The Zambian government’s cuts to fossil fuel subsidies may be helping reduce the use of planet-heating oil – but they are causing hardship among groups that rely disproportionately on fossil fuels to make a living, including taxi drivers.
The green policy aims to boost both climate action and the heavily-indebted Zambian economy, but taxi drivers in Lusaka, the southern African country’s capital, told Climate Home they are suffering from rising prices for driving and food.
“We have been hit hard,” said 29-year old Masuzyo Kampamba, as he motored down a two-lane highway towards past crowds of children celebrating national youth day last month.
Kampamba doesn’t feel able to get married and start a family as he would not be able to provide for them due to the high cost of living.
Waiting outside the upmarket East Park Mall, driver Stephen Musanda said he is struggling too.
Filling up his regular Toyota taxi used to cost 17 kwacha ($0.70) a litre – for which he now pays 31 kwacha ($1.30). “It’s hard for a common driver like me to survive,” he said.
A Total petrol station near Lusaka’s Central Business District on March 10, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)
IMF’s global push
In debt-strapped developing countries like Zambia, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is using its financial power to push for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Similar IMF-backed policies in Haiti and Ecuador have led to mass protests in the last few years.
At the Cop28 UN climate summit last December, governments agreed to contribute to a global effort to transition away from fossil fuels “in a just, orderly and equitable manner”. What that means in practice is still being worked out.
In Zambia and other places like Nigeria, many ordinary citizens feel the shift away from fossil fuel subsidies has not been done fairly so far, with the burden falling on those who cannot afford it. Even supporters of the reforms in Zambia admit they are “painful”.
On a global level, the IMF argues that subsidies incentivise the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas, making climate change worse, while also being expensive, wasteful and skewed towards helping the rich more than the poor.
My message at today’s @wef session on climate and nature: pull back on harmful fossil fuel subsidies and use those resources for climate action. With action, we can leave a heathy planet to our children and grandchildren. #wef24 pic.twitter.com/Uh7TcyafHI
— Kristalina Georgieva (@KGeorgieva) January 17, 2024
In a bid to boost sustainable development, the Washington-based lender has encouraged governments to spend the savings from reducing their support for fossil fuels on climate action, healthcare or education. Zambia has used the money it has freed up for paying down the national debt and making public schools free.
Richard Bridle, a subsidies expert at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), generally supports such reforms, but said proper analysis must be carried out to identify those most affected and compensate them.
“Generally, the poor don’t have cars,” he said, but there are “particularly affected groups” whose business costs are exposed to fuel prices – like taxi drivers – and they require special attention.
“You’ve got to have steps being taken to understand the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable groups, and – where possible – mitigate that impact,” Bridle said.
Education not petrol
When Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema was elected in August 2021, he inherited $800 million a year of spending on fossil fuel subsidies – 4% of gross domestic product (GDP) – and debt of almost $1 billion which the government was failing even to pay interest on.
He turned to the IMF for another loan – and in December 2021, Zambia was granted a $1.4-billion extended credit facility.
Announcing this credit, the IMF’s then mission chief for Zambia, Allison Holland, said the conditions were that Zambia should cut what the IMF sees as “inefficient” subsidies, reduce its debt level, and increase spending on education and health.
ZAMBIA’S #IMF PROGRAMME: Message from the IMF Mission Chief for Zambia, Ms. ALLISON HOLLAND.@S_Musokotwane @KGeorgieva @IMFAfrica pic.twitter.com/j17kCKck8t
— Ministry of Finance & National Planning – Zambia (@mofnpzambia) September 4, 2022
The IMF sees subsidies as “inefficient” if they hinder economic growth, exacerbate air pollution and climate change, and benefit those with high incomes. Holland said fuel subsidies were an example of spending that is “wasteful” and “doesn’t help the poor”.
In response, the government completely removed direct fossil fuel subsidies for 2022 and, in October that year, it restored taxes on petrol and diesel which the previous government had cut.
Hichilema also announced that public school education would be made free from January 2022. “When we removed fuel subsidies, this is what we intended for our people,” he said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Ever imagined that you’d be entering January without worrying about school fees? Jan 2022, if you have a child in public school, you won’t pay anything.
This is what we promised & have delivered. When we removed fuel subsidies, this is what we intended for our people. #Zambia pic.twitter.com/b49D9CTigV— Hakainde Hichilema (@HHichilema) December 29, 2021
The government is planning to boost spending on social protection too. In 2020, it spent just 0.7% of GDP on welfare programmes like giving money and food to poor people, but by 2025 it plans to raise this to 1.6%, bringing it in line with the African average.
“Overall, for low-income households, the benefits from increased social spending should outweigh the impact from the removal of fuel and electricity subsidies,” a 2022 IMF analysis said.
Painful but necessary
During a reporting trip this March, Climate Home asked Zambia’s environment minister, a farmer and a rural teacher about the fuel subsidy cuts. All said the measures had been painful, making driving, farming and eating more expensive – but they saw them as necessary.
Green economy and environment minister Collins Nzovu said “there is going to be pain” from removing subsidies, but asked “were we going to keep accumulating debt or we’re going to say this is where we end?”
In the village of Katoba in Lusaka province, secondary school teacher Constancy Mbwenya said spending on subsidies had previously diverted money from health and education.
The subsidy cuts are “a good policy”, he said, but required a period of adjustment. “People need to acclimatise to the new situation,” he explained. “That’s where the hassle is a bit, but then eventually people will understand the importance of removing the subsidies.”
Is water provision in drought-hit Zambia climate ‘loss and damage’ or adaptation?
At the steering wheel, Musanda and Kampamba welcomed free education – although they questioned whether there are enough teachers per pupil, and whether the children can afford to eat at home because of food inflation.
“It’s right because those who were not going to school… are now going to school,” said Musanda. But, he added, “it is difficult for us who used to survive on subsidies”.
IISD’s Bridle compared the situation to France’s “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) protests, sparked in late 2018 when the French government tried to hike taxes on petrol and diesel and spend the money on climate action.
The rural working class felt the costs of green policies were falling unfairly on them, while they failed to see direct benefits, Bridle said. The large-scale opposition to the policy forced the government into a U-turn and hurt the popularity of French President Emmanuel Macron.
Taxi driver Musanda said similar social unrest was unlikely in Zambia: “We are not used to doing protests.” Instead, many voters might look to bring in a new government at the country’s next elections in 2026, he noted.
According to Bridle, that risk is why governments often rush through reforms well ahead of the next election.
In Zambia, less than one in 20 people own a vehicle, so the vast majority are less affected by the subsidy increase than Musanda.
Corn and peanut farmer Benson Chipungu poses in his field on March 7, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)
Benson Chipungu, who spoke to Climate Home on his maize and peanut farm in Chongwe village, 50 km east of Lusaka, said it now costs him more to fill up his tractor with diesel – but he is willing to accept the change nonetheless.
“I think it’s fine because [the government] has made that decision knowing that maybe the subsidies were being a burden on the economy,” he said. “It can be painful – but if… they think it’s going to come out right, then it’s fine – you can try to hang in there.”
The post Zambia’s fossil-fuel subsidy cuts help climate and kids – but taxi drivers suffer appeared first on Climate Home News.
Zambia’s fossil-fuel subsidy cuts help climate and kids – but taxi drivers suffer
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
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
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
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
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
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
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/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Change1 year 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”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Renewable Energy2 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban