Published

2 years ago

December 24, 2024

Alice Rush

Astrid Schomaker is the new executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Schomaker, who is German, was previously the director for green diplomacy and multilateralism with the European Commission.

She took over as the UN’s biodiversity chief in July this year, just months out from the major UN biodiversity summit, COP16, which will take place in Cali, Colombia from 21 October to 1 November.

Carbon Brief spoke to Schomaker ahead of the Cali talks to discuss progress on nature targets, key negotiation sticking points and boosting the profile of biodiversity COPs.

On COP16: “We had an ambitious framework put in place just two years ago and now we need to look at whether this has actually been the game-changer that people think it has been.”
On low national biodiversity plan submissions: “The start was never going to be fast. I think the important thing we’re looking at is the work is underway.”
On combining the efforts of the biodiversity, climate and desertification COPs: “What one would hope is that these three COPs now can actually give a push to countries committing to bringing this together.”
On biodiversity finance: “There is movement across the world and, therefore, I think the outlook is broadly positive. Is it enough? No. Does it have to be scaled up? Absolutely.”
On Colombia as host: “They’ve made a lot of efforts to make this COP a success. And, in Susana Muhamad, we have a very knowledgeable and a very charismatic and very dedicated COP host.”

On security: “We are reassured that good security arrangements are in place, both in the city of Cali and for the COP specifically as well.”
On world leaders at COP16: “The nature crisis has to be understood as being at the same level of seriousness as the climate crisis and, therefore, also requiring the same level of political attention.”
On the US and the CBD: “Whatever the outcome of the next elections will be, ratification has not been a subject that was actively discussed in the US recently.”
On Indigenous input: “This is actually a big issue on our agenda and also one that’s very important for Colombia.”
On COP17 hosts: “We have two offers on the table at the moment – Azerbaijan and Armenia.”
On genetic resources: “We think this could actually generate considerable finance streams for biodiversity-rich countries and, therefore, it’s important that we move ahead with it and put in place a mechanism that is workable.”

Carbon Brief: We are less than two weeks out from the start of COP16. There are thousands of people all around the world getting ready to head to Cali in Colombia to discuss implementation of the 2030 targets, sharing of genetic resources, biodiversity finance, all of this range of other issues. I assume this is going to be a huge moment for you in your role, especially as you only took it up in July. How are you feeling ahead of the talks? Are you excited, intimidated?

Astrid Schomaker: Well, mostly excited, and quite optimistic. I think for us in the convention, it’s a big moment. We had an ambitious framework put in place just two years ago [at COP15] and now we need to look at whether this has actually been the game-changer that people think it has been. And that, of course, means we need to look [to see if] these commitments[are being] actually implemented, and COP will give us a good chance.

For us, it’s important to see also the huge mobilisation. We have the biggest COP ever. We have the biggest green zone. We have more media, more business, more stakeholders [and] more delegates than we ever had before.

So we think that, in a way, when people say it’s nature’s moment, now really is nature’s moment. People [have] come to realise that we need to have a different relationship with nature. Take better care of nature. Look at nature together with climate change and see that we cannot solve the climate crisis without looking at the nature crisis. So it’s mostly a moment of anticipation and excitement.

Back to top

CB: Broadly speaking, what are the main outcomes you want to see from COP16?

AS: The first thing is to have a look at how implementation is actually progressing. We said at COP15 [that] countries should prioritise national targets. So far, we have 79 countries that have put national targets in place. We expect more by COP, and maybe also some to be announced at COP. So that’s quite a good number.

What is important in particular, and then compared to what happened previously under the Aichi process, is that most of these national targets actually reflect the global targets, so they make direct linkages. And also, it’s not just a kind of pick-and-choose approach. But it’s in the majority, actually, [that] all targets of the GBF [Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework] are reflected in the national targets. Or at least, I think more than 75% of those targets are reflected in national targets. So that’s a good number.

On the national biodiversity strategies and action plans [NBSAPs], the number does not look quite so good. We are at 20 so far. Again, we know lots of countries are now finalising their plans, stepping up action. One may think it’s a low number – and certainly this has been pointed out by some NGOs.

On the other hand, we have been holding workshops around the world, and we’ve seen that countries literally around the world are working on these action plans and, in a way, they take longer because countries have taken to heart this call for a whole of government approach.

So it’s not an environment ministry which sits somewhere, drafts a plan, adopts it and submits it. It’s really an exercise where governments come together across the board, where stakeholders are being consulted and then often also where these action plans are then adopted at a higher political level.

So at the COP, we will have an opportunity to look at these first action plans and targets. We have a pre-meeting, our subsidiary body on implementation, that’s basically entirely dedicated to looking at these plans and then to discussing where are the bottlenecks, where are the difficulties, where are the good practices that can be shared.

Back to top

CB: Back on the NBSAPs then. As you say, there has been criticism from NGOs like WWF and other places about this figure of 20-odd countries at the moment out of 196 – about 10% – that have submitted these national biodiversity plans. That seems like a very low number, especially if you think about the climate COP. If only that number of nationally determined contributions were submitted, there would be uproar, let’s say. Were you surprised by this low level of submissions so far? And also, are you worried that it could indicate that countries are not taking global nature pledges seriously and even that they could not be met by 2030 as a result?

AS: I think if we look at the deadline, it was very short. I mean, COP15 took place in December 2022, so it’s less than two years. Many countries had to put new processes in place, had to get funding. So I mean, the start was never going to be fast. I think the important thing we’re looking at is the work is underway. And there, I’m confident to say, it’s literally underway around the world in countries. So whether the deadline itself is met on the dot is not what I think we’re really looking at. We’re looking at how far countries advance, how are they talking to their stakeholders, how are they managing to also have these new processes that would involve better reflecting traditional knowledge, for example, involving Indigenous people, where that’s relevant.

Bringing the business sector on board was, as you know, in the Global Biodiversity Framework. There are also targets for business. So all of that takes time. Since we’ve done these workshops, and we understand that countries are working on that, I think our assessment is globally positive. This is not to say that more than 20 would [not] have been better, but I think the important thing is to look that progress is there. And I’m confident that by the end of the year, the number will be significantly higher.

Back to top

CB: Do you have any estimate of what that number could be?

AS: No, I don’t.

CB: Will CBD analysis on the plans and targets put forward by countries still be done this year, in light of the low number of NBSAP submissions?

AS: The full analysis is basically for COP17. That’s when we have our stocktake. So what we’ve done now, and you can see that in the documents that have been published, we’ve been just looking basically at how the targets are reflected. We haven’t got an in-depth analysis and also, at this point in time, countries were asked to submit their targets. They were not asked to report to us how they are implementing those targets. So we’re basically still at this level of really demonstrating that the commitments were taken seriously and looking at how they’re being translated into targets, but we’re not at the stage of analysing implementation.

Back to top

CB: Do you think that the NBSAP issue indicates that there needs to be a wider, more UN COP-level reform? Susana Muhamad this week was talking about unifying these targets that are put forward to the climate change, biodiversity and desertification COPs. What is your take on that opinion?

AS: I don’t think that’s a call for UN reform or necessarily unifying targets. I think what everybody is looking at is, first of all, the opportunity that we have this year with these three Rio Conventions having their COPs in rapid succession. And, of course, with basically planning processes going on under land degradation neutrality for desertification, and then national adaptation plans and the enhancement of the NDCs [nationally determined contributions] under the climate convention, then our NBSAPs.

What we have all been saying – specifically two weeks ago in New York when the Rio Trio initiative was launched – [is] that it makes sense to bring this planning process together, especially at the national level. We very often have different focal points for climate change, desertification and biodiversity. They don’t necessarily talk to each other. They are often in different ministries.

These planning processes are often subject to different funding streams and support, so it’s actually difficult to bring them together at a national level. But it would make a lot more sense and we’ve seen the potential is big [as] the numbers, the percentages, where the plans refer to each other are not high. So there’s scope for improvement.

What one would hope is that these three COPs now can actually give a push to countries committing to bringing this together and, ideally, also to us as convention secretariats to get a mandate to support this better coordination of processes at national level.

Back to top

CB: I wanted to ask about finance, because that is obviously going to be a huge talking point as well at this COP. How would you like to see developed countries showing leadership at COP16 in meeting the nature finance target in particular of hitting at least $20 billion per year by 2025 for developing countries? Are you optimistic that this goal will be achieved?

AS: Well, that’s a difficult question. First of all, the goal on ODA [official development assistance] is part of a broader financing goal, of course. But since you asked specifically about ODA, we don’t have figures beyond 2022. The figures that the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] has published, which you may have seen, indicate a very positive trend on nature finance up to 2022. We have no reason to believe that this trend would have changed and if the trend persists, we are probably on a good way towards the $20 billion by 2025.

From the perspective of many developing countries, I think the expectation was that more funds would have been put into the newly created Global Biodiversity Framework Fund at the GEF [Global Environment Facility]. So we hope that at the COP, indeed, new pledges will be made so that this fund will see more funding.

But I think we have to realise that most biodiversity finance streams are bilateral streams and don’t go through the funds. We also have to see that in addition to the framework fund, there is the Kunming Biodiversity Fund that China put in place that has also been capitalised with $200 million.

So there is movement across the world and, therefore, I think the outlook is broadly positive. Is it enough? No. Does it have to be scaled up? Absolutely. I think we will have good discussions at COP [on] how that can be done. And, of course, we also need to continue in the same vein as we discussed before, how the climate and biodiversity crises overlap and how also these funding streams, to an extent, overlap.

Back to top

CB: Looking then at Colombia’s role as host country for this COP and Susana Muhamad’s role as summit president. Do you think that the profile of both the country and her as president will have a positive impact on the outcome of the talks? Especially compared to COP15, which didn’t end up taking place in the host country of China.

AS: At COP15, we had a very active presidency and then supported by an active host. So there was almost a beautiful coming together of China and Canada and we had an excellent outcome.

For COP16, yes, I think the fact, first of all, that the COP is taking place in a biodiversity-rich country is already positive. We have seen Colombia take leadership on biodiversity issues for many years. Including, for example, at COP15, when they led with Germany on the accelerator initiative.

There’s a lot that this country can bring to the debate including, incidentally, in terms of a very lively Indigenous community and a lot of traditional knowledge and discussion around that which will, in any case, take place at our COP.

So I think Colombia is an excellent host. They’ve made a lot of efforts to make this COP a success. And in Susana Muhamad, we have a very knowledgeable and a very charismatic and very dedicated COP host. So I think the ingredients are in place for this to be a very good, successful COP.

Back to top

CB: Also, though, their role as host has not been without a couple of difficulties along the way. There were reports during the summer that there was a dissident rebel group threatening to disrupt the COP, although the threat has since been withdrawn. Also there are peace talks ongoing between the government and the ELN [National Liberation Army]. Are you, and the CBD in general, reassured about the security of the summit?

AS: Yes, we are. Of course, we know that Colombia is a country with an ongoing internal conflict. We know that there is an ongoing peace process to which the government is dedicating a lot of attention. We have worked very closely with the government, both at country level, then also at sub-national level with the Valle del Cauca and with the city to look at the security plans. We have seen the government come together, ministries across the board working on that. So, yes, I think, we are reassured that good security arrangements are in place both in the city of Cali and for the COP specifically as well.

Back to top

CB: There are going to be several world leaders there that you were announcing a couple of weeks ago – Lula, the president of Brazil, the newly inaugurated President Sheinbaum in Mexico, alongside other world leaders. This is definitely a change of pace from COP15 and previous biodiversity COPs, where there was not this same politicking around it, especially compared to climate COPs. Do you think that this will help to bring more attention to the biodiversity COP, given that it generally receives a fraction of the coverage and the interest compared to the climate COP in particular? Was it the aim of inviting world leaders to amp up the profile?

AS: Yes to both. I think the presence of world leaders amplifies the profile of the convention. I think the intention of Colombia as a host – and, of course, we very much support that – is to demonstrate that the nature crisis has to be understood as being at the same level of seriousness as the climate crisis and therefore also requiring the same level of political attention.

That’s why they have invited heads of state and government to come to the COP. We think that’s a very good signal, especially because, as I think Susana Muhamad always indicates, and I mentioned earlier, we will not be able to look at climate change in isolation from the nature and biodiversity crisis.

So if we want the climate targets of 1.5C to be within reach, we really also need to look at how nature can contribute. And by bringing heads of state and government that are talking about this a lot to our COP, I think we will succeed more to get this message heard by a wider audience.

Back to top

CB: My next question is slightly off topic but, out of curiosity, has the CBD engaged in any talks with the US in recent years about them ratifying the convention? And also, could the upcoming presidential election have any impact on this prospect?

AS: I mean, we always have contacts with the United States. We’re just across the border [at the CBD headquarters in Montreal], so we regularly talk to the government. The United States are always participating at the COPs with reasonably big delegations. They are engaged in all our meetings. I’m not aware that we have had specific discussions about ratification and, at the same level, whatever the outcome of the next elections will be, ratification has not been a subject that was actively discussed in the US recently. As well as I know, inter alia, because it needs a congressional majority that has not been available in the past years.

Back to top

CB: Looking at your own background in the European Commission, you must be well versed in figuring out how to make policies work for both developed and developing countries. Particularly around policies like the anti-deforestation regulation, which was recently postponed for a year. How do you plan to ensure that the input of biodiverse, developing countries and also Indigenous peoples and local communities, these other key stakeholders, remain at the front and centre of COP16 talks?

AS: Well, especially on this latter issue, on the Indigenous peoples and local communities, this is actually a big issue on our agenda and also one that’s very important for Colombia. [It’s] where a lot of mobilisation has taken place over the past weeks, of Indigenous groups coming together and formulating their policies.

So what we think will happen at the COP is that we will adopt a new work programme for Indigenous people, but possibly also look at the upgrading of what we currently have as a working group to a proper subsidiary body. So that would elevate, in a way, the voice of Indigenous people and all the traditional knowledge they bring to the debate.

For developing countries, I mean more broadly, I think everybody realises that, like climate change, biodiversity may be a localised issue, but it is a global challenge. So we need action at all levels and the biodiversity-rich countries are, notably, [largely] in the global south.

So that’s why we have such a big discussion on resource mobilisation, why we have a big discussion on sharing of expertise, of knowledge and technology. This will have to continue at COP. There’s a lot of south-south cooperation that we also like to support and there’s a lot of, let’s say, willingness and mobilisation across the global south that will also come with big delegations that we hope to support through the COP discussions and also through the decisions that are being taken and through the various support programmes that UN agencies like UNEP [UN Environment Programme] and UNDP [UN Development Programme] run, for example, in supporting NBSAP processes and others.

Back to top

CB: Looking far ahead into the future, it was recently confirmed that Azerbaijan has put its name forward to host COP17, the next UN biodiversity summit. Firstly, what is your reaction to that, especially given some of the controversies around their hosting of the climate COP – given that they are a petrostate – and also their human rights issues? Also, when will the next host be decided? Will the announcement be made at the end of COP16?

AS: The way that works for the biodiversity convention, we adopted a decision I think at COP13 that looks at a regional rotation. And, indeed, COP17 should be hosted by the eastern European group. We have two offers on the table at the moment – Azerbaijan and Armenia. If there would be no consensus in the eastern European group, that they would sort of put forward one or the other, the way this works for us is that this is a procedural decision. Such procedural decisions could be taken by vote at the end of the COP.

Back to top

CB: What is your reaction then to both Azerbaijan and Armenia having put their names forward for it? Are you excited about either option?

AS: Well, hosting a COP is a huge responsibility and I think Azerbaijan experiences this now as they’re getting ready to host the climate COP. If a country puts itself forward, it puts its national policies under a global spotlight. So I think it takes courage to do it and we’re grateful that we have two candidates that want to host us in 2026.

Back to top

CB: Thank you for taking the time to speak, I really appreciate it. Is there anything else you wanted to add, or anything else you think would be good to mention just two weeks out from the start of COP?

AS: As you mentioned yourself in the beginning, there are important decisions to be taken. You might think it’s just an implementation COP, but it is an implementation COP. And implementation, in many ways, is just as important or more important than making new commitments.

Maybe one area I would highlight in addition to the ones we discussed, and that’s that of digital sequencing information [DSI]. At COP15, we already put in place a decision to say that we wanted a multilateral mechanism that looks at how this digital sequence information from genetic information, [how] the benefits of it could be shared more equitably.

So we are looking forward to this complex issue now being resolved at COP16 with such a mechanism being instituted. Because we think this could actually generate considerable finance streams for biodiversity-rich countries and, therefore, it’s important that we move ahead with it and put in place a mechanism that is workable for all countries and that allows us, in a way, to move ahead with this mindset shift that we see in the business world. With more and more businesses coming to the discussion, but also the businesses realising that you cannot build your business model and your business success on nature for free.

So there is a price to be paid and the sequencing information discussion sort of exemplifies this very well. As, in general, the fact that business is now coming to the table in greater numbers and is asking a lot of questions about how they can measure their impacts, how they can disclose what are the right metrics.

All these discussions that will take place at COP16, I think, are very important given that business is not only very dependent on nature, but also has important impacts on nature. They just need to be part of the discussion along with everybody else.

Back to top

CB: On that, on both DSI and also businesses showing up in greater numbers at COP, are you worried about a potential impact of lobbying weakening the text around DSI, in particular now that the talks that have been ongoing for so long are reaching their end stage and everything is going to hit the fan, essentially, with businesses and countries needing to start taking these things into account? Are you worried that there could be a ramping up of this lobbying at this COP?

AS: Well, I think there are different groups of businesses that will be involved at COP, and there’s only a certain subset of businesses that might be concerned in the first place by the DSI.

So yes, of course, if you are a company, you are worried about how this mechanism will work and I think they will come to the table expressing their concerns and arguing for a workable mechanism.

But we have heard lots of companies from sectors that are most concerned, of pharmaceuticals, biotech, etc, that have actually already done this what I call the ‘mindset shift’ and that have said ‘we realise this is something we need to do, we want to do, but we also want it to be workable’. And I think that’s an important consideration and they will bring that to the table for sure.

CB: Great, thanks again.

AS: Thank you and see you in Cali.

Back to top

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: UN biodiversity chief Astrid Schomaker appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Interview: UN biodiversity chief Astrid Schomaker

Climate Change

Interview: COP31 president says electrification is ‘surest way to protect citizens’

Published

4 days ago

July 10, 2026

Alice Rush

Last month, COP31 president-designate Murat Kurum launched a target for 35% of the world’s final energy to come from electricity by 2035.

In an interview with Carbon Brief, Kurum says that the target was not a political choice, but instead reflects the latest evidence on “what is needed to keep 1.5C within reach”.

The ongoing Hormuz crisis means there is an “urgent” need for renewables and electrification, which are the “surest and cleanest way to protect citizens” from high energy prices.

Kurum says that the Brazilian and Ethiopian presidencies of COP30 and COP32, as well as the EU, UK and Canada, have welcomed the target.

He adds that “all have confirmed it will be central to discussions at COP31”.

In the interview, Kurum – who is also Turkey’s minister of environment, urbanisation and climate change – tells Carbon Brief where the target came from and what he expects to happen next.

Carbon Brief: You recently launched a target for 35% of the world’s final energy to come from electricity by 2035. Where did this idea come from?

Murat Kurum: The “35 by 35” target is grounded in technical data and based on the IEA [International Energy Agency] and IRENA [International Renewable Energy Agency] analysis of what is needed to keep [the 1.5C Paris Agreement target] within reach. The level was not chosen politically. Rather, it reflects what the science and the energy modelling tell us is required.

CB: Why do you think an electrification target is important right now?

MK: The case for the target is urgent right now. The latest war in the Gulf has made energy diversification – and, in particular, renewable energy transition and electrification – a top global priority, because it is the surest and cleanest way to protect citizens around the world from high and volatile energy prices.

At a time of real fragmentation in international relations, a single, shared target is needed to focus global efforts by aligning governments, businesses and investors behind a common benchmark and to send a clear market signal.

CB: Which countries are supporting this target so far?

MK: The reaction so far has been extremely positive and, while we presented our target at the UN June climate meetings in Bonn, our earlier conversations with parties at both the Petersberg and Copenhagen climate dialogues paved the way for this launch.

For example, the EU, UK, and Canada have welcomed the target, as have the Brazilian COP30 and Ethiopian COP32 presidencies. All have confirmed it will be central to discussions at COP31.

This support has been reflected in the business community as well, with polling by the We Mean Business Coalition showing that 90% of businesses expect to have largely electrified their operations by 2035 and that 88% expect electrification will make their business more competitive.

CB: How do you hope and expect to see this taken forward at the COP? Could it be in the formal COP outcomes, or part of the second global stocktake?

MK: We are now taking electrification forward as an “action agenda” initiative to bring actors together and drive progress. The action agenda and the [formal COP] negotiations are separate, but complementary, with different processes and thresholds, and it is too early to say what all countries might be able to agree in the negotiations. That is for parties to determine as the year progresses.

We are focused and determined to use COP31 as a moment to spark a global conversation about electrification.

CB: What are the key priorities for reaching the target?

MK: The critical sectors for reaching the target are buildings, transport and industry, which together account for around 45% of global emissions. Financial support for the developing world and investment in grids and infrastructure is also crucial.

The target also builds on COP28’s target to triple renewable energy capacity and seeks to take advantage of the tumbling cost of renewable power and other technologies critical to the energy transition. This is a journey that Turkey itself is taking ambitious steps on, including our plan to reach 120GW [gigawatts] of renewable capacity by 2035.

This interview was first published in the 10 July 2026 edition of Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed weekly newsletter. Sign up for free.

The post Interview: COP31 president says electrification is ‘surest way to protect citizens’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Interview: COP31 president says electrification is ‘surest way to protect citizens’

Climate Change

DeBriefed 10 July 2026: Deadly Europe heat | EU electrification leak | COP31 president interview

Published

4 days ago

July 10, 2026

Alice Rush

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

This week

‘Catastrophic’ climate impacts

RECORD HEAT: Western Europe experienced its hottest June on record – some 3C above average – according to analysis covered by the Guardian. It said the finding came “as the UK enters its third heatwave of the year and wildfires ravage France and Spain”. Le Monde said 10,000 people had been evacuated due to wildfires in southern France.

‘EXCESS DEATHS’: The June heatwave killed more than 2,700 people in France, according to a guest post analysis for Carbon Brief. Similar analysis for Germany said there had been more than 5,000 “excess deaths”, reported Bloomberg. Meanwhile, an ongoing heatwave in the US has killed at least 30 people, said USA Today.

STORM TEST: Floods have killed 39 people in Guangxi province in southern China, said state-run newspaper China Daily. Scientists warned that climate change and the weather phenomenon El Niño are exposing China to “catastrophic storms” that will test its resilience in 2026, reported Reuters. The nation’s latest official climate report found that “extreme weather and climate events…have become more frequent and severe”, said China National Radio.

Around the world

EU ELECTRIFICATION: The European Commission is set to unveil a 2040 target for EU electrification on 17 July, reported Bloomberg. Citing a leaked draft, it said the plan would aim to cut oil use in half and gas use by two-thirds.
PEAKING PLAN: China has published an “action plan” for peaking emissions during the 15th five-year plan period to 2030, reported Xinhua. It lists targets including “new energy vehicles” making up 30% of cars on the road by 2030, said Reuters.
CLIMATE ‘FLAT EARTHER’: The Trump administration has appointed Matthew Wielicki, described by Politico as a “climate critic”, to lead the office in charge of the US national climate assessment. Common Dreams quoted a scientist describing the move as “like putting a flat-earther in charge of NASA”.
UGANDAN SUIT: A group of farmers from Uganda have launched a legal suit in London against the East African oil pipeline, according to Climate Home News.

23%

The share of Irish electricity used by data centres in 2025, reported the Irish Times.

2%

The share of global electricity used by data centres in the same year, according to Carbon Brief analysis of the Energy Institute statistical review.

Latest climate research

Meltwater from the western Himalayan glaciers will peak at around 2C of warming, before declining at higher warming levels | Environmental Research Letters
Current coral restoration efforts may be unsuitable for temperate reefs, including those in the Mediterranean | Nature Ecology & Evolution
People tend to underestimate the level of “broad public support” for climate action | Nature Climate Change

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

Captured

Average number of days per year with a daily maximum temperature of at least 30C in a selection of major European cities, for each decade since the 1950s

Carbon Brief explained – via eight facts – why air conditioning rates in some parts of Europe are relatively low, as the technology emerges as a new front in the global “culture war” over climate action. Analysis for the article illustrated that, in many parts of the world’s fastest-warming continent, air conditioning simply was not needed in the past.

Spotlight

COP31 president speaks to Carbon Brief on electrification

This week, Carbon Brief interviews Murat Kurum, president-designate of the COP31 UN climate talks in November and Turkey’s minister of environment, urbanisation and climate change, on his target to boost global electrification.

Carbon Brief: You recently launched a target for 35% of the world’s final energy to come from electricity by 2035. Where did this idea come from?

CB: Why do you think an electrification target is important right now?

COP31 president-designate Murat Kurum. Credit: Supplied by COP31 secretariat

CB: Which countries are supporting this target so far?

For example, the EU, UK, and Canada have welcomed the target, as have the Brazilian COP30 and Ethiopian COP32 presidencies. All have confirmed it will be central to discussions at COP31.

CB: How do you hope and expect to see this taken forward at the COP? Could it be in the formal COP outcomes, or part of the second global stocktake?

We are focused and determined to use COP31 as a moment to spark a global conversation about electrification.

CB: What are the key priorities for reaching the target?

Watch, read, listen

HEATED: A Financial Times long read asked if Europe – the world’s fastest-warming continent – is “prepared for a world of extreme heat”.

LITIGATED: The Outrage and Optimism podcast spoke to Prof Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham about the latest trends in climate litigation.

‘SHATTERED’: Confidence in fossil-fuel exports via the strait of Hormuz has been “shattered”, wrote IEA chief Fatih Birol for Foreign Policy.

Coming up

13-17 July: Meeting of open-ended working group on the Montreal Protocol, Bangkok, Thailand
13-24 July: International Seabed Authority Council, Kingston, Jamaica
16 July: International Energy Agency critical minerals outlook 2026, online

Pick of the jobs

Wellcome Trust, head of policy – climate and health | Salary: £84,640-£105,800. Location: London
Financial Times, senior reporter, Sustainable Views | Salary: Unknown. Location: London
North Texas Public Broadcasting, climate, energy and environment reporter | Salary: $70,000-$78,000. Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, head of communications and engagement | Salary: £65,000-£70,000. Location: London

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 10 July 2026: Deadly Europe heat | EU electrification leak | COP31 president interview appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 10 July 2026: Deadly Europe heat | EU electrification leak | COP31 president interview

Climate Change

Eight facts about air conditioning amid an overheated global debate

Published

4 days ago

July 10, 2026

Alice Rush

As successive heatwaves hit Europe, air-conditioning (AC) has emerged as a new front in the international “culture war” over climate action.

France, Germany and the UK have experienced record-breaking heat and thousands of heat-related deaths this summer, with June temperatures in many regions passing 40C.

This has drawn attention to the relatively low rates of AC use in these countries – and in Europe as a whole – especially when compared to its widespread adoption in the US.

Legacy newspapers, bloggers and even Elon Musk have all weighed in on “European hostility” to AC, criticising Europe’s “cultural conservatism” and “overbearing governments”.

Right-wing politicians, including National Rally in France and the UK Conservatives, have styled themselves as champions of AC, while opposing efforts to tackle climate change.

Missing from most of these interventions is the fact that human-caused climate change has made once-rare heat far more common, in what is the world’s fastest warming continent.

Carbon Brief analysis for this article shows that, until the 2020s, it was rare for many European cities to see days above 30C, making AC an unnecessary expense.

Here, Carbon Brief explains – via eight facts – why AC rates in some parts of Europe are relatively low, as well as clarifies and contextualises some of the misleading claims circulating about the technology.

Much of Europe has not needed AC in the past
AC is already widely used in hotter parts of Europe
Some European nations have ‘resisted’ AC – but its popularity is growing
AC emissions are growing, but its climate impact could be limited
Heat from AC can contribute to directly warming cities
More AC could help to reduce heat deaths in Europe
‘Net-zero rules’ are not blocking AC installation in the UK
AC is not the only answer to overheating cities

Much of Europe has not needed AC in the past

AC installation rates in northern parts of Europe are very low. The best available estimates suggest that 6% of households in Germany and just 4% in England use AC.

However, these rates are largely explained by the historical climates in these nations.

Unlike the US, much of the housing stock and infrastructure in Europe was built at a time when AC did not exist and was not necessary.

Moreover, nations such as France, Germany and the UK have only started to regularly experience extreme heat in recent decades.

The chart below shows the average number of days per year, in each decade since the 1950s, when maximum temperatures have exceeded 30C in major European cities. Capitals such as London and Paris have seen a significant jump since around 2000.

Prof Jan Rosenow, an energy and climate researcher at the University of Oxford, tells Carbon Brief:

“For most of the 20th century, northern Europe simply didn’t need cooling. Homes in Britain and Germany were built to keep heat in, not out, because winters were cold and summers rarely hot.”

Much of the commentary about the relatively low rates of European AC use focuses on cultural or “ideological” factors. (See: Some European nations have ‘resisted’ AC – but its popularity is growing.)

However, Rosenow says people’s views on AC in these countries likely stem from their historically colder climates. He adds:

“Attitudes formed around those facts, not the other way round…There is a cultural element, but it is the product of climate, not of some green ideological project.”

In the past, many in Europe relied on traditional methods to keep buildings cool. Richard Black, head of communications at Climate Analytics, made this point in a post on LinkedIn:

“Once, residents of cities such as Paris could cope with summer heatwaves by opening shutters and windows during the night, and closing them again in the morning to trap the cool air inside…We’ve reached a limit to this sort of adaptation.”

Now, with Europe around 2.5C warmer than pre-industrial levels, climate change is routinely driving record-breaking heatwaves, even in the north of the continent.

This is forcing a reappraisal of societies that were “built for a climate that no longer exists”, as the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) put it in a recent report.

Experts broadly agree that much of Europe will indeed need more AC, particularly in spaces housing the most vulnerable populations, such as care homes, schools and hospitals.

At the same time, they also emphasise broader, “passive” efforts to make cities and homes cooler alongside increased AC use. (See: AC is not the only answer to overheating cities.)

Back to top

AC is already widely used in hotter parts of Europe

During periods of extreme heat, articles criticising “European hostility” towards the technology frequently note that “only about 20%” of households in Europe have AC.

Often, this is contrasted with the US, where more than 90% of households have AC installed. (In fact, the US is something of a global outlier, matched only by Japan.)

However, the continent-wide figure for Europe obscures the reality. In southern Europe – where temperatures are and have always been higher – AC is relatively common.

The map below, based on official EU data, shows that southern European nations use far more household energy for “space cooling” than those in the north.

Percentage share of household energy consumption used for “space cooling”, including AC, in EU member states and the Balkans. Source: Eurostat.

Government figures show that nearly 60% of Italian households have AC. Household-level data in many countries is patchy, but various analyses have placed that figure at 70-80% in Greece and 41% in Spain – with higher penetration in the hotter, southern part of the country.

The same pattern can be seen within France. International coverage has stressed the country’s “cultural resistance to AC”, citing a nationwide figure from 2020 that suggests “only” 25% of French households have AC.

However, polling data from customers of the Hello Watt energy app suggests that there is a distinct north-south divide in French uptake. At least 60% of households in Mediterranean regions of France are equipped with AC, according to these figures.

This can be seen in the map below, with households across northern regions, including Paris, reporting far lower AC installation rates, often below 5%.

Percentage share of households equipped with AC in departments of mainland France, according to polling data. Source: Hello Watt.

Finally, when making such comparisons to Europe, it is worth noting that high rates of AC use reported for the entire US also obscure significant differences between – and within – US states. This, too, aligns with differences in regional climate.

Hotter states in the US south have near-universal AC access. But in Washington, a north-western state with a climate more comparable to that of western Europe, 66% of people have AC in their homes.

Back to top

Some European nations have ‘resisted’ AC – but its popularity is growing

International commentators have written extensively about Europe’s “longstanding resistance to cooling technology”, especially when compared to the US.

Newspaper editorials in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, alongside numerous op-eds and blog posts, have added fuel to this “culture war”. Elon Musk has even promoted an AI-generated message stating that Europeans “should just install AC”.

Often, European attitudes are attributed to “guilt” about AC’s energy demand, “cultural conservatism” or “overbearing governments”. One commentator ascribed divergent attitudes in Europe and the US to “different ideas about physical suffering and sacrifice”.

Meanwhile, right-leaning commentators and climate-sceptic groups have blamed “climate policies, which view AC as an unnecessary luxury”.

In general, these critiques often fail to consider the most obvious explanation, which is that AC adoption is low in northern Europe because the historical climate made AC unnecessary.

Critical articles have instead drawn attention to restrictions on AC use in some European countries, as well as the lack of support for AC in official heatwave guidance.

For France, in particular, polling has indeed highlighted widespread disapproval of AC, both on environmental grounds and due to alleged health impacts. Such messages have also been voiced regularly in French media and by left-leaning and green politicians.

However, across Europe there are plenty of signs that such attitudes are shifting, following successive spells of extreme heat.

Amid the June heatwave, there were reports from Germany, France and the UK of “skyrocketing” AC sales. This surge was even acknowledged by the foreign ministry in China, due to the nation’s role in supplying many of these products.

The shift is taking place in politics as well. Marine Tondelier, leader of the French Green party – which has traditionally opposed AC – recently stated that “there are places where we just can’t do without AC anymore”.

Overall, AC has been on the rise across Europe, with France, Spain and the Netherlands all using more than twice as much energy for AC and other “space cooling” technologies in 2024 as they did in 2015.

AC production in Germany has also risen by at least 75% in recent years and a growing share of German homes are being built with it installed.

Notably, there is little evidence that “climate policies” are blocking Europeans from installing AC. Polling in Germany shows that, while people are concerned about environmental impacts, the high costs of installing and running it are perceived as greater barriers.

Finally, there is an important distinction between individual AC units in people’s homes and installing them in public spaces, such as hospitals, care homes and schools.

While neither is widespread in France, support for the latter can increasingly be found across the political spectrum, from Greens to the far-right National Rally (RN).

Back to top

AC emissions are growing, but its climate impact could be limited

Some people have noted that a wider rollout of AC in Europe could drive up emissions.

As noted in the Financial Times by columnist and chief data reporter John Burn-Murdoch, there is a logic to this argument, “at least superficially”. He writes:

“AC uses a lot of energy; if the proposed defence against emissions-driven global warming means emitting more, then we have an obvious problem.”

The emissions impact of AC depends heavily on the generation mix of a country’s power sector.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “space cooling” – mostly AC, but this does include some fans – used 2,100 terawatt-hours (TWh) of power globally in 2022.

As such, it was responsible for 1bn tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from electricity use globally. This equates to around 2.7% of total CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuels and industry.

(As well as indirect emissions through power use, AC units can also directly release greenhouse gases – used as AC refrigerants – when they leak or are improperly disposed of. Following the 2016 Kigali Amendment, countries are progressively trying to phase down the use of potent greenhouse gases in AC units.)

In a LinkedIn post, Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and regular Carbon Brief contributor, says:

“There is a lot of alarmist messaging about how much electricity AC uses. However, on an annual basis, the demand is not that substantial. Currently, AC uses about 1% of electricity in the EU and catching up to adoption rates in the US would double this.”

According to the IEA estimates from 2018, “if left unchecked, energy demand from AC will more than triple by 2050”, reaching 6,200TWh of power.

By mid-century, households would contribute the most to the increase (70%), with at least two-thirds of the world’s households potentially having AC, according to the Paris-based agency.

Decarbonising electricity grids and energy-efficiency improvements can reduce AC emissions and their impact on climate.

For instance, in countries with a low-carbon electricity mix – such as France, where nuclear energy accounts for 67% of its electricity generation – expanding AC would have a more limited climate impact than in other countries.

In countries such as India, there could be a more significant increase in emissions as AC is adopted, due to the role coal plays in the country’s energy mix, especially during the night. Demand is growing fast – following low access historically – and many AC units are inefficient, with high electricity use.

According to a new working paper from the India Energy and Climate Center (IECC) at the University of California, Berkeley, “room AC” – portable plug-in units, as opposed to those permanently installed in buildings – already accounts for nearly one-quarter of India’s peak electricity demand (60-70GW) – and this is before the majority of Indian households have bought their first AC unit.

Dr Nikit Abhyankar, co-faculty director of the IECC, tells Carbon Brief that, as AC use is expanded across the world, it should be paired with solar and battery storage, where the “economics have completely shifted” in the last few years. This will help to cut both energy bills and emissions.

According to the IEA, accelerating energy efficiency improvements could deliver more than one-third of all CO2 emission reductions between now and 2030.

The global energy demand needed to run ACs alone in 2050 could be reduced by 1,300GW – the equivalent of all of China and India’s coal plants – through energy efficiency measures, it estimates.

Aditya Valiathan Pillai, a climate adaptation researcher at King’s College London, tells Carbon Brief that, as the use of AC expands, there is a conversation to be had about where and “what type of technology [is used] and who gets access” to it.

A final point is that many AC units are air-to-air heat pumps, which can efficiently heat homes, as well as keeping them cool. As such, wider AC adoption could boost the adoption of electrified heat, helping to cut emissions from gas boilers.

Back to top

Heat from AC can contribute to directly warming cities

Some critics of AC mention its electricity demands and associated CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, which contribute to raising the temperature of the entire planet. (See: AC emissions are growing, but its climate impact could be limited.)

But AC also has a localised impact. It works by removing heat from indoor air and pushing it outdoors, raising temperatures on the street and exacerbating the “urban heat island” effect.

Left-leaning French politicians are among those citing this as an argument against AC, particularly in cities. Indeed, Emmanuel Grégoire, the Socialist mayor of Paris, appeared to be making this point in an interview with Le Monde, during the June heatwave:

“[AC] can be useful for cooling collective spaces and protecting the most vulnerable populations, but individual AC is a scourge – it makes the problem worse by heating the city even more.”

One study concludes that, in a city such as Phoenix, Arizona, where the technology is widespread, AC use during a heatwave can raise night-time temperatures by 1-1.5C.

Another models a nine-day heatwave in Paris – in a future with “massive” AC use – and finds an increase in external temperature of more than 2C, due to heat emitted by the units.

Given this, some scientists argue that AC can be a form of climate “maladaptation” – referring to actions that backfire and make people more vulnerable to global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has highlighted this issue, concluding:

“AC may constitute a maladaptation because of its high demands on energy and associated heat emissions, especially in high-density cities.”

Compared to the US, more people in Europe live in dense, urban areas. According to Dr Vincent Viguié, a climate change economist at École des Ponts ParisTech, this could leave Europeans more exposed to heat from AC units. He tells Carbon Brief:

“If you live in a neighbourhood that is not dense, like in a suburban neighbourhood or in the countryside, you don’t care about this…So, once again, there is a key difference between US and European cities.”

Viguié is among the experts arguing that other climate-adaptation measures should be considered alongside AC, to keep entire cities cool – not just individual homes. He says:

“It’s not to say that the heat released by AC by itself is a reason to forbid AC…It’s just that not taking that into account may lead to bad decisions.”

Back to top

More AC could help to reduce heat deaths in Europe

Heatwaves can be deadly, especially for older or vulnerable members of society.

According to climate scientists at World Weather Attribution, “heatwaves cause more deaths in Europe than all other natural hazards combined”.

The heatwave in June 2026 is estimated to have killed more than 20,000 people in Europe. In France – which has seen some of the hottest temperatures – the heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths, according to analysis published by Carbon Brief.

AC does help to protect people from the effects of extreme heat. A 2021 study found that globally, AC averted an estimated 190,000 heat-related deaths annually during 2019-21.

With its much higher penetration of AC, the US has fewer deaths due to extreme heat than Europe.

Heat kills around 11 people out of every 100,000 in Europe, compared to around two people in the US, according to analysis by data scientist Dr Hannah Ritchie from Our World in Data.

Several publications have pointed out that “Europe’s heatwaves are deadlier than American gun violence”. While this is technically accurate in absolute terms, Ritchie says the comparison is “a bit silly” for a number of reasons, not least because on a per-capita basis, US gun deaths are higher.

Average annual deaths per 100,000 for heat and gun deaths in the US (red) and Europe (blue) to as close to the end of 2024 as possible. Heat deaths are based on excess death methodology, not death certificates. Source: By the Numbers.

However, experts suggest that AC is only one part of a wider effort to protect people from extreme heat.

A 2020 study looking at heat-related mortality in Canada, Japan, Spain and the US, found that excess deaths due to heat decreased between 1972 and 2009.

For example, the proportion of deaths due to extreme heat fell from 1.7% to 0.5% over the period in the US and 3.5% to 2.8% in Spain.

However, an increase in AC only explained 16.7% of the drop in the US and 14.3% in Spain.

The research concludes that “other factors have played an equal or more important role in increasing the resilience of populations”. This is supported by research that shows changes to cities, such as planting more trees, as well as behavioural shifts and public-health measures, can all protect people from dangerous heat.

Additionally, across Europe there is already a range of policies and measures in place to protect the most vulnerable from heatwaves. Many of these were brought in following the unprecedented summer of 2003, when 70,000 died from extreme heat.

These policies were highlighted by French environment minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher, in response to the far-right National Rally (RN) party’s AC proposals:

“The incompetent RN has just found out that nursing homes need air-conditioned rooms. Thank you, but it’s actually been mandatory since 2004.”

Another study found that measures that have already been rolled out in France would cut the projected death toll of a 2003-like heatwave by more than 75%. This is in part due to the expansion of AC in places such as nursing homes, but also other approaches, such as heat action plans.

For example, France has a multi-tiered action plan, which includes local governments ensuring access to cooled spaces and water, keeping a list of vulnerable individuals for targeted interventions, as well as national information campaigns.

According to the UN’s office for disaster risk reduction, this French plan has led to a “significant reduction in heat-related mortality”.

While action plans have proved successful in a number of nations, less than half of European countries have such a plan in place.

Back to top

‘Net-zero rules’ are not blocking AC installation in the UK

In the UK, Conservative politicians and right-leaning media have tried to pit the adoption of AC against net-zero policy.

Writing in the climate-sceptic Daily Telegraph, columnist Matthew Lynn claimed falsely:

“Strict net-zero rules now mean that aircon is effectively banned in the UK.”

(Further down the article, he concedes: “AC is not strictly speaking banned in new-build homes in the UK. But tough environmental rules mean that it is very hard, and expensive, to install in practice.”)

The same narrative has been used in articles by GB News, the Sun and others. A separate article in the Daily Telegraph’s “money” section goes further, claiming that AC had been “torn from homes under net-zero clampdown”.

A blog post from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government rebuts these claims, stating:

“There has been media coverage this week suggesting that AC is banned in homes. This is incorrect.”

For the UK, while it is true that fewer than 5% of homes currently have AC, this is largely due to the fact that it was not hot enough in the past to warrant the expense. Historically, the focus has therefore been on keeping buildings warm, rather than cool.

Extreme heat has previously been rare in the country, so homes were built with insulation and other measures to keep heat in during the “dank winters”. (See: Much of Europe has not needed AC in the past.)

Current regulations do not ban the installation of AC outright. However – as the government’s blog post notes – there is no blanket rule, meaning there are some localised differences.

Certain areas – or certain kinds of properties – may be subject to additional complications for installing AC.

In a 2025 video on Instagram, shadow secretary of state for energy security and net-zero Claire Coutinho referenced the London plan, for example, which is a framework for development in the capital launched in 2021. She said:

“[London mayor] Sadiq Khan says no. The London plan says we shouldn’t have air con because it uses too much energy. But this is mad! This is a poverty mindset that we need to get away from.”

The London Plan does not stop homes from having AC. It simply says that, for new buildings, passive design measures should be prioritised, such as the orientation of the building, the window design and incorporation of measures such as external shading and trees.

A recent response from the mayor added further measures, such as the need to “minimise the necessity for the operation of mechanical measures including AC, which would further add to the heat island effect within urban areas and add operational cost to residents”.

Elsewhere, new-build homes across England must meet the requirements of “part O” of the 2022 building regulation updates. This includes addressing overheating in buildings through energy-efficient design and prioritising passive cooling, with AC as a last resort.

For existing buildings, most AC units fall under “permitted development rights”, meaning no planning application is required to install them.

Additionally, regulations were relaxed in 2025 to make it easier to install an air-to-air heat pump – which can both heat and cool air – without planning permission.

This means that, far from blocking the expansion of AC, net-zero policy has made it easier to install specific cooling systems.

Speaking to Carbon Brief, Andrew Sissons, director of sustainable future at Nesta, says the government must now implement its announced £2,500 subsidy for air-to-air heat pumps “as quickly as possible”, to further ensure that the technology can be rolled out efficiently. He adds:

“[The government] should also continue to expand permitted development rights for air-to-air heat pumps, with a particular focus on flats and homes in denser areas. As long as heat pumps meet the MCS [Microgeneration Certification Scheme] noise test, there are few reasons to limit their use via the planning system.”

Some properties, such as large homes, listed buildings or those in conservation areas, may still require planning permission to install an air-to-air heat pump or other AC. Sissons notes that this can add cost and delay to installation.

While it cannot be said that AC has been blocked or banned due to net-zero, neither has it been prioritised.

This may shift as temperatures continue to rise. UK government advisors at the Climate Change Committee (CCC) suggest that 22% of the UK’s housing stock will likely need active cooling, such as AC, to cope with 2C of global warming.

The CCC’s recent adaptation report also calls for all new homes to be built using low-cost, passive cooling measures, alongside more AC.

Active cooling such as AC is more likely to be needed for retrofitting existing homes, the report adds.

Back to top

AC is not the only answer to overheating cities

AC has become increasingly politicised in Europe, as demonstrated by France’s RN party announcing its “grand plan for AC” in all public buildings.

As noted by Dutch MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, this “far-right” embrace of AC is coming from the same people who for years have “delayed emissions reductions”.

In response, left-leaning policymakers in Europe have frequently downplayed the role of AC, prioritising programmes of urban greening and retrofitting older buildings.

Such approaches for dealing with extreme heat have already proved successful. Therefore, many experts argue that these methods, alongside AC, will be essential to prepare for a hotter world.

According to the IPCC’s sixth assessment report, adaptive infrastructure, such as urban forests and green roofs, can reduce energy use because of cooling, with co-benefits for climate, air quality, physical and mental health.

While retrofitting older buildings for heat as well as insulating them from the cold might prove challenging, urban greening and an active shade policy – one that determines how much of every street is exposed to direct sunlight – are simple measures cities can adopt.

Some experts have also warned about the high cost of running AC, expressing concerns that excessive reliance on the technology could increase energy poverty.

In a Carbon Brief guest post published in 2025, researchers at the Basque Centre for Climate Change found that framing AC as the “default solution” can miss the opportunity to design “more inclusive, human-centred responses” to rising temperatures.

William Lewis, a PhD candidate and one of the guest post’s authors, tells Carbon Brief it is not a case of “one or the other”, when considering AC and other options:

“We have this opportunity in European countries to choose a slightly different path [from the US], which isn’t AC in every single home.”

King’s College London’s Pillai says that, by centring the debate on AC, the far-right response to the heatwaves in Europe has “completely neglected the science of how you cool human beings”.

There are many solutions, he adds, that are already widely used across hot developing countries, such as ceiling fans, windows that open and cross-ventilation, as well as strategies to reduce cumulative hours of heat exposure.

Pillai tells Carbon Brief that, while places reaching 42C and higher “definitely need to think about AC very seriously”, places in the “low to mid 30Cs” could rely on these alternatives.

Behavioural change, he adds, is the “least glamorous part” of heat policy, but “pulls most of the weight” of protecting people. These include a wide range of actions and responses – from reducing heat exposure, to wearing lighter clothing and drinking more water and fluids.

There are also workplace protections. Pillai tells Carbon Brief that these could include legislation on mandatory work breaks, cooling and shade requirements at workplaces, as well as health insurance that covers heat stress days that have been lost by heat-exposed workers.

Back to top