New data from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) shows that this year will be the “world’s warmest since records began, with extraordinarily high temperatures expected to persist into at least the first few months of 2025”, reports Reuters. The newswire continues: “C3S said data from January to November had confirmed 2024 is now certain to be the hottest year on record, and the first in which average global temperatures exceed 1.5C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial period. The previous hottest year on record was 2023…’While 2025 might be slightly cooler than 2024, if a La Niña event develops, this does not mean temperatures will be ‘safe’ or ‘normal’,’ said Friederike Otto, a senior lecturer at Imperial College London. ‘We will still experience high temperatures, resulting in dangerous heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and tropical cyclones.’” The Guardian quotes Samantha Burgess, the deputy director of C3S: “We can now confirm with virtual certainty that 2024 will be the warmest year on record and the first calendar year above 1.5C. This does not mean that the Paris Agreement has been breached, but it does mean ambitious climate action is more urgent than ever.” The Associated Press quotes Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in the US, who was not involved in the report, who says the “big story” about November is that “like 2023, it beat out previous Novembers by a large margin”. (Last month, Carbon Brief’s latest “state of the climate” quarterly analysis showed that “2024 will be the first year above 1.5C of global warming”.)

Meanwhile, the Washington Post examines “why a two-year surge in global warmth is worrying scientists”. It says: “After 2023 ended up the warmest year in human history by far, 2024 is almost certain to be even warmer. Now, some scientists say this could indicate fundamental changes are happening to the global climate that are raising temperatures faster than anticipated. ‘This shifts the odds towards probably more warming in the pipeline,’ said Helge Goessling, a climate physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany. One or two years of such heat, however extraordinary, doesn’t alone mean that the warming trajectory is hastening. Scientists are exploring a number of theories for why the heat is been so persistent. The biggest factor, they agree, is that the world’s oceans remain extraordinarily warm, far beyond what is usual – warmth that drives the temperature on land up as well. This could prove to be a temporary phenomenon, just an unlucky two years, and could reverse. ‘Temperatures could start plummeting in the next few months and we’d say it was just internal variability. I don’t think we can rule that out yet,’ said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth [and Carbon Brief’s climate science contributor]. But he added, ‘I think signs are certainly pointing toward fairly persistent warmth.’ But some scientists are worried the oceans have become so warm that they won’t cool down as much as they historically have, perhaps contributing to a feedback loop that will accelerate climate change. ‘The global ocean is warming relentlessly year after year and is the best single indicator that the planet is warming,’ said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.” A separate Washington Post article runs under the headline: “It’s almost winter, but much of the US is still unusually dry.” And the Financial Times centres its “climate graphic of the week” on why a new study shows that the “first ice-free day in the Arctic Ocean may come before 2030”.

In her first broadcast interview since becoming the new chief executive of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, Emma Pinchbeck told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that the country is “not ready” for the sort of extreme weather brought by Storm Darragh and the government is “off track” and must do more to prepare for scenarios like flooding and intense heat. Pinchbeck said adaptations to homes and communities were needed immediately, “regardless of what you think we should do in terms of reducing emissions”. She added: “We’re off track against where we should be – and that’s things like flood defences, or are our houses built on flood plains? In the summer are our cities ready for extreme heat? These basic things.” Pinchbeck added the UK must plan for more extreme weather events such as Saturday’s storm, which killed at least two people and left thousands without power, adding: “We have to prepare our infrastructure for it. We have to prepare the economy for it. We have to prepare our homes for it…There are risks to our food yields, there are risks to where we can build safe homes for people, and risks to our towns and cities which are built on coastlines. These things are very obvious and we should be acting now to tackle them.” The Press Association also reports her comments.

Meanwhile, in other UK news, the frontpage of Saturday’s Daily Telegraph claims that “households could face higher energy bills to pay for nuclear reactors as the government puts the power source at the heart of their net-zero plans”. It adds: “The Telegraph understands that industry bosses are pushing Ed Miliband to let companies add the costs of building new mini-nuclear reactors to consumer bills. The prospect of higher bills is likely to prove contentious at a time when Miliband’s plan to overhaul the country’s electricity system is already sparking concerns about rising bills.” The article continues: “One Whitehall source said the government was ‘open to a lot more private sector dynamism on nuclear’ but stressed the idea would only work if it involved ‘less taxpayer funding and more private funding’. New funding models are being explored for the mini-nuclear reactors being developed by industry, rather than full-scale plants. X-Energy, a nuclear company backed by Amazon, told the Telegraph it was prepared to invest £20bn into Britain but said it first needed ‘clarity’ from the government on how the project could be financed. It is understood the company favours a model that would allow the cost to be paid for through bills. Some nuclear plant developers also want taxpayer-funded grants to help them with early development costs, the Telegraph understands. Whitehall sources stressed it was too early to discuss potential funding models but said the objective would be to leverage private, rather than public cash.” Relatedly, the Times reports today: “A frontrunner in the competition to develop the first mini-nuclear power stations in Britain has said that it would aim to build enough plants to power about six million homes by 2050. GE Hitachi, a joint venture between GE Vernova, the American energy equipment manufacturer, and Hitachi, the Japanese conglomerate, is vying to win taxpayer funding for its BWRX-300 design, a boiling water reactor technology.”

Elsewhere, the Sunday Telegraph claims that “ministers are forging ahead with plans to use electric vehicles (EVs) for combat on the battlefield despite warnings from military grandees that they could put the Armed Forces at risk”. The Press Association reports: “Dozens of green campaigners are calling on the government to support farmers and address the ‘broken’ state of England’s agriculture sector. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF are among numerous groups who have signed a letter to environment secretary Steve Reed raising the alarm about what they describe as unfair supply chains and funding for nature-friendly farming.” And BusinessGreen says that “Friends of the Earth and two co-claimants have today announced they will appeal against the High Court’s decision to reject a legal challenge over the government’s ‘inadequate’ climate adaptation plans”.

Finally, the Guardian covers the findings of a new Bloomberg NEF report which says that the “UK is lagging behind in the race to rewire the world’s power grids by investing four times more on renewable energy projects than on the electricity cables needed to connect them to the grid and consumer”. The newspaper adds: “For every pound the UK has spent on renewables it has spent only 25p on the cables and power lines, claims the report by Bloomberg NEF, which placed the UK eighth in an index of the world’s 10 biggest energy markets. The UK has trailed its European neighbours in Germany, Spain and Italy in constructing the electricity grids needed for a surge of projects due to its low ratio of grid investment to clean energy spending. It was also behind China, the US, Australia and Brazil in the global league table, but was rated ahead of India and Japan.”

A national science agency in Australia has found that nuclear energy “does not stack up…even after considering new parameters, with large-scale solar and big batteries still the lowest-cost option”, reports the Canberra Times. It adds: “In an official update released on Monday, as the federal opposition prepares to release its costings, scientists warn taxpayers will need deep pockets and a lead time of at least 15 years to develop nuclear energy generation. For the seventh straight year, renewables were the lowest-cost of any new-build electricity-generating technology. After a global energy crisis and equipment supply crunch several years ago, large-scale solar and lithium battery storage have weathered the inflationary period the best of all technologies.” The Guardian says: “The [Australian science agency] CSIRO has rejected [opposition] Coalition arguments that nuclear power plants could be developed in Australia in less than 15 years and that their long operating life would make them cheaper than other options. Instead, it has again found that ‘firmed’ solar and wind are the cheapest new electricity options. A draft GenCost report – the national science agency’s annual assessment of electricity costs – dismissed arguments by nuclear proponents that the technology’s economics have not been adequately considered.” ABC News says: “Building a nuclear power plant in Australia would likely cost twice as much as renewable energy even accounting for the much longer life-span of reactors, according to a new report from Australia’s leading science agency…It comes as the opposition leader Peter Dutton prepares to release the much-anticipated costings of the Coalition’s nuclear power policy this week. Dutton has repeatedly said the policy would help bring down power bills, a claim challenged in this latest report.” The Guardian has published an explainer under the headline: “The CSIRO pours cold water on the Coalition’s nuclear claims in a new report. Here’s how.” And ABC News has published six charts which “tell the story of Australia’s (slow) progress on climate change”. Meanwhile, the Sydney Morning Herald carries a comment piece by climate scientist Leslie Hughes under the headline: “Gas is burning our climate faster and Australia is part of the problem.”

The FT reports that the “World Bank has met a target to raise $100bn in finance for the world’s poorest countries in the next three years, despite the strong US dollar and fiscal pressures hitting developed countries”. It adds: “The International Development Association arm of the bank, the world’s biggest lender to poor countries and its biggest source of concessional climate finance, unveiled the largest fundraising in its history on Friday even as aid budgets around the globe are stagnating. Donor governments agreed to contribute $23.7bn at a pledge meeting in South Korea this week, only a slight increase on $23.5bn that they pledged the last time the IDA raised money, in 2021. The bank will be able to leverage this further to $100bn, compared to $93bn in 2021, by borrowing more from markets, getting money back from recipients, and squeezing more headroom from its top-tier credit rating. The US remained the biggest donor as the outgoing Biden administration pledged $4bn, up from $3.5bn last time, and $3bn under Donald Trump’s first presidency. But the US contribution needs legislative approval, setting up a potential battle in the new Congress next year over the funding if it is not passed in this year’s lame-duck session.” The FT says that the World Bank “faces the prospect of a Trump presidency threatening future fundraising from its largest shareholder”.

The South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that China’s “national power grid faced a major threat” on 3 August, when a “potentially devastating power oscillation…severely threatened the stability of the power grid in the northwest region [Xinjiang] and potentially across the entire country”, according to a “note” issued by the National Energy Administration (NEA). Such oscillations “are particularly relevant in grids with renewable energy sources…which are prone to variability”, the Hong Kong-based newspaper adds. Energy news outlet International Energy Net carries the full NEA note, which states that grid stability is the “basis for secure energy supply and the green and low-carbon transformation”. Meanwhile, NEA chief economist Lu Junling has said at a coal industry conference that coal companies bear the “political responsibility for national energy security”, reports China Coal Market Net. Meanwhile, power news outlet BJX News publishes a list of 45 recent bids for thermal power projects by major energy companies. And the state-run newspaper China Daily reports that China will “have 45,000 operational hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles by the end of 2024”.

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that China published new draft guidelines for reporting of the steel industry’s greenhouse gas emissions, in order to “prepare mills for their entry into the country’s carbon market”. SCMP reports that Chinese scientists have developed a new ironmaking technique that could allow steelmakers to reach “near-zero carbon dioxide emissions”. Dialogue Earth publishes an analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) finding that the “coal-to-chemicals” industry is likely to be China’s “only major, coal-consuming sector” in the future. The Communist party-affiliated newspaper China Youth Daily notes that global warming is causing “sudden droughts and extreme rainfall”, quoting scientist Wang Huijun saying “carbon emission controls” need to be intensified. Bloomberg reports that “continued rains followed by extreme high temperatures” have severely damaged China’s kiwi harvest. 

In other China news, Reuters reports that Beijing’s trade restrictions on some critical minerals have left “Western players” struggling to “replace China-based supply chains”. State broadcaster CCTV reports that China’s customs officials have published measures to “optimise” customs processes, including ensuring the supply of energy and minerals, as well as expanding the “scope of destination inspections” for mineral products. SCMP quotes former central bank governor Yi Gang telling a conference in Japan that the US-specific ban on critical minerals is due to Chinese policymakers having “little option in the face of mounting protectionist measures from Washington…coupled with a need to give the public an account” of China’s response. Bloomberg says that China’s critical minerals ban to the US “marks the first time” that Beijing has tried to “extend its domestic laws across international borders”.

Franziska Brantner, the newly elected co-leader of Germany’s Green party, has suggested the possibility of forming a coalition with the German centre-right party CDU after next February’s snap federal election, despite the CDU “blaming” the Greens “for the country’s economic stagnation”, reports the Financial Times. Polls forecast a CDU victory, notes the FT. Meanwhile, Brantner has emphasised that any coalition would not compromise the Greens’ basic principles, the newspaper reports, quoting her saying: “We are not going to give up Germany’s climate goals.” However, it also quotes CDU general secretary Carsten Linnemann stating that his party “can’t govern with these Greens”. Nevertheless, the latest Bild am Sonntag poll suggests that a coalition between the CDU/CSU (Union) and the Greens would guarantee a parliamentary majority. The newspaper says the Union is polling at 32%, while the Greens, under Robert Habeck, stand at 12%, giving the two parties a combined 44% – enough for a majority. Bloomberg also covers the story, adding that ​​CDU leader Friedrich Merz “toned down his criticism of the Greens [last] week to keep coalition options open”. 

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel carries an article titled “Germany’s expensive hydrogen dreams”, which highlights a study’s results showing that hydrogen “is likely to become as expensive in Germany as in almost no other country”. The outlet says that according to the study, the country’s goal of installing 10 gigawatts (GW) of electrolysers for hydrogen production is “unlikely to succeed”, with current capacity barely at 0.1GW. Der Spiegel notes that the Fraunhofer Institute predicts hydrogen will “stay scarce and expensive in Germany in the long term”. The outlet quotes the Fraunhofer Institute’s Prof Martin Wietschel, who led the project, saying: “Germany must expect the highest hydrogen prices within the EU and globally.”

The New York Times carries a comment piece by Arnab Datta, a “lawyer who works on energy security, industrial strategy and decarbonisation policy [and who] has advised the White House and members of Congress from both parties”. He writes: “The climate movement needs to build a broader coalition. Farmers have bountiful land that can be used to generate clean power. National security experts can make the case that we need to mine more critical minerals here in the US, to avoid relying too heavily on China or other countries. And even fossil fuel companies can bring their expertise in drilling to bear on developing new technologies that would accelerate our transition to, say, geothermal energy. Climate action shouldn’t be the exclusive domain of environmental activists who pass a purity test based on intention, but instead on a pragmatic evaluation of what is required to make decarbonisation good business, irrespective of politics. This approach might seem overly accommodating to the industries that are causing climate change. But the legislation of the Biden era demonstrates that pragmatism produces better results than dogmatism. As we look toward an uncertain political future, one lesson is clear: The path to lasting climate progress lies not in oil and gas antagonism, but in transforming our opponents into stakeholders in a clean energy future. It’s a strategy that’s beginning to bear fruit, and one that can continue to work if climate advocates evolve their approach for a new political reality.”

In other comment, the Toronto Star has a comment piece by Canada’s former environment minister Catherine McKenna under the headline: “As environment minister, I believed the oil sands sector would help us save the planet. I was wrong.” She writes: “I really believed that the environment and the economy could go hand-in-hand and include a vibrant oil and gas sector. I was convinced that we could reduce emissions from the oil sands as part of an ambitious climate plan, finally showing to the world that Canada was committed to meeting our targets and doing our part to tackle the climate crisis. It turns out the consensus was a mirage. Or, more accurately, a sham. Maybe it shouldn’t have surprised me that our industry partners were working against us from the inside. After all, oil is their business, their bottom line. It was only after I left politics that I came to understand the truth: The oil sands sector and the politicians they sponsor aren’t just greenwashing a product. They are working to brainwash Canadians into buying a version of reality that no longer exists. One where oil will forever be the hero of the Canadian economy rather than an impediment to Canada’s future prosperity in a low carbon, climate-safe world.”

Elsewhere, Climate Home News has published a feature by Vivian Chime on “why rich countries are ‘reluctant’ on additional JETP coal-to-clean deals”. She writes: “Three years after the first deal was signed with South Africa, top officials from the UK and Germany have disclosed that they are hesitant to pursue additional Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) – an initiative launched at COP26 in 2021 to help developing countries leap frog fossil fuels, especially coal, to renewables.” Relatedly, China Daily has a news story under the headline: “Indonesia’s plan to retire coal plants ‘challenging’.”

The UK’s right-leaning newspapers continue their near-obsession with UK energy secretary Ed Miliband and their related on-going campaign to attack net-zero policies. The Daily Telegraph has given space to a former British Army officer to claim: “If we spent as much time and money trying to save the planet from global war as we do trying to save it from overheating, we might just have a chance to head off a third world war.” Hamish de Bretton-Gordon adds: “At least with Labour’s ridiculous drive for net-zero by 2030, which it now seems to acknowledge is folly [the authors provides no evidence for this claim], it has finally grasped the reality that nuclear power is the main realistic means to achieve its green agenda. It will now extend the life of a number of our nuclear power stations. But though it might save the planet with nuclear fuels, similar isotopes may well destroy it. We’ve taken our eyes off the nuclear weapons ball and allowed proliferation to the tyrants in Iran and North Korea – as well as China, now rapidly building its arsenal.” The Daily Telegraph also provides a platform for the climate-sceptic Conservative peer Charles Moore, who has close links to climate-sceptic lobby group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (which the article does not declare even though he cites them), to argue: “Miliband’s net-zero zealotry risks killing Labour’s dream of growth.” The Daily Telegraph’s industry editor Matt Oliver also cites climate sceptics in a feature headlined: “Why Ed Miliband’s net-zero blueprint is unravelling.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has given a full-page to Stephen Glover to attack the government’s proposed planning reforms: “We need more houses and, in a world where the reality of climate change can hardly be denied, we must have more sources of alternative energy. I disagree. I believe that the case for more housing is built on a fundamental dishonesty, and the argument that we must have a neverending stream of new onshore windfarms, pylons and solar panels is flawed.” The Daily Mail’s City editor Alex Brummer writes under the headline: “Miliband is missing the nuclear button”: “Small modular nuclear reactors [SMRs] represent a sector where a UK green manufacturing revolution is attainable. The horse has already bolted to Denmark for windfarms, Sweden and Poland for heat pumps and China for solar panels. If SMRs are to power a fourth industrial revolution, Britain should take a leaf out of the Czech and US approach and get on with the job. A decision is promised in the spring. Why are we waiting?” In the Mail on Sunday, Quentin Letts says: “From bashing meat-eating to air travel, Labour’s hectoring killjoys are dragging Britain to peak nanny statism. And I know the deceitful desires behind it.”

Finally, in the Times, Libby Purves stands up for the Nimbys citing campaigns against nuclear power and pylons. And the Times also has a lengthy feature by political correspondent Lara Spirit headed: “Port Talbot, a town defined by steel, braces for an uncertain future. With the last blast furnace at Tata Steel plant closed and thousands of jobs lost, workers and their families are sceptical of the promised green ambitions.” The article says: “The Times visited Port Talbot with the opinion consultancy Public First, which spent six days in the town conducting 90 interviews with its residents, spending time at events including Christmas lights switch-ons, pantomimes and carols, community poetry readings, knitting mornings and rugby matches. The promise of abundant, well-paid ‘green jobs’ created by the transition to net-zero has come under scrutiny recently.”

Since the 1980s, South America’s Cerrado region has seen a 37% reduction in total rainfall and a 36-day delay in the start of the agricultural rainy season, according to a new study. The authors “analyse the effects of deforestation-induced climate change” in the Cerrado using a dataset that stretches back four decades. The study warns that of the 8.1m hectares of “soy–maize double cropping” – in which both crops are planted during one growing season – 99% experienced delays in the agricultural rainy season and 61% faced reduced rainfall. This has contributed to more frequent and severe crop shortfalls, according to the authors.