The Guardian says that according to COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev, “China would have offered more money to the poor world to tackle the climate crisis if western countries had not failed to show leadership”. The article continues: “[Babayev] has written in the Guardian, ‘China spent the full two weeks coordinating their response to the negotiations in a regimented fashion with the G77 group of the world’s poorest nations. The Chinese were willing to offer more if others did so too (but the others didn’t)’.” Meanwhile, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has urged developed nations to “fulfil their obligations and responsibilities to provide financial assistance to developing countries, aiding global climate action”, Shanghai-based news outlet the Paper reports. In related comment, People’s Daily carries an editorial saying that “multilateralism is the fundamental principle and ultimate solution for global climate action” and that regardless of how “international dynamics evolve”, China’s commitment and efforts to address climate change remain “steadfast”. 

Meanwhile, state-run newspaper China Daily reports that Bernd Lange, chair of the trade committee of the European Parliament, has told German broadcaster N-TV that “Brussels and Beijing are close to reaching the deal that would see China commit to offering EVs in the EU at a minimum price”. It adds that the “prospect of nearing an alternative solution” to tariffs would provide a “much-needed buffer to avoid the escalation of trade tensions”. 

In other news, China has launched measures to “stabilise energy supply, ensuring steady production of coal, natural gas, and other resources to guarantee winter heating”, state-supporting newspaper Global Times reports. China Daily publishes an article under the title: “Efforts made to make supply chains greener.” It says: “More work needed to create universal standards across sectors for assessing carbon emissions.”

The agreement made at COP29 to triple climate finance to $300bn “makes no mention of inflation, missing an important recommendation from leading economists upon which the target is loosely based”, the Guardian reports. The newspaper continues: “Money pledged today is likely to have lost about 20% of its value by 2035, assuming the average US inflation rate of the past 15 years (2.38%) continues into the future, according to Guardian calculations. If interest rates are higher, the value could be even lower. The target of $100bn by 2020 was set in 2009 and did not include inflation adjustments. If it had done, the target would have become $145bn in today’s money to reach the same value. Even taking 2020 as the baseline for the $100bn figure, due to high inflation rates in recent years current contributions would need to be about $120.5bn to reach the equivalent value…Projecting these into the future using the same historical inflation rate, the $300bn target by 2030 would become $368bn.”

Separately, the Guardian’s Fiona Harvey has published an account of “how the late $300bn deal left a sense of dissatisfaction and betrayal at COP29”. Harvey writes that COP29 was “the first time a COP had dealt properly with finance”, and says that “this lack of a blueprint for discussions led to an overreliance on the presidency”. On the initial $250bn offer by developed nations, she says: “While the tactic of opening with a lowball offer might be common practice in financial negotiations from housebuying to horse-trading, at COP it ignited fury. Climate breakdown is an existential issue for poor countries, and here they were, being played.” She also says: “While China wanted a deal at COP29, according to many insiders, India was more ambivalent. The country wanted to be able to benefit from climate finance to bolster its transition to a clean economy, but it also wanted developed countries to pay far more than had been offered…Some insiders speculated that India was having it both ways – not preventing a deal, but registering afterwards its dislike.” Climate Home News reports that India’s “fierce objection” to the final deal “showed its resolve to act as a voice for the global south in wanting more international support to step up climate action, diplomats and policy analysts said”. Axios, the Financial Times, CNN, Science Weekly and the New Scientist all have COP summaries focusing on the $300bn deal.

California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, has promised to “step in and provide rebates to eligible residents who buy electric vehicles” if Donald Trump ends the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles, the New York Times reports. The newspaper explains that the electric vehicle tax credits, which are part of President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, allow consumers to “lower the purchase price of an electric, plug-in hybrid or fuel-cell vehicle by up to $7,500 for a new vehicle and up to $4,000 for a used one”. However, it says that Trump’s transition team “has indicated that the president-elect wants the credits gone”. The outlet continues: “Newsom said that if Trump eliminated the credit, the governor would propose restarting a rebate program that California had for zero-emissions vehicles from 2010 to 2023. The structure of the program changed over time, but began with a $5,000 direct-to-consumer rebate for battery electric vehicles that eventually increased to $7,500. It helped fund more than 594,000 vehicles and saved more than 456m gallons of fuel, state officials said.” The Los Angeles Times reports that Newsom said the money “could come from the ‘greenhouse gas reduction fund’, which is funded by polluters under the state’s cap-and-trade programme”. However, it adds: “Any new money designated for EV rebates would have to compete with, and take money from, those other programs. Creation of an EV rebate program probably would require approval of the state legislature.” The Associated Press adds that “Newsom’s proposal is part of his plan to protect California’s progressive policies ahead of Republican president-elect Donald Trump’s second term”. Reuters reports that EVs currently account for 22% of Californais’s sales. The Financial Times reports that Tesla could miss out on Newsom’s “lucrative” tax rebates. It adds that “Musk responded to reports about the potential exclusion on his social media platform X, writing ‘Even though Tesla is the only company who manufactures their EVs in California! This is insane.’” Separately, the New York Times reports that electric car sales in the US could fall 27% if consumers lose the tax break, according to estimates published last week by economists. It adds: “Since January, consumers who buy or lease eligible cars have driven home with $2bn in credits on 300,000 cars, according to the Treasury Department.” E&E News reports that “America’s traditional automakers are asking president-elect Donald Trump to preserve federal electric vehicle tax credits, putting them on a collision course with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, their chief EV competitor”. Separately, the New York Times reports that the Biden administration will lend $6bn to help Rivian – a “relatively new company that makes only electric vehicles” – to build a factory in Georgia. The paper describes this as “part of an effort to lock in Democratic climate policies” before Trump takes office.

In other US news, a Reuters exclusive says that Trump’s transition team is “putting together a wide-ranging energy package to roll out within days of his taking office that would approve export permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects and increase oil drilling off the US coast and on federal lands”. According to the newswire, the plan “largely reflects promises Trump made on the campaign trail”. Elsewhere, CNN says that “green investments have become the last line of defense for Biden’s climate agenda”. And the Hill says that “a blame game between the Biden administration and GOP lawmakers is underway after a key disaster loan program saw its funds run out in the middle of a destructive hurricane season”. 

The European Commission has announced plans to “radically simplify EU green regulations”, Politico reports. According to the outlet, the changes will affect three laws that require companies to take responsibility for their environmental impacts, but which it says businesses claimed were “complicated and onerous, and suffocated Europe’s competitiveness”. Politico continues: “It’s a decisive pivot away from the Green Deal program of the last five years, which put climate and the environment at the center of European lawmaking. The hope was that where Europe went, the world would follow. But the latest retreat suggests Brussels no longer trusts this narrative, and is worried its green regulations in their current form will have a negative economic impact – a fear shared by a growing number of European countries, businesses, and economic experts.”

There is widespread coverage of Storm Bert, which hit the UK over the weekend. BBC News reports that more rain is scheduled into Wednesday in southern England and south Wales. It adds: “Environment secretary Steve Reed said more flooding was likely this week but it should be ‘less severe’ than on Sunday. At least 300 properties have been flooded across the UK.” Sky News reports that “in the House of Commons, on Monday, ministers were told that ‘incompetence’ at the Met Office led to an underestimation of the storm”. According to the outlet, the Met Office was criticised for issuing a yellow warning, rather than amber or red. It adds that the organisation “defended itself, pointing out that ‘observed rainfall totals were broadly in line with the forecast and the severe weather warnings issued in advance’”. However, the Met Office also said it is “committed to learning the lessons from Storm Bert”, the outlet adds. The Guardian’s coverage of the storm says: “The climate crisis means the frequency and size of floods in the UK is increasing and with them the long-term impacts on people’s mental and physical health, according to the UK Health Security Agency. A rise in global temperatures of 2C would mean the number of people in the UK significantly at risk of flooding is projected to increase 61% by 2050. The world is on track for 2.6-3.1C degrees of warming this century under current policies.”

In other UK news, Politico reports that the government is set to consult on “proposed changes to the zero-emission vehicle mandate” next week. It adds: “Reynolds will stick to phasing out new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.”(heard details might be inaccurate).” The Times reports that the Morven Wind farm being developed by BP – one of the largest in the UK – “risks missing its 2030 target to start generating power, due to lengthy grid connection queues and supply chain shortages”. The Press Association reports that the government has launched a “new and improved” task force to cut aviation emissions. Sky News reports that a “controversial” tree planting target for farms in Wales has been scrapped. The Press Association covers a report by Friends of the Earth, warning that the UK is off track to meet its climate targets. Separately the Press Association says the head of Great British Energy has said new clean power projects must “show benefit” to local groups. And the Press Association also reports that “Scottish Labour will force a vote designed to re-design the Scottish government’s winter fuel payments, despite them being cut because of a decision by the UK government”. 

COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev writes in the Guardian that the $300bn climate finance deal reached last week is “imperfect”, but represents “a major step forward”. He says that the deal was close to failing because global north countries were “immovable” on increasing climate finance, and says that his negotiating team “tried in vain to push up support for the global south”. Babayev says “clearly it is far short of the $1tn widely and scientifically agreed to be the minimum needed to avert catastrophic human-made climate change”. He continues: “It was a mistake for western countries to insist that the final draft deal – and particularly the draft financials – not be unveiled until the penultimate day. To the global south this, rightly, made it look like a fait accompli. My negotiating team argued vociferously for drafts to be made public far earlier. But that was not to be.” Babayev goes on to praise the UK, which he says has “reassumed the country’s role in global climate leadership”.

Ed Miliband, UK secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, also has a comment in the Guardian. He calls the finance deal reached at COP a “step forward”, arguing that it will help poorer countries to decarbonise. He adds: “This deal will also help speed up the clean-energy transition globally, which is, crucially, right for Britain because of what it offers in terms of investment and economic opportunity, including exports. For us and others around the world, taking advantage of this transition is the route to good jobs, economic growth and higher living standards.” However, he writes: “the UK would have wanted to see a much stronger outcome on taking forward the global stocktake agreed at COP28 on the transition away from fossil fuels and on keeping alive the commitment to keep world’s temperature rise below 1.5C.” He concludes: “The reality of COPs is that they offer multiple truths about the state of climate politics and the world. Some optimistic, others less so. Yet for me there is one that stands out. The clean-energy transition is happening and it is unstoppable because economic prosperity and tackling the climate crisis now point in the same direction.”

In other UK comment, an editorial on Storm Bert in the Mirror says: “[T]he big picture, as ever, is climate change causing ever more extreme weather. Heating and polluting the planet is not an abstract issue for other countries to combat when the results are felt here in Britain.” Finally, Financial Times columnist Sarah O’Connor explains why the public “doesn’t buy the idea of a ‘green jobs’ bonanza”. She says: “Green jobs are far from a mirage: they are being created in their tens of thousands. And it’s not impossible to manage the transition in such a way as to minimise the losses and maximise the gains. But it requires a pragmatic focus on what’s possible and a sharp eye on geography.” 

Bangladesh’s Daily Star has published an editorial about the climate finance deal reached at COP29, saying it is “dismayed” by the outcome. It says that “developed nations have chosen to disregard the spirit of the Paris Agreement”, adding: “It is disconcerting that not all of these funds will be grants; some will come in the form of loans, which experts warn could increase the indebtedness of poorer nations already burdened by loans for their development needs.” The editorial concludes: “Developed countries must realise that they are jeopardising the survival of humankind as a whole by not fulfilling their obligations to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change. It is in their own interest, as much as it is in that of the developing world.” An editorial in Le Monde says the deal “highlighted the fragility of climate diplomacy”. It concludes: “Coming on the heels of the failure of the COP16 on biodiversity in Cali (Colombia), which had already stumbled over the issue of financing, Baku’s mixed results, to say the least, mean that the next meeting, scheduled for 2025 in Belém, Brazil, could be a case of double or quits for the climate.” And a Business Standard editorial says the deal “falls way short of requirements”. An editorial in the Telegraph India says COP “failed to deliver” on the climate finance goal. It adds: “Worse, only India, Indonesia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are on track to meet their current goals. Of these, India has slipped three ranks on this year’s ‘climate change performance index’ released just before Baku.”

In other comment on COP29, Zoe Schlanger, a staff writer at the Atlantic, says that the talks “ended in a deal that mostly showed how far the world is from facing climate change’s real dangers”. Justin Worland, a senior correspondent at Time, says that “despite the many complaints, it should not be minimised that in the middle of increased populist backlash and rising isolationist sentiment, countries still left the host city of Baku, Azerbaijan, with a deal”. In the Conversation, UCL scientists Mark Maslin, Priri Parikh and Simon Chin-Yee outline five takeaways from COP. Also in the Conversation, Prof Howard Bamsey from Australian National University outlines “how to design global climate talks that might actually work”. Nature has published researchers’ reactions to the $300bn deal. And in an interview with Le Monde, sociologist Stefan Aykut calls COP29 “proof that multilateralism is not dead”. 

Separately, Dr Matthew Bell – EY’s global climate change and sustainability services leader – writes in Reuters that “for countries to succeed in raising their climate ambition, they need to listen to business”. And Bloomberg columnist David Fickling says “the whole world will benefit if every country industrialises and grows wealthy on the back of renewable energy”.

As key negotiations on plastic pollution kick off in South Korea, William Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project and a former senior official at the US Department of Energy, explains in an article for the Hill that “there are several noteworthy parallels between the climate and plastics crises”. He notes that “both are caused by the oil industry, whose petrochemicals are used to make most plastic”, adding that “big oil companies are so powerful and embedded in the economy that governments have been unwilling or unable to stop them”.

China’s forests increased in size by 4m hectares a year from 2000-2015, and by 2m hectares a year from 2015-2022, new research finds. The study uses high-resolution satellite data to examine how tree cover has changed in the world’s fastest “greening” nation. It says that most tree cover gain comes “from forest conservation and restoration programmes”, adding: “Our findings can support forest management and carbon neutrality achievement for the country.”