Two days after the COP28 climate summit concluded on 13 December, Carbon Brief convened its team of specialist journalists to discuss the key outcomes of the two-week event in Dubai.
More than 1,300 people joined the webinar to hear about how issues such as the global stocktake, finance and adaptation featured at the talks, as well as how major nations such as China, India and the US approached the negotiations.
Carbon Brief published its detailed summary of the key outcomes hours after COP28 ended, outlining everything that happened both inside and outside the negotiating rooms.
A second in-depth piece zooming in on the outcomes for food, forests, land and nature at COP28 was published later in the week.
Eight Carbon Brief journalists and editors were on the ground throughout the summit and they all featured in the webinar.
A recording of the webinar (below) is now available to watch on YouTube.
The webinar was moderated by Carbon Brief’s editor and director, Leo Hickman, and featured the following Carbon Brief journalists:
- Dr Simon Evans, senior policy editor and deputy editor
- Daisy Dunne, special correspondent
- Josh Gabbatiss, policy correspondent
- Molly Lempriere, section editor for policy
- Dr Giuliana Viglione, section editor for food, land and nature
- Aruna Chandrasekhar, land, food systems and nature reporter
- Orla Dwyer, land, food systems and nature reporter
- Anika Patel, China analyst
Dr Simon Evans explained the “global stocktake” and, in particular, what it said about fossil fuels.
Daisy Dunne discussed the controversies around COP28 being held in a petrostate and the presidency being held by Sultan Al Jaber, the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.
Josh Gabbatiss spoke about the role of finance at this year’s COP – including the launch of the loss-and-damage fund. He also detailed the “global goal on adaptation”, which was given the green light in Dubai.
Molly Lempriere discussed a pledge by 130 countries to triple renewables by 2030. She also delved into the mitigation work programme.
Anika Patel followed China’s role in Dubai and analysed the country’s priorities at COP28 talks.
Aruna Chandrasekhar detailed India’s approach at COP28, looking ahead to the role the country will play at COP29 in Azerbaijan next year.
Orla Dwyer discussed the dynamics around civil society and activists in Dubai where protests are banned.
Dr Giuliana Viglione talked about how food was brought to the table in Dubai in a more significant way than at previous COPs.
Q&A
The Carbon Brief team also fielded questions from the audience and, where possible, answered them in writing within the webinar’s Q&A panel.
Below is an unedited copy of those questions and answers. The questioners’ names have been initialised, as have those of the Carbon Brief journalists:
PG: Isn’t what was agreed massively short of what is needed? The Saudi’s agreed to the wording because it allowed them to continue on a ‘business as usual’ basis, didn’t they?
SE: As we wrote in our summary, the wording on fossil fuels was probably as ambitious as it could have been – barring significant movement on new finance. More importantly, only countries themselves can implement action on the ground – the COP can’t do that. So the key test comes when countries submit their next climate pledges, by the end of 2025.
ML: Do the petrostates condemn all future COPs to achieving no more than incremental progress?
SE: I would say it’s important to note that there are 195 parties at the COP, each with their own priorities, red lines and compromises to make. So while individual countries or groups can veto decisions, there is rarely a single villain, due to the wide range of decisions being taken.
CBM: Could a COP ever be in a low lying island? Seychelles?
SE: The host rotates through five world regions. Fiji held the presidency in 2017 at COP23, but the summit was held in Bonn, Germany.
ME: With FT reporting ‘Big oil welcomes COP28 call to move away from fossil fuels in ‘orderly’ way’ – should cutting FF subsidies be the focus for the next COP?
SE: The stocktake does call on countries to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not support energy poverty “as soon as possible”, and this topic has come up repeatedly eg it was in the COP26 outcome, but I’m sure the focus on subsidies will continue – and for good reason.
EW: Like others, I am a bit surprised that people are pretending to be impressed by a statement of the obvious. With a different chair do you think we could have got something stronger.
SE: The presidency does play a big role at the COP but ultimately it’s a party-led process and if enough countries say they want something on the agenda, it’s hard for the presidency to stop that happening. (Last year at COP27 was a big different because attempts to address fossil fuels were in the “cover text”, which isn’t formally on the agenda and so the presidency has a bigger say on what’s in it)
MA: How close or how far will this deal land us in 1,5C?
SE: “IEA, ETC and CAT (sorry for acroynms) released analysis of COP28 pledges during the summit, see our summary. The tripling renewables and doubling efficiency one is the most significant, see this analysis we published before the COP to see why.
I think the CAT analysis said COP28 pledges closed around 1/3 of the gap to 1.5C, but it’s hard to quantify the “transitioning away from FF” part until we see the next country pledges.
EG: Is it not much better to focus on national government action and largely ignore the COP process which has never created a binding agreement at the level needed to ensure survival. At every COP we slip backwards again. The annual COP jamboree also distracts attention from the desperately urgent action we need on a national basis immediately. Ed Gemmell, Leader, the Climate Party in UK
AC: The Paris Agreement is in fact ALL about national government action, which is why they’re called NDCs or nationally determined contributions. After 2020, countries were supposed to start implementing their national pledges and will have to set new ones for 2025. COPs are where countries come together to set targets, review pledges and any binding commitments (including on finance), reflect on collective progress or the lack of it, and share knowledge and support and experiences. If you separate “jamboreee” from the actual negotiations, it is the one space, where once-a-year, ALL countries have a seat at the table to discuss climate actions and decisions are arrived at multilaterally.
TY: Did the global stocktake reveal which countries are particularly behind and what progress has been made in Europe? The implementation of the Global Stocktake has been reported by a lot of news papers, but I don’t think much detail has been reported.
SE: The stocktake was not really focused on national-level progress (or lack thereof) because countries didn’t want to be put in the spotlight / have their homework marked.
TM: Did the UK make any useful or significant contribution to COP28?
SE: The UK’s lead negotiator Alison Campbell was the co-chair of the stocktake negotiations, so she played a big role in the outcome (though the presidency took over the task into week two)
BM: As the phrase on transitioning away from foossil fuels has an extension, saying “so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science;” doesn’t that make this statement more meaningful? Net zero CO2 is needed for limiting warming to 1,5 C, so the whole sentence actually says that the transition away of fossil fuel should be realised by 2050, which is exactly what is needed. I know the “call upon Parties” context makes this whole statement rather weak, but nevertheless
SE: Thanks for the question Bert, yes you are correct, but nevertheless the key test will come with next country pledges.
EW: One of the main reactions I am getting from lay-friends is that the jamboree of thousands of people using carbon to fly to the COP is a terrible look. Is there any prospect of the COP being reformed so that it still achieves its goals but with 10-100 times fewer participants?
SE: This is definitely a very live question about how the COP is run. However, it’s worth emphasising that the amount of carbon associated with flights to the summit is not even a rounding error compared with annual global emissions (I think I worked it out as thousandths of a percent). Given the role of Paris and COPs generally in helping bend the curve on emissions, even small impacts on future warming would easily make all those flights worth it.
SC: Having documentation on exactly which countries were initially willing to sign up for “fossil fuel phase out” would be politically useful. Is that information available somewhere?
SE: “Yes, check out these pieces…
- COP28 DeBriefed 8 December: The fight over fossil fuels; Al Jaber defends ‘respect’ for science; Has COP ever finished on time?
- Q&A: Why defining the ‘phaseout’ of ‘unabated’ fossil fuels is so important at COP28
ML: What is the US rationale for its low $ commitment to the L&D fund relative to rich peers? Are they committing more elsewhere as an alternative for example?
SE: Republicans control the House, which holds the purse strings…
IR: do you think the outcomes would have been different if the president had not been distracted by having to defend himself agnst allegations of side deals etc? it did look as if he was getting somewhere at first.
SE: I would say the initial progress early on opened out space for the fight on fossil fuels. There are always big ups and downs in terms of progress at the COP so I wouldn’t read too much into this specific presidency on that.
NG: Why are developing countries not content with the L&D fund being held at the World Bank, and why would they prefer the UN?
SE: check out our Q&A here: Q&A: The fight over the ‘loss-and-damage fund’ for climate change
CP: John Kerry, the US climate envoy, is 80 and his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, will be retiring next year. Who would take their place when these two people are no longer around and what could this mean for US-Chinese climate relations movng forward?
SE: I don’t think we know wrt Kerry but Liu Zhenmin is due to replace Xie Zhenhua, per our summary…COP28: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Dubai
FM: Did (any) actions/speeches/etc. by the UK COP delegates give us any new insight as to the future approach of the UK to domestic climate action?
SE: I am not we gained any particular insights into the current government’s plans on climate, to be honest.
RE: If you have time, would you please talk about the issues blocking decisions related to the market mechanisms (A6.2 and 6.4)? Thank you.
SE: Thanks Ricardo, we addressed this briefly in our summary. For 6.2 it’s about whether to have process or control over how countries trade carbon with each other. The US was pushing for few rules while the EU, AILAC and others wanted the opposite. Some parties say attempting to put limits on the process goes against the mandate in this area. Big divides. Hard to see a way forward. On 6.4, the key stumbling block was on rules around carbon removals. I would expect those to be sorted out at COP29. Here’s a direct link to the relevant bit of our summary: COP28: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Dubai – Article 6
AL: How will the doubling of energy efficiency be measured?
SE: The IEA already tracks the rate of improvement of efficiency, so I assume it’d be similar. I believe it’s an energy intensity measure. Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5C
CV: Do you actually feel we see a reduction in burning of fossil fuels as a direct outcome from this COP?
SE: It’s hard to judge until we see the next round of climate pledges, but narratives definitely matter because investors, markets, etc are people too and so they are influenced by what other people are saying.
CM: Whicvh are the ‘pressure points’ that climate justice action and campaign groups should be aiming at now post COP 28?
SE: The next round of NDCs (national climate pledges) due by end of 2025 are key. So – every natoinal govt is a pressure point.
VP: Is it so automatic that “triplicating renewables means move away from fossil fuels”? I am afraid that maybe fossil fuels will continue to be used as usual, while triplicating renewables (that today are not very important globally) will allow to continue being a highly energy consuming civilization worldwide. Can you comment on this?
SE: The IEA sees tripling renewables as a key lever. While you are correct that one does not automatically follow the other, we’d not be likely to see cuts in fossil fuel use unless alternative energy sources rapidly scale up. Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5C
JR: Doesn’t the tripling of world nuclear capacity fit in this section, not only RE
SE: We did cover this pledge, but it was explicitly aspirational and only signed up to by a small number of countries
JK: How important are the ‘side-deals’ at COP? Often multi-lateral deals are made on specific issues between groups of nations, like sustainable agricultural practices, water table monitoring frameworks, etc?
SE: The key issue with the side deals is the lack of accountability. Obv even national pledges lack binding accountability, but they are at least tied to some sort of process and monitoring. So – that’s why the next national pledges due in 2025 are key. They’re supposed to be informed by the stocktake and they have to explain how they are informed by it.
PN: How “visible” were the lobbyists from the oil companies at COP28? Was their presence/influence rather obvious or did they keep more in the back/quiet?
SE: I doubt they interacted directly with the negotiations/negotiators, which take place in their own specific bubble at the COP. But other attendees do influence the general vibes / what people are talking about.
SO: Good afternoon, thanks for organizing this webinar. Just hearing Leo in the introduction highlight that this was the first time that ‘fossil fuels’ were mentioned in a COP outcome, and we’ve heard others highlighting this too over the last 2 days. Actually looking through last year’s Sharm el-Sheikh COP27 cover decision (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cop27_auv_2_cover%20decision.pdf) it looks like ‘fossil fuels’ were mentioned (section IV. Mitigation, para 13) “Calls upon Parties … to phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies…” This year the Dubai’s COP28 Global Stocktake Outcome (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2023_L17_adv.pdf) mentions (para 28 (h)) “Further recognizes the need … phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies…” So given this sounds quite similar just interested in your views in how far we can call the mentioning of fossil fuels new. Thanks!
SE: The difference / significance is about this year’s decision targeting fossil fuels themselves, as a group collectively, as being a problem, which has never happened before.
JC: what is the sense of the role of the market in climate action? Since quality is at stake and market results have failed to deliver integrity, what is the result in the absence of a meaningful decision on Article 6?
SE: Hi Jacobo, this is an interesting tension…Article 6.4 is supposed to drive high quality markets but the longer it takes to get started, the more other market initiaves continue to grow in prominence. So far, I think there is more heat than light around voluntary carbon markets and I would be surprised to see that change dramatically even once ARticle 6.4 starts working.
EG: Sorry they did not agree to ‘double energy efficiency’. In fact the exact words are “doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030” – they only agreed to double the RATE of annual IMPROVEMENTS to energy efficiency. If the average annual rate of “improvement” is 1% currently then this should be 2% by 2030 – overall energy efficiency is not being doubled. Or have I missed something?
SE: Hi Ed, yes it’s the rate of improvement, hopefully that is clear in all our coverage – sorry if that wasn’t clear in our brief spoken summaries just now. See eg: Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5
BW: Is there any chance for the COPs to adopt a majority (say at least 75%) instead of unanimous vote rule? Right now, one country is enough to block progress for everybody else and it would be good if there’d be a way around that.
SE: Hopefully covered in my answer just now…short answer, seems unlikely!
DO: In what ways (if any) is the phrase “transitioning away” different from “phasing-down”?
SE: I mean ultlimately it’s all wordsmithing, the key point is does it take us in the direction we need to go – see the chart in this piece: Q&A: Why defining the ‘phaseout’ of ‘unabated’ fossil fuels is so important at COP28
SS: Folks, please keep in mind, that this all is a volunatary commitment. No independent monitoring, verification. No 2030 goal. No money for enhanded adaptation and mitigation for poorer countries, bread crumps for L&D. And last but not least, based on US, Japan and others pressure, the baseyear for tripling/doubling renewables capacity and energy efficiency got lost – so allowing for significant gaming. I couled go on. So, what is the hype on this “monumental” outcome?
SE: Hi Stephan, you’re not wrong. To be fair, I don’t think we called it monumental, but despite all the shortcomings, it’s hard not to see it as historic to finally name the elephant in the room (fossil fuels), no matter how mealy-mouthed the language was.
GS: A question to Anika: Anika, thanks! You mentioned that while China didn’t contribute to L&D this year, China is contributing to adaptation through other channels. Could you talk more about the nature of those channels (for example: private vs public?, how can we know the investments are adaptation-related, where can we find the data/evidence)
AP: Thanks for the question Georgia! The data is all quite disparate and it’s quite complicated for a chat box, but I’d point you to this article we published recently on this topic: Guest post: Why some ‘developing’ countries are already among largest climate-finance contributors
HBP: ‘@orla and others – How are you tracking the announcements/commitments made for food and agriculture? What can civil society and journalists do to better verify claims are new/have real climate impact and not greenwashing?
OD: Hi Hope, you can find a lot of these announcements and detail on whether they are new or updated in our key outcomes piece published this afternoon… COP28: Key outcomes for food, forests, land and nature at the UN climate talks in Dubai
KH: Were there any new commitments made on implementation of the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) framework?
OD: Hi Kate, we have a section on what happened with ACE at this year’s COP in our main key outcomes piece – COP28: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Dubai
KM: Do we think that China will eventually pay into the L&D fund?
AP: It’s not impossible, but I think there are a lot of outstanding issues that would first need to be changed (e.g. the World Bank’s oversight, developed countries meeting their existing obligations, ramping down trade tensions with the West) before China would be comfortable joining. China has other platforms (like the south-south cooperation fund, the Africa Climate Summit, etc) that it would be happier using to achieve the same thing.
The post Webinar: Carbon Brief journalists discuss COP28’s key outcomes appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Webinar: Carbon Brief journalists discuss COP28’s key outcomes
Ellen Davies is head of programmes at the African Climate Foundation and is based in Kenya. Wole Hammond is programme officer for adaptation and resilience at the foundation, based in Nigeria.
For generations, African communities have lived on the frontlines of climate disruption, managing erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts and the slow erosion of their livelihoods, which depend on predictable seasons.
When the rains failed across Southern Africa in 2024, it was but the latest chapter of a crisis already long underway. During that season, maize crop failures of 40-80% devastated farming communities in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi, where roughly 70% of people depend on rain-fed agriculture. Governments already stretched by debt were forced to raid development budgets, trading long-term growth for emergency relief.
Then came the floods. In early 2026, parts of Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa received over a year’s worth of rain in days. More than 2 million people were affected. In East Africa, drought has displaced nearly 62,000 people in Somalia this year alone, with nearly one in four Somalis now facing acute food insecurity.
This is what climate change looks like on the ground – not parts per million or diplomatic jargon, but whether a school stays open after floods cut off the road, whether a clinic can function in extreme heat, whether a country can still invest in its future when every year brings another disaster bill.
As Nigeria rails at loss and damage “mirage”, fund boss assures money is coming
Africa as a continent contributes the least to global emissions yet bears a disproportionate share of the consequences. Nine of the ten countries most vulnerable to climate change are African. As livelihoods collapse and rural economies fail, migration pressures will intensify, driven by climate change intersecting with poverty, conflict and constrained opportunity.
Chronic under-funding
Europe is only now beginning to experience, in more limited form, what African communities have navigated for decades with far less fiscal space, thinner insurance coverage and fewer resources for recovery. With El Niño conditions confirmed and a “super” version of the naturally occurring weather pattern possible later this year, the pressure is set to intensify further.
In Africa, climate action is fundamentally a development challenge where adaptation and mitigation must go hand in hand. Building a solar grid and flood-proofing the road that serves it are not separate agendas. Yet for too long, the global climate conversation has prioritised mitigation while leaving adaptation – the work of protecting lives, livelihoods and economies in a changing climate – chronically under-funded.
The result is three compounding gaps. A visibility gap: much of Africa’s adaptation work remains under-documented and under-recognised in global climate narratives. A financing gap: capital does not flow at the scale or speed required to the people and institutions best placed to use it. And a decision-making gap: too many solutions are still designed elsewhere and imported into African contexts, rather than backing African-led platforms to scale what is already working.
Live from LCAW – Raw diplomacy: Can new mineral alliances deliver a just energy transition?
Solutions ready for finance
The solutions exist. Rwanda’s green investment fund has mobilised climate finance at national scale through its own systems. Egypt’s Nexus of Water, Food and Energy programme has shown how integrated planning can stretch limited resources across interdependent systems.
Zambia’s Presidential Irrigation Initiative is building climate-resilient food production from the ground up. In Pata, Senegal, a solar irrigation project has unlocked agricultural production and created jobs, demonstrating how integrated investments in water, energy and livelihoods can deliver resilience and development gains simultaneously.
In South Africa, the African Climate Foundation’s work with the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) is supporting district municipalities to assess their climate risks and develop fit-for-purpose Climate Action Plans, building adaptation capacity where it is needed most – at the local level.
These are not pilot projects waiting to be validated. They are working systems waiting for investment.
Closing the gaps requires a decisive shift in posture from global finance, philanthropy and development institutions. It means backing country-led platforms that can prepare, aggregate and finance adaptation projects. It means investing in place-based initiatives grounded in local knowledge.
French court rules Total must revise climate plan to account for all emissions
It means fostering intra- and inter-continental collaboration, so that lessons from Kigali inform decisions in Nairobi and innovations in Lagos reach communities in Dakar. And it means treating adaptation as core economic infrastructure, not charitable relief.
Invest now for future gains
The economic case is clear. Every dollar invested in climate adaptation returns an estimated four dollars in benefits on average – and up to five in the poorest economies. Under-investment in African adaptation is as economically irrational as it is morally unjust.
The world depends on Africa’s food systems, its young workforce – the majority of the continent’s population is under 25 – and its minerals. Several African countries supply a substantial share of the copper, cobalt and other critical materials underpinning the global clean energy transition.
Drought in Zambia has already shown how climate stress can disrupt hydropower, electricity supply and mining output. A transition that depends on African minerals cannot afford to ignore African climate resilience.
The world can continue to under-fund adaptation and pay repeatedly for emergencies, instability and lost development. Or it can invest now in the people, institutions and systems already doing the work on the ground in Africa, not in solutions imported from elsewhere.
Africa has the agency, the knowledge and the platforms. What it needs is the finance to match. A super El Niño will not wait for consensus to form. Neither, frankly, should we.
The post Climate adaptation in Africa needs investment, not imported solutions appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate adaptation in Africa needs investment, not imported solutions
Climate Change
DeBriefed 26 June 2026: Heat records broken across Europe | London climate action week | Introducing ‘Project Cosmos’
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Record Europe heat
HOTTEST EVER: The UK broke its temperature record for June twice this week, while France recorded its hottest day ever two days in a row, reported the Guardian. The Times reported that temperatures reached 36.7C in Somerset on Thursday, as the “London Ambulance Service had its busiest-ever day for life-threatening emergencies”.
FRANCE FRYING: French newspaper Libération said that temperatures reached as high as 44.3C in the south-western commune of Pissos on Wednesday. Spain also recorded its highest daily average temperature for June, said BBC News. On Thursday, Switzerland also had its hottest June day, when temperatures reached 37C in four locations, reported SwissInfo.
CLIMATE LINK: CNN covered a rapid analysis from the World Weather Attribution service finding that fossil-fuelled climate change has made this heatwave the most severe and widespread in Europe’s history. Carbon Brief covered the broken heat records, explaining the influence of climate change.
‘Electrifying’ London talks
‘LONDON COOKING’: In a sweltering, packed-out event at London climate action week, UN chief António Guterres quipped that “London is not just calling, it’s cooking”, reported Edie. Guterres also used his address to release a “global call to action on methane” and to call on artificial intelligence companies to reveal their environmental impact and source their power solely from renewables by 2030, said the publication.
‘ELECTRIFY NOW’: Elsewhere, dozens of governments, led by the EU and the UK, committed to throwing “their political weight” behind a rapid electrification of the world’s economy, according to Climate Home News. A high-level summit in London’s Mansion House saw energy ministers and business leaders, joined by Guterres, in “calling for faster action to curb demand for oil, coal and gas by powering homes, industry and transport with clean electricity”.
FOSSIL TRANSITION: At the same event, ministers from Colombia and the Netherlands, the co-hosts of the world’s first summit on transitioning away from fossil fuels in April, unveiled a report on their key takeaways. It comes after the current Colombian government has been ousted by a presidential election defeat to a fossil-fuel-supporting Trump ally. Carbon Brief examined what this could mean for the world’s energy transition.
Around the world
- UK TARGET: The UK parliament has approved its “seventh carbon budget”, aimed at cutting emissions 87% below 1990 levels by 2040.
- TOTAL ACCOUNTABILITY: A French court has ordered oil-and-gas giant TotalEnergies to account for the emissions from the use of its products, following a case brought by a climate NGO, reported Le Monde.
- METHANE RULES: The US, Qatar and other major energy exporters have urged the EU to “rewrite planned methane emissions” rules for oil-and-gas imports, saying that the policy could disrupt fuel supplies to Europe, according to Reuters.
- CHINA MESSAGE: China’s special envoy for climate change, Liu Zhenmin, said at the World Economic Forum that energy shortages triggered by the Iran war should be a “lesson to countries to accelerate their energy transitions”, reported Bloomberg.
- US WEBSITE REVIVED: Former US government workers have “recreated a valuable climate-science website” shut down by the Trump administration last year, said the New York Times.
6,600 animals
The number of livestock that perished in transport during heat in England and Wales from June to August 2025, double the number killed the year before, reported Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- Some world regions are experiencing up to 50 additional heat stress days annually, when compared to 1950 | Nature Climate Change
- Projections of national land-use emissions to 2100 suggest the strongest “carbon sinks” will be in China and Indonesia, whereas Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo will “dominate global sources” | Nature
- Most carbon-offset projects relying on “avoided deforestation” have “mixed, negligible or negative impacts relative to control areas” | 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
The UK government’s official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), has released its latest progress report, emphasising that faster electrification is the best way to secure lower energy bills and stronger energy security. Electrification has shot up the agenda in recent months, with the COP31 presidency calling for countries to back a global goal for 35% of “final” energy to come from electricity by 2035. The text of the CCC’s latest report uses the word “electrification” far more often than previous editions, as shown in the figure above. See Carbon Brief’s in-depth breakdown of the CCC’s latest advice.
Spotlight
Introducing ‘Project Cosmos’
Carbon Brief explains how it built a major new database of climate science research and unveils a new ranking of the 500 most highly cited publications, authors and institutions in climate science.
This week, Carbon Brief launched Project Cosmos – the world’s largest and most complete database of climate change research.
The database features more than 1.8m academic papers, books and reports, capturing the vast body of human knowledge about climate change that has accumulated over more than a century of academic study.
The climate science “universe” is based on reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are recognised as the world’s most authoritative summaries of the latest climate science.
Since its first report was published in 1990, humanity’s knowledge about human-caused climate change has ballooned. The IPCC has published six sets of reports in total – each one longer than the last.
In total, IPCC reports reference more than 100,000 other papers, books and reports. This is the core of our climate science universe. Carbon Brief then built on this core, by looking at four other sources of data. Read more about how the Cosmos database was created here.
Every single publication in the Cosmos database is linked to at least one other through references. Visualising these links reveals a “galaxy” of references.
In the image above, each colour and cluster reveals different topics and densities of research. Explore the galaxy in an interactive map.
Cosmos 500
As part of an initial wave of preliminary analysis to demonstrate the scope of the Project Cosmos database, Carbon Brief has ranked the 500 most highly cited publications, authors and institutions in the database.
The most highly cited climate scientist is Prof Philippe Ciais, who has spent almost four decades researching the planet’s carbon cycle – and the ways in which humans have been impacting its balance. Carbon Brief recently interviewed Ciais in Paris.
The US tops the tables for the most highly cited authors and institutions. Almost half of the 500 most highly-cited authors are from US institutions. This raises particular concerns for the future of climate science, as US climate scientists and institutions are coming under attack under the Trump administration.
Experts from global south countries account for only 4% of all authors in the Cosmos 500. China stands out as the most highly-cited global south country. Meanwhile, only 10% of authors in the Cosmos 500 are women.
There are many possibilities for future avenues of research using the Cosmos database. Over time, the database could be used to reveal, for example, how interest in different areas of climate science has changed over time, plus identify potential knowledge gaps and, thus, opportunities for future research.
Carbon Brief invites researchers – including academics, journalists and analysts – to submit their own proposals for co-authored studies, literature reviews and analytical projects. Proposals should be sent to cosmos AT carbonbrief DOT org.
This spotlight first appeared in Cited, Carbon Brief’s new fortnightly newsletter focused on climate research. Sign up for free.
Watch, read, listen
‘DOOMSDAY CULT’: OpenDemocracy reported on a “religious cult” spreading climate misinformation in “parliaments” and at “COP summits”.
‘WEDGES’ EXAMINED: ProPublica and Drilled released an investigation into how oil executives worked to influence a climate research paper from Princeton University known as “wedges”.
‘1976 to 2056’: A 30-minute YouTube video from the Met Office had climate scientists explaining how current UK temperatures compare to the infamous 1976 heatwave, and how extremes could worsen by 2056.
Coming up
- 29-30 June: Hamburg sustainability conference, Hamburg, Germany
- 29-30 June: Seventh global conference on climate and sustainable development goals synergies, Bangkok, Thailand
- 29-30 June: 11th annual global conference on energy efficiency, Montreal, Canada
Pick of the jobs
- Drilled, series editor | Salary: $4,000 a month (six-month contract). Location: US
- Met Office, ocean climate science manager | Salary: £54,515-£58,582. Location: Exeter, UK
- Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, research officer (climate science and law) | Salary: £43,277-£55,497. 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 26 June 2026: Heat records broken across Europe | London climate action week | Introducing ‘Project Cosmos’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Over the last four years, Colombia has emerged as one of the most vocal advocates for the world to transition away from fossil fuels.
Under the leadership of leftist politician and economist Gustavo Petro, it became the first major oil-and-gas producer to commit to halting all new fossil-fuel expansion.
In April, the nation hosted a first-of-its-kind meeting of countries on transitioning away from fossil fuels, alongside the Netherlands, in the Caribbean city of Santa Marta.
The meeting concluded with a promise for a new “Santa Marta process” spearheaded by Colombia and the Netherlands, a movement of countries that would continue to push for a transition away from fossil fuels at home – and at international climate talks.
But on 21 June, an ally of Petro suffered defeat in a presidential election runoff against Abelardo de la Espriella, a hard-right populist and favourite of US president Donald Trump, who has pledged to boost oil production and pursue “fracking to the max”.
Below, Carbon Brief examines what the loss could mean for Colombia’s stance on fossil fuels, as well as international efforts to transition away from coal, oil and gas, including at the COP31 climate summit in Turkey in November.
- How could the election defeat change Colombia’s stance on fossil fuels?
- How could it affect international efforts to transition away from fossil fuels?
- How could efforts to transition away from fossil fuels feature at COP31?
How could the election defeat change Colombia’s stance on fossil fuels?
In 2022, Petro became Colombia’s first left-wing president in recent history.
Under his leadership, Colombia became the first major oil producer and exporter to halt all new fossil-fuel expansion, boosted renewable energy and saw a sustained decline in deforestation.
At the COP28 summit in 2023, Petro announced that Colombia would become the first major oil exporter to sign the fossil-fuel non-proliferation treaty, a pact to legally control fossil-fuel production and use.
Successive Colombian environment ministers became among the most vocal supporters of transitioning away from fossil fuels at UN climate talks.
This included former minister Susana Muhamad, a political scientist and environmentalist who stepped in to lead the most recent UN biodiversity summit in 2024 after original host Turkey was forced to withdraw following earthquakes.
She was succeeded by Irene Vélez Torres, a former academic who led calls for a “fossil-fuel roadmap” to be part of the formal outcome at the COP30 summit in 2025.
At the sidelines of COP30, Vélez Torres and Netherlands climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven announced plans to co-host a first-of-its-kind summit on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Colombia in April 2026.
(In the end, countries failed to agree to a formally negotiated “fossil-fuel roadmap” at COP30. However, the Brazilian COP30 presidency promised to bring forward a voluntary roadmap instead, informed by the Santa Marta summit.)
Some 57 countries – representing one-third of the world’s economy – participated in the event, with officials describing it as “refreshing”, “highly successful” and “groundbreaking”, according to Carbon Brief’s reporting from Colombia.
The meeting concluded with a range of outcomes, including a second fossil-fuel transition summit to be co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland in 2027.
In stark contrast to Petro’s government, new hard-right populist president Abelardo de la Espriella has promised to quickly boost new fossil-fuel and mining projects, including by “fracking to the max”.
De la Espriella has also promised to build 10 “mega prisons” inside Colombia’s Amazon rainforest.
He has not yet commented on whether he will withdraw Colombia from Santa Marta’s “coalition of the willing”.
How could it affect international efforts to transition away from fossil fuels?
Just two days after the Colombian government’s election defeat, environment minister Vélez Torres took to the stage at London climate action week, alongside Netherlands climate minister van Veldhoven, to present a report on key takeaways from the Santa Marta summit.
The report, written before the election loss, speaks of an ongoing “Santa Marta process” to accelerate the global transition away from fossil fuels. It says that this will be coordinated by Colombia and the Netherlands, along with the two appointed co-hosts of the second conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels, Tuvalu and Ireland.
Acknowledging that this was likely to be one of her last addresses as Colombia’s environment minister, Vélez Torres told the audience that, going forward, the Santa Marta process must be resilient to “political setbacks”.
At the sidelines of the event, Vélez Torres told Carbon Brief that the work her government has done “cannot be erased”, despite a change in power. She said:
“Right now, we are facing the dark nights, this will really shift the politics in terms of energy position and environmental protection. But we are certain that our legacy will continue. It goes beyond governments.”
Dutch minister van Veldhoven told Carbon Brief that the plan for the “Santa Marta process” is to hold fossil-fuel transition summits in a different country every year, with two new co-hosts each time. This could help weather political shocks, she said:
“We know that every couple of years there will be elections. That is why [we have] the idea of rotating presidencies and chairmanships…while we make sure we make use of existing secretariats and organisations that are not subject to political changes every couple of years.
“In that combination, we hope to create a historic legacy and continue to drive the process forward, but also [create space for] a new energy from two new countries every year that bring their own perspective and their own dynamic.”
Although new countries could drive the process forward without Colombia, there are few major oil producers that have shown the same level of commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Ana Toni, an economist and CEO of the COP30 summit in Brazil, told Carbon Brief at London climate action week that the world will “miss the leadership of Colombia”, but added:
“Not one country will stop this movement. All countries need to chip in. There isn’t one leader for this topic. Everybody needs to join forces.”
How could efforts to transition away from fossil fuels feature at COP31?
At London climate action week, Colombia and the Netherlands presented their Santa Marta report to the Brazilian COP30 presidency.
The COP30 presidency is due to release a voluntary international “fossil-fuel roadmap” ahead of COP31 in Turkey in November, which it has promised will be informed by the takeaways from Santa Marta.
Speaking at the sidelines of London climate action week, Colombia and the Netherlands added that they have had “constructive” conversations with the COP31 co-presidencies, Australia and Turkey, about how to incorporate the discussions from Santa Marta.
Colombian environment minister Irene Vélez Torres told a small group of journalists:
“We had this very interesting conversation with COP31 and they were clearly open to suggestions about what is needed in the discussion in Turkey, and we were explicit about the need to engage with the phasing out of fossil fuels.”
However, both Colombia and the Netherlands added that they were unsure of how this might work in practice.
When asked about whether the Santa Marta discussions could be incorporated into formal COP texts, they were keen to emphasise that all the conversations in Colombia were specifically not negotiations.
They added that they were unsure of whether the group of 57 countries that gathered in Santa Marta would appear as a collective at press conferences or events at the COP31 summit.
The post Q&A: What change of power in Colombia could mean for world’s fossil-fuel transition appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What change of power in Colombia could mean for world’s fossil-fuel transition
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测