The UK would be able to increase its emissions while still meeting its next legally binding climate goal if the government uses a “surplus” to weaken the target, official advisers warn.
The government has asked the Climate Change Committee (CCC) if it should carry over “surplus” emissions, after the UK overachieved the third “carbon budget” for 2018-2022.
This surplus is equivalent to an extra year’s worth of emissions, so carrying it forward would increase the size of the fourth carbon budget for 2023-2027 by a fifth.
Doing so would make it far easier for the next government to meet that budget, allowing emissions to rise by around 15% from current levels – instead of falling towards net-zero.
In a letter, published today, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) says its “unequivocal” advice is that doing this would place the UK’s future climate goals at “very serious risk” and would make the 2050 net-zero target “more expensive and harder to achieve”.
The letter says that the surplus is largely the result of a sluggish economy and the impact of Covid-19. The committee emphasises that the UK’s emissions cuts need to accelerate to stay on course for long-term goals, rather than slow down.
‘Surplus’ emissions cuts
Under the Climate Change Act, the UK must hit legally binding interim emissions targets, known as carbon budgets, that get gradually lower on a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Earlier this month, the government published final greenhouse gas emissions figures showing that the UK overachieved in its third carbon budget. Total net emissions were 2,153m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) between 2018 and 2022, the figures show, against a target of 2,544MtCO2e.
This means the UK came in 391MtCO2e – or 15% – below the budget for this five-year period. This “overachievement”, largely due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and other external factors (see below), is equivalent to around one year of UK emissions.
Earlier this month, UK climate minister Graham Stuart asked the CCC for its view on “carrying forward” the emissions “surplus” to the next carbon budget.
Under section 17 of the Climate Change Act, the government is legally entitled to do this if it wishes, but must first seek and take into account the CCC’s advice.
Carrying forward some or all of the surplus effectively weakens the UK’s next carbon budget, by an equivalent amount. Nevertheless, the flexibility was included in the Climate Change Act in order to encourage – and reward – early action to cut emissions.
Five years ago, the CCC issued a similar warning that the UK should not carry forward the surplus from the second carbon budget to the third period, because that overachievement was also largely due to external factors rather than genuine early action.
However, the government ignored the CCC’s advice – the first time it had done so – and carried forward 88MtCO2e into the third carbon budget.
Today, the CCC has once again written to the government warning it not to weaken the fourth carbon budget by making use of surplus emissions.
Indeed, as the chart below shows, making full use of the third budget surplus would allow the UK to legally increase its emissions in the current fourth carbon budget period 2024-2027, rather than cutting them in line with its longer-term goals.
With the third carbon budget surplus of 391MtCO2e being equivalent to a whole extra year of emissions in the UK, the country could emit around 20% more over the five-year budget than the amount officially legislated.
Adding this amount to the fourth carbon budget would enable the UK to emit 200MtCO2e more between 2023-27 than it did over the course of its third carbon budget, following decades of relatively consistent cuts.
This would amount to a 9% increase in emissions between budgets and an increase of as much as 15% from 2022 levels, across the fourth budget period.
It would also push the UK far off course from the government’s own carbon budget delivery plan for meeting near- and long-term targets, which it set out last year.
If the government decides to carry over the surplus and emissions are allowed to rise to their maximum level under a looser fourth carbon budget, getting back on track for the fifth carbon budget would require a “huge and impractical” total emissions reduction of 1,036MtCO2e over the following five years, according to the CCC.
This is twice as fast as anticipated in the government’s plan – and 40% quicker than the most ambitious scenario devised by the CCC.
‘Very serious risk’
In light of these potential outcomes, interim CCC chair Prof Piers Forster writes in his response to Stuart’s request that the surplus should not be used:
“The committee’s unequivocal advice is that surplus emissions from the third carbon budget should not be carried forward.”
The committee warns against “setting conditions that allow for a legally compliant slowdown in progress” when the focus “should be on accelerating and broadening emissions reductions”.
It concludes that both the UK’s domestic goal of the sixth carbon budget for 2033-37 and its 2030 international climate target under the Paris Agreement would be placed at “very serious risk” if the carryover is allowed.
The fourth carbon budget was set when the UK’s 2050 emissions goal was an 80% reduction rather than 100%. This means that the government should be overachieving, rather than underachieving, on the budget’s target emissions reductions in order to stay on a “sensible” track for its future goals, according to the CCC.
The CCC’s response reiterates its previous recommendations to Stuart’s predecessors about carrying forward surplus from the first and second carbon budgets.
Moreover, the committee points out that “most” of the surplus emissions cuts in recent years have not been the result of the government’s climate policies.
According to the committee, roughly half of them resulted from a “tighter than expected” EU ETS cap. This meant “less was required” of government policy in areas outside of the ETS, such as transport and heating buildings.
Most of the remaining surplus is accounted for by “lower-than-expected GDP” and less travel due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the CCC adds.
The CCC emphasises the need for continued incentives and pressure to make emissions cuts across all sectors, concluding:
“The Climate Change Act and the carbon budgets provide a clear, longrun signal to investors and businesses on the UK’s decarbonisation trajectory. Carrying forward the third carbon budget surplus would weaken this message, causing uncertainty, and could ultimately result in net-zero being more expensive and harder to achieve.”
The post UK emissions could rise by 15% if government uses ‘surplus’ to weaken climate goal, CCC warns appeared first on Carbon Brief.
UK emissions could rise by 15% if government uses ‘surplus’ to weaken climate goal, CCC warns
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a negligible fraction of the funding needed to preserve ecosystems, allowing industries to continue with their destructive business-as-usual practices.
-
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
Countries remain 70% off track to meet a goal to end deforestation by 2030, as progress in Latin America offset by failures in Africa -
Brazil confident new rainforest fund will reach $10bn donor milestone
Brazil’s environment minister said the Tropical Forest Forever Facility has raised billions in record time – which he hopes will convince more investors
In advanced economies, public funding often actively undermines biodiversity. In Europe, over €5.3 billion in public subsidies is funnelled annually into intensive forest biomass harvesting under renewable energy directives, degrading primary forest ecosystems and undermining long-term climate resilience. Pleading with private investors to fill a “finance gap” while pouring billions into ecological destruction is an exercise in fu