according to the Guardian. The New York Times reported that the US is “the only country in the world to abandon the international commitment to slow global warming”.
WEAK PROPOSAL: Trump officials have delayed the repeal of the “endangerment finding” – a legal opinion that underpins federal climate rules in the US – due to “concerns the proposal is too weak to withstand a court challenge”, according to the Washington Post.
DISCRIMINATION: A court in the Hague has ruled that the Dutch government “discriminated against people in one of its most vulnerable territories” by not helping them to adapt to climate change, reported the Guardian. The court ordered the Dutch government to set binding targets within 18 months to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, according to the Associated Press.
WIND PACT: 10 European countries have agreed a “landmark pact” to “accelerate the rollout of offshore windfarms in the 2030s and build a power grid in the North Sea”, according to the Guardian.
TRADE DEAL: India and the EU have agreed on the “mother of all trade deals”, which will save up to €4bn in import duty, reported the Hindustan Times. Reuters quoted EU officials saying that the landmark trade deal “will not trigger any changes” to the bloc’s carbon border adjustment mechanism.
‘TWO-TIER SYSTEM’: COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago believes that global cooperation should move to a “two-speed system, where new coalitions lead fast, practical action alongside the slower, consensus-based decision-making of the UN process”, according to a letter published on Tuesday, reported Climate Home News.

$2.3tn

The amount invested in “green tech” globally in 2025, marking a new record high, according to Bloomberg.

Latest climate research

Including carbon emissions from permafrost thaw and fires reduces the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5C by 25% | Communications Earth & Environment
The global population exposed to extreme heat conditions is projected to nearly double if temperatures reach 2C | Nature Sustainability
Polar bears in Svalbard – the fastest-warming region on Earth – are in better condition than they were a generation ago, as melting sea ice makes seal pups easier to reach | Scientific Reports

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

Captured

EV sales just overtook petrol cars in EU for the first time. Chart shows monthly new passenger card registrations in the EU.

Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) overtook standard petrol cars in the EU for the first time in December 2025, according to new figures released by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) and covered by Carbon Brief. Registrations of “pure” battery EVs reached 217,898 – up 51% year-on-year from December 2024. Meanwhile, sales of standard petrol cars in the bloc fell 19% year-on-year, from 267,834 in December 2024 to 216,492 in December 2025, according to the analysis.

Spotlight

Looking at climate visuals

Carbon Brief’s Ayesha Tandon recently chaired a panel discussion at the launch of a new book focused on the impact of images used by the media to depict climate change.

When asked to describe an image that represents climate change, many people think of polar bears on melting ice or devastating droughts.

But do these common images – often repeated in the media – risk making climate change feel like a far-away problem from people in the global north? And could they perpetuate harmful stereotypes?

These are some of the questions addressed in a new book by Prof Saffron O’Neill, who researches the visual communication of climate change at the University of Exeter.

“The Visual Life of Climate Change” examines the impact of common images used to depict climate change – and how the use of different visuals might help to effect change.

At a launch event for her book in London, a panel of experts – moderated by Carbon Brief’s Ayesha Tandon – discussed some of the takeaways from the book and the “dos and don’ts” of climate imagery.

Power of an image

“This book is about what kind of work images are doing in the world, who has the power and whose voices are being marginalised,” O’Neill told the gathering of journalists and scientists assembled at the Frontline Club in central London for the launch event.

O’Neill opened by presenting a series of climate imagery case studies from her book. This included several examples of images that could be viewed as “disempowering”.

For example, to visualise climate change in small island nations, such as Tuvalu or Fiji, O’Neill said that photographers often “fly in” to capture images of “small children being vulnerable”. She lamented that this narrative “misses the stories about countries like Tuvalu that are really international leaders in climate policy”.

Similarly, images of power-plant smoke stacks, often used in online climate media articles, almost always omit the people that live alongside them, “breathing their pollution”, she said.

Ayesha Tandon with panellists at London’s Frontline Club. Credit: Carbon Brief

During the panel discussion that followed, panellist Dr James Painter – a research associate at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and senior teaching associate at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute – highlighted his work on heatwave imagery in the media.

Painter said that “the UK was egregious for its ‘fun in the sun’ imagery” during dangerous heatwaves.

He highlighted a series of images in the Daily Mail in July 2019 depicting people enjoying themselves on beaches or in fountains during an intense heatwave – even as the text of the piece spoke to the negative health impacts of the heatwave.

In contrast, he said his analysis of Indian media revealed “not one single image of ‘fun in the sun’”.

Meanwhile, climate journalist Katherine Dunn asked: “Are we still using and abusing the polar bear?”. O’Neill suggested that polar bear images “are distant in time and space to many people”, but can still be “super engaging” to others – for example, younger audiences.

Panellist Dr Rebecca Swift – senior vice president of creative at Getty images – identified AI-generated images as “the biggest threat that we, in this space, are all having to fight against now”. She expressed concern that we may need to “prove” that images are “actually real”.

However, she argued that AI will not “win” because, “in the end, authentic images, real stories and real people are what we react to”.

When asked if we expect too much from images, O’Neill argued “we can never pin down a social change to one image, but what we can say is that images both shape and reflect the societies that we live in”. She added:

“I don’t think we can ask photos to do the work that we need to do as a society, but they certainly both shape and show us where the future may lie.”

Watch, read, listen

UNSTOPPABLE WILDFIRES: “Funding cuts, conspiracy theories and ‘powder keg’ pine plantations” are making Patagonia’s wildfires “almost impossible to stop”, said the Guardian.

AUDIO SURVEY: Sverige Radio has published “the world’s, probably, longest audio survey” – a six-hour podcast featuring more than 200 people sharing their questions around climate change.

UNDERSTAND CBAM: European thinktank Bruegel released a podcast “all about” the EU’s carbon adjustment border mechanism, which came into force on 1 January.

Coming up

1 February: Costa Rican general election
3 February: UN Environment Programme Adaptation Fund Climate Innovation Accelerator report launch, Online
2-8 February: Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 12th plenary, Manchester, UK

Pick of the jobs

Climate Central, climate data scientist | Salary: $85,000-$92,000. Location: Remote (US)
UN office to the African Union, environmental affairs officer | Salary: Unknown. Location: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Google Deepmind, research scientist in biosphere models | Salary: Unknown. Location: Zurich, Switzerland

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 30 January 2026: Fire and ice; US formally exits Paris; Climate image faux pas appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 30 January 2026: Fire and ice; US formally exits Paris; Climate image faux pas

Climate Change

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Published

2 days ago

January 30, 2026

Alice Rush

Electric heat pumps are set to play a key role in the UK’s climate strategy, as well as cutting the nation’s reliance on imported fossil fuels.

Heat pumps took centre-stage in the UK government’s recent “warm homes plan”, which said that they could also help cut household energy bills by “hundreds of pounds” a year.

Similarly, innovation agency Nesta estimates that typical households could cut their annual energy bills nearly £300 a year, by switching from a gas boiler to a heat pump.

Yet there has been widespread media coverage in the Times, Sunday Times, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and elsewhere of a report claiming that heat pumps are “more expensive” to run.

The report is from the Green Britain Foundation set up by Dale Vince, owner of energy firm Ecotricity, who campaigns against heat pumps and invests in “green gas” as an alternative.

One expert tells Carbon Brief that Vince’s report is based on “flimsy data”, while another says that it “combines a series of worst-case assumptions to present an unduly pessimistic picture”.

This factcheck explains how heat pumps can cut bills, what the latest data shows about potential savings and how this information was left out of the report from Vince’s foundation.

How heat pumps can cut bills

Heat pumps use electricity to move heat – most commonly from outside air – to the inside of a building, in a process that is similar to the way that a fridge keeps its contents cold.

This means that they are highly efficient, adding three or four units of heat to the house for each unit of electricity used. In contrast, a gas boiler will always supply less than one unit of heat from each unit of gas that it burns, because some of the energy is lost during combustion.

This means that heat pumps can keep buildings warm while using three, four or even five times less energy than a gas boiler. This cuts fossil-fuel imports, reducing demand for gas by at least two-fifths, even in the unlikely scenario that all of the electricity they need is gas-fired.

Simon Evans on BlueSky (@drsimevans.carbonbrief.org): "Going slow on heat pumps could mean UK consumers having to pay an extra £3bn for imported gas 2026-2030, says Energy UK Says UK govt foot-dragging is "increasing costs for energy customers & hampering future system planning"

Since UK electricity supplies are now the cleanest they have ever been, heat pumps also cut the carbon emissions associated with staying warm by around 85%, relative to a gas boiler.

Heat pumps are, therefore, the “central” technology for cutting carbon emissions from buildings.

While heat pumps cost more to install than gas boilers, the UK government’s recent “warm homes plan” says that they can help cut energy bills by “hundreds of pounds” per year.

Similarly, Nesta published analysis showing that a typical home could cut its annual energy bill by £280, if it replaces a gas boiler with a heat pump, as shown in the figure below.

Nesta and the government plan say that significantly larger savings are possible if heat pumps are combined with other clean-energy technologies, such as solar and batteries.

Chart showing that clean electric tech could save households £1,000 a year, compared to gas boilers — Annual energy bill savings (£) for a typical household from April 2026, by using different clean-energy technologies in comparison with a gas boiler. Source: Nesta analysis, using data from Ofgem, the Centre for Net Zero and an Octopus Energy tariff.

Both the government and Nesta’s estimates of bill savings from switching to a heat pump rely on relatively conservative assumptions.

Specifically, the government assumes that a heat pump will deliver 2.8 units of heat for each unit of electricity, on average. This is known as the “seasonal coefficient of performance” (SCoP).

This figure is taken from the government-backed “electrification of heat” trial, which ran during 2020-2022 and showed that heat pumps are suitable for all building types in the UK.

(The Green Britain Foundation report and Vince’s quotes in related coverage repeat a number of heat pump myths, such as the idea that they do not perform well in older properties and require high levels of insulation.)

Nesta assumes a slightly higher SCoP of 3.0, says Madeleine Gabriel, the organisation’s director of sustainable future. (See below for more on what the latest data says about SCoP in recent installations.)

Both the government and Nesta assume that a home with a heat pump would disconnect from the gas grid, meaning that it would no longer need to pay the daily “standing charge” for gas. This currently amounts to a saving of around £130 per year.

Finally, they both consider the impact of a home with a heat pump using a “smart tariff”, where the price of electricity varies according to the time of day.

Such tariffs are now widely available from a variety of energy suppliers and many have been designed specifically for homes that have a heat pump.

Such tariffs significantly reduce the average price for a unit of electricity. Government survey data suggests that around half of heat-pump owners already use such tariffs.

This is important because on the standard rates under the price cap set by energy regulator Ofgem, each unit of electricity costs more than four times as much as a unit of gas.

The ratio between electricity and gas prices is a key determinant of the size and potential for running-cost savings with a heat pump. Countries with a lower electricity-to-gas price ratio consistently see much higher rates of heat-pump adoption.

(Decisions taken by the UK government in its 2025 budget mean that the electricity-to-gas ratio will fall from April, but current forecasts suggest it will remain above four-to-one.)

In contrast, Vince’s report assumes that gas boilers are 90% efficient, whereas data from real homes suggests 85% is more typical. It also assumes that homes with heat pumps remain on the gas grid, paying the standing charge, as well as using only a standard electricity tariff.

Prof Jan Rosenow, energy programme leader at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, tells Carbon Brief that Vince’s report uses “worst-case assumptions”. He says:

“This report cherry-picks assumptions to reach a predetermined conclusion. Most notably, it assumes a gas boiler efficiency of 90%, which is significantly higher than real-world performance…Taken together, the analysis combines a series of worst-case assumptions to present an unduly pessimistic picture.”

Similarly, Gabriel tells Carbon Brief that Vince’s report is based on “flimsy data”. She explains:

“Dale Vince has drawn some very strong conclusions about heat pumps from quite flimsy data. Like Dale, we’d also like to see electricity prices come down relative to gas, but we estimate that, from April, even a moderately efficient heat pump on a standard tariff will be cheaper to run than a gas boiler. Paired with a time-of-use tariff, a heat pump could save £280 versus a boiler and adding solar panels and a battery could triple those savings.”

What the latest data shows about bill savings

The efficiency of heat-pump installations is another key factor in the potential bill savings they can deliver and, here, both the government and Vince’s report take a conservative approach.

They rely on the “electrification of heat” trial data to use an efficiency (SCoP) of 2.8 for heat pumps. However, Rosenow says that recent evidence shows that “substantially higher efficiencies are routinely available”, as shown in the figure below.

Detailed, real-time data on hundreds of heat pump systems around the UK is available via the website Heat Pump Monitor, where the average efficiency – a SCoP of 3.9 – is much higher.

Charts showing that recent heat-pump installations tend to be far more efficient — Number of installations by heat pump efficiency, in the electrification of heat trial (left) and on the website Heat Pump Monitor (right). An efficiency of three means that each unit of electricity delivers three units of heat, on average, across a year. Source: Heat Pump Monitor.

Homes with such efficient heat-pump installations would see even larger bill savings than suggested by the government and Nesta estimates.

Academic research suggests that there are simple and easy-to-implement reasons why these systems achieve much higher efficiency levels than in the electrification of heat trial.

Specifically, it shows that many of the systems in the trial have poor software settings, which means they do not operate as efficiently as their heat pump hardware is capable of doing.

The research suggests that heat pump installations in the UK have been getting more and more efficient over time, as engineers become increasingly familiar with the technology.

It indicates that recently installed heat pumps are 64% more efficient than those in early trials.

Jan Rosenow on BlueSky (@janrosenow.bsky.social): "Well-installed heat pumps installed in the UK today achieve on average a 64% higher efficiency than those during the early trials 15 years ago. It is testament to the brilliant installers and to the technology getting better. More in our recent paper"

Notably, the Green Britain Foundation report only refers to the trial data from the electrification of heat study carried out in 2020-22 and the even earlier “renewable heat premium package” (RHPP). This makes a huge difference to the estimated running costs of a heat pump.

Carbon Brief analysis suggests that a typical household could cut its annual energy bills by nearly £200 with a heat pump – even on a standard electricity tariff – if the system has a SCoP of 3.9.

The savings would be even larger on a smart heat-pump tariff.

In contrast, based on the oldest efficiency figures mentioned in the Green Britain Foundation report, a heat pump could increase annual household bills by as much as £200 on a standard tariff.

To support its conclusions, the report also includes the results of a survey of 1,001 heat pump owners, which, among other things, is at odds with government survey data. The report says “66% of respondents report that their homes are more expensive to heat than the previous system”.

There are several reasons to treat these findings with caution. The survey was carried out in July 2025 and some 45% of the heat pumps involved were installed between 2021-23.

This is a period during which energy prices surged as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting global energy crisis. Energy bills remain elevated as a result of high gas prices.

The wording of the survey question asks if homes are “more or less expensive to heat than with your previous system” – but makes no mention of these price rises.

The question does not ask homeowners if their bills are higher today, with a heat pump, than they would have been with the household’s previous heating system.

If respondents interpreted the question as asking whether their bills have gone up or down since their heat pump was installed, then their answers will be confounded by the rise in prices overall.

There are a number of other seemingly contradictory aspects of the survey that raise questions about its findings and the strong conclusions in the media coverage of the report.

For example, while only 15% of respondents say it is cheaper to heat their home with a heat pump, 49% say that one of the top three advantages of the system is saving money on energy bills.

In addition, 57% of respondents say they still have a boiler, even though 67% say they received government subsidies for their heat-pump installation. It is a requirement of the government’s boiler upgrade scheme (BUS) grants that homeowners completely remove their boiler.

The government’s own survey of BUS recipients finds that only 13% of respondents say their bills have gone up, whereas 37% say their bills have gone down, another 13% say they have stayed the same and 8% thought that it was too early to say.

The post Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Climate Change

Experts: Will Chinese wind power help or hinder Europe’s climate goals?

Published

2 days ago

January 30, 2026

Alice Rush

The European Union and the UK are not on track to meet their 2030 offshore wind targets.

At the same time, Chinese wind-turbine manufacturers – who account for more than half of global wind-turbine capacity – are looking to grow their footprint in the European market, where their presence is currently tiny.

To some, the solution seems clear: allowing Chinese manufacturers to invest in Europe could boost competition, alleviate supply chain bottlenecks and lower costs – not to mention bring climate targets within reach.

But the possibility of a growing role for Chinese wind-turbine manufacturers in the European market has sparked heated debate among European policymakers and industry participants.

In 2024, three of China’s top wind-turbine companies accounted for less than 1% of Europe’s installed wind capacity.

But their focus is increasingly shifting to the continent, which some are concerned could hollow out the one clean-energy industry in which Europe is still competitive.

Competition between European and Chinese manufacturers would be “unfair”, according to critics, because the discounts Chinese firms are offering seem to be at least in part due to state subsidies.

In a recent report published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, we explore whether Chinese wind turbine companies are competitive in Europe and the real risks and benefits of Chinese participation in European offshore wind markets.

Our findings build on interviews with policymakers and industry experts, who have been granted anonymity to allow for candid discussion.

Cost advantages are less clear-cut than they appear

China ranks first for many of the global statistics for offshore wind. It has been by far the largest offshore wind market in the world for several years running.

China had 47 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind installed, as of September 2025, more than all other countries combined. Furthermore, China also dominates several key fields critical to offshore wind globally, ranging from permanent magnets to offshore installation vessels.

This stands in firm contrast to Europe – where offshore development has experienced several years of slow growth – and the US, which faces an almost complete halt in new development under the Trump administration.

As happened before in solar and batteries, China’s offshore wind industry scale-up has brought about stunning declines in installation costs.

However, this cost advantage is not as straightforward as these headline numbers would suggest. Despite the vast difference in capacity cost, the electricity produced by Chinese offshore wind farms is only 30% cheaper.

A key reason for this is the lower overall capacity factor of China’s offshore wind sector, referring to the actual output of windfarms in China, compared to their maximum possible output. This can be partly explained by lower wind speeds at China’s offshore sites, but could also relate to lower performance of Chinese turbines, as well as power transmission issues.

Lower production costs in China also would not necessarily translate to the European market, as Chinese cost advantages would be partly offset by transport costs, as well as higher insurance and financing premiums.

Greater localisation of turbine production could mitigate against some of these premiums, but would be offset by higher input costs in Europe.

Nonetheless, as more European governments add local content requirements, Chinese manufacturers have announced plans to set up European factories for turbine blades and towers, with core components shipped from China.

These factories could also be costlier to finance than those back home if financing for investments also comes from Europe, further reducing the cost advantage enjoyed by China’s domestic offshore-energy infrastructure.

Issues beyond costs and bottlenecks

European offshore wind development plans have faced a number of hurdles, including rising costs, slow permitting processes, inefficient auction designs, lengthy grid connection times and limited availability of parts, port capacity and installation vessels.

The small number of players in Europe’s offshore wind sector is seen as part of the problem, according to our interviews.

Currently, there are only three major wind turbine manufacturers in the European offshore wind market: Vestas, Siemens Gamesa and GE Vernova.

The latter announced in 2024 that it is downsizing its offshore wind business and has not taken new offshore orders, although it remains active in onshore wind projects. This reduces competition and could hinder efforts to bring down the cost of offshore wind projects.

Bottlenecks, inadequate industry capacity and lack of competition cannot in themselves explain the current European predicament. Developers we interviewed also note that offshore wind auctions with price caps and stringent contractual terms, designed with an expectation of falling costs, have also been part of the problem.

When these auctions have failed – as in the UK in 2023 and Germany in 2025 – this led to capacity contraction, higher costs and industry consolidation, which have only made it more difficult to reach policy targets, according to a report by European offshore wind company Ørsted.

Even with improved European auction design, it may take years for Europe’s offshore wind installation numbers to recover. With or without Chinese participation, it will also take time to build domestic manufacturing bases and installation vessels.

Pathways to Chinese involvement

Meanwhile, Chinese developers benefit from a large and growing domestic market in China. At the same time, however, intense competition on price and quality is spurring them to seek opportunities overseas.

Throughout Europe’s supply chain, Chinese components and services are already helping alleviate shortages and bottlenecks.

Still, our report found there are divergent views on whether a greater Chinese presence in Europe’s wind markets represents a threat or an opportunity – or both.

Policymakers are expected to continue to emphasise concerns about technology dependence and cybersecurity risks, leading to more domestic content requirements and increased scrutiny of Chinese deals.

The case of the 300 megawatt (MW) Luxcara project in Germany highlights the difficulties for Chinese market entry. Chinese manufacturer Mingyang was initially selected by the project owner in 2024, but was later replaced by Siemens-Gamesa, reportedly due to concerns about security and political risks.

The recent announcement of a deal between the UK’s Octopus Energy and Mingyang may illustrate an emerging model. According to Octopus, Mingyang will supply the physical equipment, while Octopus will supply the software and manage the turbines.

Mingyang will still need access to operational data to support ongoing maintenance, but this can be provided periodically by Octopus without compromising security, the energy company told us.

Meanwhile, following policy signals such as the EU’s new pricing mechanism for electric vehicle imports from China, it seems likely that policymakers will continue to encourage Chinese players to establish production bases in Europe and to require technology licensing or technology transfer in exchange for market access. This would amount to applying the Chinese industrial development model in Europe.

This could allow for technological learning in Europe. In China, the largest players have deployed advanced automated manufacturing lines, including robotic blade bonding, modular stator assembly and real-time quality monitoring – although this may have implications for job creation, a stated aim in Europe’s clean-energy policy.

Despite pointing to some advantages, our interviews suggest that Chinese participation in Europe’s offshore wind market is not a panacea.

Its low costs are unlikely to be transferrable to the European context. But greater Chinese participation in auctions and in manufacturing, with local content requirements and other guardrails, could help spur competition in Europe.

At the same time, our report suggests that the focus on China distracts from deeper issues. Without a growing domestic market, it may be difficult for European players to reduce manufacturing costs and upgrade production, with or without Chinese partners.

Ultimately, industry participants tell us that the greatest determinant of success in Europe’s offshore wind market will be consistent policy support, rather than a decision to allow – or to block – Chinese participation.