Connect with us

Published

on

Good morning to you – COP28 came to a close last week. After our team and delegation traveled and rested, we spent some time analyzing the final results of the conference. We’re diving into the outcomes for our final digest today. Thank you for spending your time with us these past two weeks!

Just one day beyond the scheduled end of COP28, negotiators attended the closing plenaries to agree on the official outcome document: the UAE Consensus. Let’s dive into the top three outcomes, both from the document and the conference itself. Consider these your climate talking points over the winter and holiday season.

  1. The document calls for the “transitioning away” from fossil fuels.

Yes, this is a hard-fought, 30-years-in-the-making moment. If you remember last year’s outcome, the final document only called for the phase down of coal and harmful subsidies of fossil fuels. Some are calling this language, this moment, the beginning of the end of fossil fuels. While that may be true on some level, the document is also disappointing, imperfect, and not enough. In a time when phasing out fossil fuels is paramount to mitigation emissions and operating in line with climate science, the “transitioning away” language falls flat. There’s no naming of oil and gas, or hard deadlines for phase out.

This language was included and agreed on in the face of massive opposition from fossil fuel interests — the largest number of lobbyists ever to attend a COP, in fact. And still, countries on the front lines of the climate crisis are rightly naming the document as full of loopholes.

The document, in an ideal world, could be a catalyst for the renewable energy transition. It calls for the tripling of renewable energy by 2030 and doubling energy efficiency. In its essence though, it is fragile. The words rely on serious, urgent, and well-funded action from the exact leaders that agreed on the words. In the coming months ahead of COP29, the world will be watching for actual action. Not just words.

  1. The need for justice is the writing on the wall.

The inclusion of “transitioning away” from fossil fuels language would not have been possible without the pressure from Indigenous leaders, island nations, activists, civil society, and countries on the frontlines of climate change impacts; the people and communities who do not have time for posturing, because their lives are at stake. Many have called this COP “business as usual” due to the lack of real ambition in its outcomes.

While the Loss and Damage Fund was realized, COP28 finished with roughly $770 million dollars pledged — roughly 0.2% of what frontline countries actually need annually to adapt to extreme weather, drought, loss of life, loss of infrastructure, and other impacts. Since there is no obligation to pay into the fund, the level of trust is low; not to mention the fact that some of the funds pledged were repeats of existing pledges.

A lack of funding overall getting into the hands of communities on the frontlines is limiting justice-based solutions, leaving poorer countries with small capacity to pay for clean energy, adaptation, and mitigation measures. And these communities should not have had to wait 30 years for the mere mention of fossil fuels to come into play. If the global community had taken incremental action at the scale needed 30 years ago, lives would have been saved.

  1. Carbon conversations are on the rise — removal, storage, and capture.

The mechanics for carbon removal, and capture and storage, are central to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, however not much progress was made at COP28 to instill trust, standards, or regulations for this process.

Ranging from nature-based carbon sinks like mangroves to climate tech like direct air capture, carbon removal is part of the conversation. Yes, the IPCC states we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere to align with the 1.5 goal. The main concern? The technologies aren’t viable yet to make any massive impact — and carbon removal is often seen as an excuse to continue emitting, rather than a needed tactic in tandem with phasing out fossil fuels. If there is any way forward with the voluntary carbon markets, it must be developed while phasing out fossil fuels and listening to the communities that are often the ones managing the basis of the carbon credits (i.e. preserving forests on Indigenous lands, etc.)

Science tells us we need both mitigation and carbon removal, but the current iteration of carbon markets, carbon offsets, and strategies is mistrusted, riddled with loopholes, and does not contain clear reporting across the international community. We expect these conversations to become more charged, regarding the injustices they contribute to, during COP29.

For more specific pledges, actions, and commitments made during COP28 crossing issues from agriculture to methane mitigation, see this list from Carbon Brief.

While international agreements are critical for funding action, creating diplomacy, and providing spaces for civil society to hold leaders accountable, the actual agreement text isn’t what makes action happen. It’s the people. The people in leadership positions, in communities, on the ground, pushing for local solutions like fighting pollution, stronger standards, public transportation, youth empowerment, education, justice, health, and so much more.

Join us in thanking our COP28 delegates for their late nights, perspectives, content gathering, emotional processing, and collaboration as they were our eyes and ears on the ground in Dubai.

Thanks to all of you for reading and experiencing this COP with us.

We are looking forward to seeing you in the work ahead!

The post Your Summary of Negotiations –– COP28 Outcomes appeared first on Climate Generation.

Your Summary of Negotiations –– COP28 Outcomes

Continue Reading

Climate Change

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Published

on

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

This week

Blazing heat hits Europe

FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.

HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.

UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.

Around the world

  • GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
  • ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
  • EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
  • SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
  • PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.

15

The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.


Latest climate research

  • As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
  • A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
  • A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food

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

Captured

Factchecking Trump’s climate report

A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80

Spotlight

Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?

This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.

On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.

In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.

(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)

In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.

Forward-thinking on environment

As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.

He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.

This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.

New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.

It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.

Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.

“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.

Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.

What about climate and energy?

However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.

“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.

The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.

For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.

Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.

Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.

By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.

There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:

“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”

Watch, read, listen

TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.

NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.

‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.

Coming up

Pick of the jobs

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 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Continue Reading

Climate Change

New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit

Published

on

The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.

Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.

New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims

Published

on

A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.

The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.

The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.

It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.

Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.

Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.

Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.

The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)

The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.

In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.

Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.

The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com