The Carbon Brief

Among a flurry of posts on social media last weekend, US president Donald Trump declared “good riddance” to a specific emissions scenario used in global climate projections.

The “RCP8.5” scenario, which envisages a future of very high carbon emissions, was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, the president wrote in block capitals.

This was “just admitted” by the UN’s “top climate committee”, he falsely claimed, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The post was quickly picked up by right-leaning media, amplifying Trump’s misrepresentation of emissions scenarios and the role of the IPCC.

His claim follows the publication of a new set of emissions scenarios that will feed into the next IPCC reports. 

While the new scenarios no longer include such high emissions as in RCP8.5, they also show it is “not possible” to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels without significant “overshoot”, one of the authors tells Carbon Brief.

Moreover, projections suggest that the world is still on course for between 2.5C and 3C of warming, another author says.

This level of warming was previously described as “catastrophic” by the UN.

In this factcheck, Carbon Brief looks at Trump’s comments, the debate around RCP8.5 and the “good” and “bad” news within the latest scenarios.

• What did Trump say?
• What is RCP8.5?
• Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?
• How has RCP8.5 been replaced?
• How is the IPCC involved?

What did Trump say?

In the late evening of Saturday 16 May, Trump posted the following message on his Truth Social social-media platform:

“Dumocrats” is a derogatory nickname for Democrat politicians, debuted by the president in a televised Fox News interview on Thursday 14 May, according to the Independent.

By “top climate committee”, the president was presumably referring to the IPCC, the UN body responsible for assessing science about human-caused climate change. 

However, the IPCC does not develop, control or own climate scenarios. Moreover, it has not published anything stating that any climate scenario is “wrong”. (For more, see: How is the IPCC involved?)

Nevertheless, right-leaning media outlets have reported on Trump’s comments, in many instances repeating his false assertion that the RCP8.5 climate scenario had been developed by the IPCC. 

The New York Post misleadingly claimed that the IPCC “had quietly adjusted” its framework of emission scenarios. The Daily Caller, a pro-Trump conspiratorial US outlet, adds its own falsehoods stating that “IPCC researchers revised their modelling approach last month, swapping the extreme pathway for seven alternative scenarios”. The climate-sceptic Australian claimed that scientists had “quietly scrapped the apocalyptic forecasts that have terrified policymakers and the public”.

With Fox News also covering Trump’s comments, along with an earlier article by the Times, much of the reporting around RCP8.5 in recent days has been driven by media controlled by the climate-sceptic mogul Rupert Murdoch.

It is not the first time the Trump administration has attacked RCP8.5. In an executive order  issued in May 2025 – entitled, “Restoring gold-standard science” – the White House included the climate scenario in a list of examples of how the previous government had “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner”.

Excerpt from White House executive order, issued in May 2025.

Federal agencies, it claimed, had been using RCP8.5 to “assess the potential effects of climate change in a higher warming scenario”, despite scientists warning that “presenting RCP8.5 as a likely outcome is misleading”.

The executive order came after Project 2025 – a policy wishlist for Trump’s second term published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, an influential rightwing, climate-sceptic thinktank in the US  – criticised the climate scenario.

The manifesto said a “day-one” priority for the new government should be to “eliminate” the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “use of unauthorised regulatory inputs”, such as “unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on RCP8.5”.

Back to top

What is RCP8.5?

Scientists use emissions scenarios to explore potential future climates, based on how global energy and land use could change in the decades to come. 

These scenarios are not predictions or forecasts of what will happen in the future. Therefore, Trump’s declaration that projections under RCP8.5 were “wrong, wrong, wrong” misrepresents the purpose of emissions scenarios.

Different modelling groups have produced thousands of different scenarios over the years. RCP8.5 was developed by scientists back in the early 2010s as one of a set of four consistent “representative concentration pathways”, or RCPs, for climate modellers to use. 

As their name suggests, the RCPs were representative of the vast array of scenarios in the scientific literature.

Their corresponding numbers – 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 – do not describe temperature rise (as some mistakenly assume), but the level of “radiative forcing” that each pathway reaches by 2100. This forcing level is a measure of the change in the Earth’s “energy balance” (in watts per square metre) caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

As the highest forcing of the set, RCP8.5 was a scenario of very high emissions and extensive global warming. 

When it was originally published in 2011, RCP8.5 was intended to reflect the high end – roughly the 90th percentile – of the baseline scenarios available in the scientific literature at the time. 

A “baseline” scenario is one that assumes no climate mitigation, explains Dr Chris Smith, senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. He tells Carbon Brief:

“RCP8.5 was developed as a no-climate-policy scenario, often called ‘reference’ or ‘baseline’ scenarios. These are used to benchmark the actions of climate policy.”

Under RCP8.5, the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) in 2013 projected a best estimate of 4.3C of temperature rise by 2081-2100, compared to the pre-industrial period, with a “likely” range of 3.2C to 5.4C.

The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs. The SSPs included a set of five socioeconomic “narratives”, which described factors such as population change, economic growth and the rate of technological development.

The SSPs were then used in the IPCC’s sixth assessment (AR6) cycle, which ran over 2015-23. The upper end of the AR6 temperature projections was provided by the successor to RCP8.5, known as SSP5-8.5, which indicated warming of 4.4C by 2081-2100, with a “very likely” range of 3.3C to 5.7C.

Back to top

Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?

Prof Detlef van Vuuren from Utrecht University, a leading figure in the development of emissions scenarios for many years, tells Carbon Brief that RCP8.5 is a “low-probability, high-risk scenario and it was always meant like that”.

The scenario assumed a world without climate policy and was designed to explore the consequences of high levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. It was not, van Vueren says, a “best-guess scenario” of what the future held in store.

However, in some research papers, RCP8.5 was characterised as “business as usual”, suggesting that it was the likely outcome if society did not pursue climate action.

This was “incorrect”, says van Vuuren, noting that RCP8.5 “is not a likely outcome”. He adds: “It’s never been a likely outcome.”

Over time, RCP8.5 became hotly debated in academic circles, with some scientists arguing that such high emissions were becoming increasingly unlikely and others claiming that RCP8.5 was still consistent with historical cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

Carbon Brief unpacked the arguments in this debate in a detailed explainer in 2019.

The charts below, originally included in a 2012 Nature commentary and then updated each year by the authors, shows how projected CO2 emissions under RCP8.5 (red line) compares with the other RCPs (bold coloured lines) and observations (black line).

The left-hand chart shows total CO2 emissions, including land-use change, while the right-hand chart shows CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and producing cement – the dominant drivers of 21st century emissions. 

Global total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land use (left) and global fossil CO2 emissions (left) for historical observations (black lines) and the four RCP (coloured bold lines) for 1980-2050. Originally produced as part of Peters et al. (2012) and since updated by Glen Peters and Robbie Andrew.

While emission trends up to the early 2010s approximately tracked RCP8.5, a flattening of emissions growth in the years since has meant they have not kept pace with the sustained rises that were assumed in the scenario.

Over the past decade, global emissions have more closely tracked RCP4.5, one of the two “medium stabilisation scenarios” of the original four RCPs.

The debate around RCP8.5 has not just focused on current emissions, but also on the scenario’s underlying assumptions for the future. 

When it was published in 2011, the world had just seen unprecedented growth in global CO2 emissions, which had increased by 30% over the previous decade. Global coal use had increased by nearly 50% over the same period. Cleaner alternatives remained expensive in most countries and the idea of continued rapid growth in coal use seemed realistic.

Critics of RCP8.5 point to its assumptions for a dramatic expansion of coal use in the future, as well as high growth in global population.

For example, in a 2017 paper, two scientists argued that the “return to coal” envisaged in RCP8.5 would require an unprecedented five-fold increase in global coal use by the end of the century. Such an outcome was “exceptionally unlikely”, the authors wrote.

However, others have argued that while high-emissions scenarios are becoming increasingly unlikely, they still have an important role to play. For example, they highlight risks that only emerge under higher levels of warming. 

In addition, research has shown that feedbacks in the climate system – where warming triggers the release of more CO2 and methane, which warms the planet further – could mean that human-caused emissions lead to a higher radiative forcing and have a greater climate impact than initially assumed.

In a post on the RealClimate website, Dr Gavin Schmidt – director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – unpacks why scenarios are updated and “why high-end scenarios are important”.

Back to top

How has RCP8.5 been replaced?

As the IPCC heads into its seventh assessment cycle (AR7), scientists have been developing the emissions scenarios and climate model projections that will – eventually – feed into its reports.

For the emissions scenarios, that process – known as ScenarioMIP – started back in 2023 at a meeting in Reading, UK. This involved scientists representing “different climate research communities”, explains van Vuuren.

This “brainstorming” session devised the outlines for the new scenarios, he says. After more meetings, these were subsequently developed into a proposal that was – after review – translated into a journal paper. After review from scientists and the public, the final paper was published in April. 

The paper sets out seven all-new emissions scenarios, replacing the SSPs (and its predecessors, the RCPs). For simplicity, the new scenarios are named according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The figures below show the emissions (left) and the estimated global temperature changes (right) under the proposed scenarios, from the “low-to-negative” emissions scenario (turquoise) up to a “high-emissions” scenario (brown). 

The greenhouse gas emissions for each of the CMIP7 climate scenarios (left) and the associated estimated average temperature change over 2000-2150 from a 1850-1900 baseline (right) using the FaIR emulator. Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren et al. (2026)

(It should be noted that, while the ScenarioMIP paper has been published, there remains an embargo on using the scenario data produced by integrated assessment models – often referred to as IAMs – to publish academic papers, analysis or even social media posts until 1 September this year. Carbon Brief will publish a detailed explainer on the new scenarios once the embargo lifts.)

When compared to the SSPs that came before, the range in future emissions in the new scenarios “will be smaller”, the authors say in the paper:

“On the high-end of the range, the…high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends…At the low end, many…emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020-30 period.”

In other words, the combination of technological progress and action on climate change that, to date, remains insufficient, means that scenarios of very high or very low emissions are now not considered plausible. 

Another way of looking at it is that the “range of potential futures has narrowed”, explains Smith, one of the authors on the paper.

If you “draw a fan or plume of potential future emissions that start in 2025”, it lies entirely within the spread of scenarios from a decade ago, he says:

“So you’ve ruled out futures at the high end. You’ve also ruled out futures at the low end – so it’s now not possible to limit warming to 1.5C, at least in the short term or the medium term.” 

This is a mix of “good” and “bad” news, Smith adds. 

“In the latest set of scenarios, the lowest [scenario sees] peaking at about 1.7C, so we’ve also lost that low end, but the good news is we’ve lost the high end…Back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future, because we’ve actually bent the curve [on emissions] enough to eliminate that possibility.”

The new “high” scenario projects warming in 2100 of closer to 3.3C (with a range of 2.5C to 4.4C).

To be clear, this “high” scenario would still come with catastrophic climate impacts, even if the level of warming would remain slightly below what was set out in RCP8.5.

Van Vuuren adds that the world is “now on a trajectory to 2.5-3C of warming”. As a result, “we don’t have any scenario anymore that can reach 1.5C with limited overshoot – we will have a significant overshoot”. 

Back to top

How is the IPCC involved?

Contrary to Trump’s claims, the common set of future emissions scenarios used by climate scientists are not developed by the IPCC, the UN climate-science body that produces landmark reports about climate change.

Instead, the development process described above is driven by a group of Earth system modelling experts convened by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).

CMIP – an initiative of another UN body, the World Climate Research Programme – coordinates the work of dozens of climate modelling centres around the world.

Working in six-to-eight year cycles, CMIP asks modelling centres around the world to run a common set of climate-model experiments – simulations that use the same inputs and conditions – that allows for results to be collected together and more easily compared. 

For experiments that explore how the climate might change in the future, modelling centres are instructed to run simulations against a fixed set of future climate scenarios, each with different levels of concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change. 

These future emissions scenarios are revisited each time CMIP embarks on a new “phase” of climate-modelling coordination, to reflect advances in scientific understanding and the pace of real-world climate action. 

The group tasked with producing the design of future scenarios, as well as the “input files” for climate models, is the “scenario model intercomparison project”, or ScenarioMIP.

CMIP aligns its work with the schedule of the IPCC, coordinating a new set of model runs for each IPCC assessment cycle. 

For example, the IPCC’s AR5 in 2013 featured climate models from the fifth phase of CMIP (CMIP5), whereas AR6 in 2021 used climate models from CMIP’s sixth phase (CMIP6).

AR7 will feature models from CMIP’s ongoing seventh phase (CMIP7). The first results from CMIP7 model runs are expected later this year. 

The IPCC is consulted during the CMIP process, van Vuuren tells Carbon Brief, but its input is “no different from any other review comment” that the ScenarioMIP team received. 

Thus, while the IPCC relies on model runs coordinated by CMIP in its landmark reports, it does not play a role in designing future emissions scenarios, nor in deciding when they should be retired. 

Dr Robert Vautard, co-chair of IPCC AR7 Working Group I, tells Carbon Brief that the IPCC does not “do or coordinate research”. Its role, he says, is to “synthesise existing knowledge” and produce “regular” reviews of climate-science literature. 

He adds that ScenarioMIP is just one set of scenarios the climate-science body assesses in its reports:

“IPCC assesses all scenarios, or sets of scenarios, that the scientific community produces. IPCC does not produce scenarios. CMIP7 will be [one] set of scenarios assessed by IPCC [for AR7] – but there will be many others.”

The IPCC has also released a statement in response to the recent reporting, reiterating that the paper on the new scenarios “belongs to the broader body of scientific literature produced by the international research community, under the coordination of the WCRP, not the IPCC”. It adds:

“The IPCC does not conduct its own research, run models or make measurements. It does not own the scenarios described in the mentioned paper, nor does it own any of the scenarios assessed in the sixth assessment report.”

Back to top

Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets

Factchecks

|

18.05.26

Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets

Factchecks

|

08.05.26

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Energy

|

25.03.26

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Factchecks

|

30.01.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_1270d8a4c2c1404fcbe3c5c8e86b17a4 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Many right-leaning figures have tried to push the idea that the UK is an outlier on net-zero.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has claimed that other countries are “not following us” in aiming to cut emissions to net-zero, while GB News owner Paul Marshall said in March that the UK is “pursuing a path of unilateral economic disarmament”.

Both are among those on the right of UK politics who have falsely claimed that the UK’s net-zero target is “unilateral” and that this is a reason why the goal should be abandoned.

However, these claims ignore that 140 of the world’s 198 countries (71%) have net-zero targets. 

In fact, Iran and the US are the only two of the world’s top 20 carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters that lack a net-zero target, as shown in the map below.

If the UK were to scrap its net-zero target, as called for by both the opposition Conservatives and hard-right Reform UK, this is the group of major emitters it would be joining.

Countries with net-zero targets, as of May 2026. Data source: Net Zero Tracker

The latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s foremost authority on climate science, said the only way to stop global warming was to reach net-zero CO2 emissions.

The UK was the first major economy to set a net-zero target in 2019.

Since then, almost all of the world’s major emitters have followed suit, with China announcing a net-zero target in 2020 and India, Saudi Arabia and Russia launching goals in 2021.

Around 74% of global emissions are now covered by some kind of national net-zero target, according to data from the Net Zero Tracker, a consortium tracking net-zero policies.

According to the Net Zero Tracker, 34 nations – including the UK – have set a net-zero target into law, signifying the highest possible level of commitment.

In addition, 63 nations have stated their goal in a policy document, 16 nations have made a net-zero “pledge” and 23 nations have a net-zero “proposal”. (Four nations have declared that they have already reached net-zero.)

Types of net-zero targets across countries. Data source: Net Zero Tracker

The US, the world’s largest historical emitter when counting its cumulative climate impact since the start of the industrial revolution, had a net-zero target under former president Joe Biden. However, it was abandoned by the current Trump administration.

Despite this, some 18 regions and 43 cities in the US still have some form of net-zero commitment, according to the Net Zero Tracker.

John Lang, lead of the Net Zero Tracker, tells Carbon Brief:

“Ironically, of the world’s 20 largest emitters, only the US and Iran lack net-zero targets – precisely as the Iran crisis exposes the risks of dependence on fossil fuels and volatile oil markets.

“Arguing against net-zero is arguing for greater exposure to geopolitical instability and energy price shocks. The UK has already shown that cutting fossil-fuel dependence can go hand in hand with economic growth, reducing emissions by 54% since 1990 while almost doubling the size of the economy.”

Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario

Factchecks

|

19.05.26

Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets

Factchecks

|

08.05.26

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Energy

|

25.03.26

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Factchecks

|

30.01.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_7ca539661f3dc59b33382489358c8e48 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets appeared first on Carbon Brief.

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

This week US-China meet

ENERGY TALKS: Trump administration officials have raised the prospect of China buying more US oil in response to the disruption caused by the Iran war, following two days of talks between the leaders of the superpowers in Beijing, said Reuters. On Thursday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC the nations had discussed China “buying more US energy”, adding that production from Alaska would be a “natural” ⁠for China. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported that Trump and Xi also agreed that the strait of Hormuz must remain open to “support the free flow of energy”. 

CLIMATE ‘COOPERATION’: Ahead of the talks, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily published an article saying that addressing climate change requires “coordinated efforts and cooperation” between China and the US. State-run newspaper China Daily said that US-China cooperation on energy security and climate governance is “essential” because the two countries have “considerable influence over international institutions”. However, an article in Legal Planet said that the Trump-Xi meeting had no climate agenda, adding that the two countries are now moving in “radically different directions”.

El Niño extremes

‘SUPERCHARGED’: From wildfires to heatwaves and flooding, scientists have warned that the El Niño weather pattern could “amplify climate extremes” in 2026, reported Climate Home News. There is an 82% chance of a “very strong” El Niño forming this year, according to the average of four weather forecasters cited by the Times. The Independent added that the phenomenon could be “supercharged” by another weather pattern – a positive Indian Ocean Dipole – raising the risks of fire, drought risks and other extreme weather events.

WORLD ON FIRE: Global fire outbreaks hit a “record high” in Africa, Asia and elsewhere this year, reported Reuters, with conditions expected to worsen to the “highest in recent history” if a strong El Niño “kicks in”. More than 150m hectares of land were damaged by fires from January to April – 20% more than the previous record – according to data compiled by the ​World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group cited by the newswire. 

Around the world

• ETHIOPIA EVS: Electric vehicles now account for 8% of Ethiopia’s car fleet as “soaring prices and fuel shortages compel” African countries to switch to “cleaner and cheaper transport”, according to the Associated Press. 
• UK AID CUT: The UK has halved its most recent contribution to the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF) as part of a government “shift from development aid to military spending”, according to Climate Home News. The UK is no longer the top donor to the GCF following the move, said Carbon Brief.
• TORT RETORT: Reuters reported that the New Zealand government plans to amend a key climate law, to prevent courts from holding private companies liable for climate harms. This would apply to “both current and future proceedings”, the newswire said, including a current case against six major emitters. 
• RENEWABLE SECURITY: Military alliance NATO is “openly backing renewables and other non-fossil fuel sources of energy as key to the alliance’s security” despite US scepticism, reported Politico. The outlet covered a NATO-backed study that highlighted how imported fuels have been used as a “bargaining chip” in conflicts.
• NO INDIAN ‘LOCKDOWN’: India’s oil-and-gas minister “dismissed concerns of any imminent lockdown-like restrictions” after prime minister Narendra Modi “urged citizens” to adopt fuel-saving measures amid a global energy crisis, reported the Economic Times.

One billion barrels

The volume of oil the world has lost over the past two months since Iran began its blockade of the strait of Hormuz following attacks by the US and Israel, according to Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser, quoted in Reuters.

Latest climate research

• Antarctic sea ice levels have plummeted to “record-low anomalies” since 2015, with researchers calling it “one of the largest present-day climatic shifts in the Earth system” | Science Advances 
• Rainfall reductions in the southern Amazon will occur at progressively lower levels of deforestation as the planet warms, indicating that “climate change amplifies the sensitivity of rainfall to forest loss” | Global Ecology and Biogeography 
• Economic inequality adds more than 100,000 deaths to the total toll from heat and cold in Europe | Nature Health

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

Captured

Contrary to claims by the UK car industry that demand is not high enough to meet the UK government’s sales targets for “zero emissions vehicles” (ZEVs), a new Carbon Brief factcheck found it has actually “overcomplied” with its mandate. The chart above shows the required (left) and achieved (right) share of ZEVs in total UK car sales in 2024, the latest figures available. “Flexibilities” (in light blue) include the sale of lower-emission petrol cars.

Spotlight Chennai’s gig workers race against the heat

This week, Carbon Brief visits one of India’s first air-conditioned lounges designed to help gig workers deal with extreme heat.

An air-conditioned lounge for gig workers in Chennai’s T Nagar shopping district. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched

On a single day in late April, 20 of the world’s hottest cities were all in India.

Chennai was not on the list this time, but is no stranger to high temperatures. In the south-eastern coastal capital of Tamil Nadu, extreme humidity and heat are inescapable facts of life.

“The heat is by no means manageable, but we have no choice but to deal with it,” said Mohammed S, a 29-year-old grocery platform delivery worker, speaking to Carbon Brief. 

Last year, Chennai became India’s first ever city to roll out air-conditioned lounges for millions of gig workers, like Mohammed, navigating India’s increasingly hotter cities. 

Lounge access

In the dense shopping district of T Nagar – recognised as an “urban heat island” – studded with silk sari and jewellery shops, an unassuming oblong container-like structure stands out.

Gig workers leave their slippers outside the lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched

Through the building’s tinted windows, workers wearing synthetic jerseys emblazoned with food delivery app logos are stretched out on wooden benches meant to seat 25 people. 

The lounge has charging points for phones, a water cooler and a unisex toilet. It might not seem like much, but workers tell Carbon Brief that it has made a “huge difference” to their lives – even on a day when the air conditioner stopped working. 

“Before this, life was very difficult,” said Mohammed. He continued:

“We would park our [electric] bikes and try to find a tree to sleep under, stop for tea and tea shop owners would tell us we couldn’t sit there for more than 10 minutes, try to rest in a building’s stairwell and be chased away, then try to find shade under a flyover. Now we can sit in the AC and avoid the worst of the heat.”

Dinesh, 27, said his day starts at dawn before the sun is up, picking up packages from companies in north Chennai – another critical heat hotspot.

For the next seven hours, there is no “off point” or breaks for Dinesh as apps rush deliveries. 

Some of Chennai’s gig workers told Carbon Brief they try to avoid the worst of afternoon temperatures from noon to 3pm, but for many – especially migrant workers – sitting back in the lounge is not a choice they can afford. One of them explained:

“If you don’t have cash to cover your bills or have to send money back home, you head out into the heat for a 12-hour shift and hope for the best.”

Dinesh checks his orders in the gig worker’s lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched Feeling ‘gear’

In Chennai, heat might be normalised, but it has its own vocabulary. Speaking to Carbon Brief, the city’s gig workers, auto rickshaw drivers and fish sellers used an all-encompassing term – “gear” – to describe their symptoms, including dizziness, exhaustion and nausea. 

Last summer, researchers offered Delhi’s gig workers a Rs 200 (roughly £2) cash transfer on the first day of a heatwave, to provide them with a means to achieve “real-time” adaptation to heat risk. Workers who received a cash transfer reported fewer heat-related symptoms, according to the study.  

Asked if they would accept similar incentives to stay home on 40C days, workers in the T Nagar lounge expressed disbelief. Dinesh – who also trains technicians on how to repair air conditioners to support his income – told Carbon Brief:

“They [the apps] offer us incentives to go out in the heat when there are fewer riders.” 

Barring a few, none of the dozens of outdoor workers Carbon Brief spoke to had an air conditioner at home or in their hostels, making the lounge the only place they could cool down. 

Watch, read, listen

THE BIG ‘LOSER’: Writing in Foreign Affairs, Princeton University’s Prof Benjamin Bardlow argued that Beijing “may emerge from the war in Iran as its winner – and Washington its ultimate loser”.

CARBON ‘KINGPIN’: A new podcast by Drilled followed Bruce Rastetter – a corn ethanol “kingpin-turned-carbon entrepreneur” from Iowa – now promoting biofuels and carbon-capture projects in Brazil.
OPEC ‘DRAMA KINGS’: An episode of the Polycrisis podcast, titled “Gulf drama kings”, dug into the UAE’s announcement that it was quitting oil producers’ cartel OPEC, asking whether this reflected “doom” for the group, geopolitical tensions, or “different beliefs” about the future of oil.

Coming up

• 17 May: Cape Verde election
• 17-22 May: 13th session of the World Urban Forum, Baku, Azerbaijan
• 20-21 May:Copenhagen climate ministerial

Pick of the jobs

• Greenpeace, communications and engagement co-head (climate) | Salary: £63,756-£67,644. Location: London
• Global Witness, deputy director of campaigns (one-year contract) | Salary: £75,886. Location: London
• Karolinska Institute, research assistant in climate attribution and health | Salary: Unknown. Location: Stockholm, Sweden
• Greenpeace South Asia, climate researcher | Salary: Unknown. Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka

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.

DeBriefed 8 May 2026: EU eyes fossil-fuel exemptions | Wind and solar save UK ‘£1.7bn’ | Amazon ‘tipping point’

DeBriefed

|

08.05.26

DeBriefed 1 May 2026: Countries chart path away from fossil fuels | China’s clean-tech surge | Global forest loss slows

DeBriefed

|

01.05.26

DeBriefed 24 April 2026: Europe’s energy-crisis plan | Renewables overtake coal | Colombia’s fossil-fuel summit

DeBriefed

|

24.04.26

DeBriefed 17 April 2026: Fossil-fuel power slumps | ‘Super’ El Niño warning | Afghanistan’s climate struggle

DeBriefed

|

17.04.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_ad45c18cfa7c478d53b16c646d187963 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post DeBriefed 15 April 2026: Trump-Xi talk energy | ‘Supercharged’ El Niño | India’s first ‘heat lounges’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The UK is no longer the top contributor to the UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), after the government announced that it only intends to honour half of its most recent pledge.

Amid wider cuts to its climate aid for developing countries, the UK informed the GCF in May that it will reduce its commitment for the 2024-27 period to £815m ($1.1bn).

In doing so, the Labour government is drastically cutting a Conservative pledge of £1.62bn ($2.16bn), hailed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government as “the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change”.

This “record” pledge also meant the UK became the top GCF funder, after the Trump administration withdrew $4bn in pledged US funds in 2025.

Now, the UK follows the US in becoming the second major donor to cancel substantial funding, leaving aid experts concerned that other developed countries will follow suit.

As the chart below shows, the UK’s total past and promised contributions to the GCF have now dropped below those of Germany, France and Japan.

GCF pledges by top 10 donors. Dark bars indicate pledges from the initial resource mobilisation in 2014 and the first replenishment round in 2019, while light blue bars indicate pledges from the second replenishment round in 2023. Source: NRDC GCF pledge tracker.

The GCF is the largest dedicated UN climate fund and is seen as a vital way of raising grant-based climate finance for developing countries. It oversees more than $20bn worth of funding across 354 projects and programmes.

Developed countries, such as the UK, are obliged under the Paris Agreement to provide climate finance. One of the main ways to do this is through specialised climate funds, such as the GCF. 

However, despite countries committing to increase their climate finance over time, progress in scaling up GCF contributions between funding rounds has been gradual.

With its now-revoked £1.62bn pledge in 2023, the UK was among the donors that had increased its GCF pledging compared with the previous 2019 funding round. 

The latest reduction means the UK will now provide around 45% less funding than it did during the 2019 round. This is the biggest reduction between rounds by any major donor, apart from the US.

In an email to the GCF board, reported by the Financial Times, the fund’s executive director Mafalda Duarte said the UK’s actions were “expected to have a material impact on the delivery” of the fund’s projects.

According to the newspaper, Duarte noted that the move came as the UK cuts its overall aid budget in order to “invest more in addressing growing security threats”. 

In March, the UK government announced plans to spend “around £6bn” of its aid budget on climate projects in developing countries over the next three years.

Carbon Brief analysis suggests that this spending amounts to roughly halving the UK’s annual climate finance, when accounting changes and inflation are factored in.

Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began

UK policy

|

07.05.26

Q&A: How the UK government aims to ‘break link between gas and electricity prices’

Renewables

|

21.04.26

Analysis: UK is ‘halving’ its climate finance for developing countries

Renewables

|

27.03.26

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Policy

|

25.03.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_df2bd84d6efd96a81c4e56617c4f794f .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Analysis: UK no longer top UN Green Climate Fund donor after latest aid cut appeared first on Carbon Brief.