The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, has stated his country is already “carrying its load” when it comes to tackling climate change and must focus on adapting to a warmer world regardless of policies to cut emissions. He also noted “that no fire event can be attributed to the actions of any one country on emissions reduction” and rejected a call to “step up and advocate” for more ambitious global action. However, another piece in the Guardian reports that some of Australia’s top scientists have called for the country to mobilise its current position as “ground zero” for global warming and “emerge as a leader in responding to the climate crisis”. The call comes from a letter, signed by 80 Australian Research Council laureate fellows, which concludes that claims saying that cutting emissions would be economically destructive have no basis and are not “consistent with Australia’s traditional optimism and ingenuity, nor with historical experience”. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the letter follows a statement from the Australian Academy of Science that declared this season’s bushfires were “unprecedented anywhere in the world” and linked them to global warming. According to the Canberra Times, Morrison also announced that he wants the power to declare a national state of emergency, giving defence forces “a much greater role in bush fires and other disasters”. Katharine Murphy, Guardian Australia’s political editor, writes that on climate change “our government is choosing to fail and trying to make a virtue of it”.

Meanwhile, Daily Mail Australia carries comments from former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and Liberal MPs “slamming” New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern for “climate hypocrisy”. According to the paper, the accusation stems from Ardern’s intention “to use controversial carry-over credits” to reach her country’s climate targets under the Kyoto protocol. These comments, which were originally reported by the Australian (and were the subject of an editorial in the same paper), have received a factcheck by the Guardian. It concludes that while there is an element of truth to the claims, it is not the use of credits under the Kyoto protocol which is the main issue, but Australia’s more dubious attempts to use Kyoto credits under the Paris Agreement.

Elsewhere, the South China Morning Post reports that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned that global emissions targets “cannot be delivered without further progress in China”. The Financial Times says the world’s biggest mining companies are failing to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and need to consider more ambitious action, based on a report from consultant McKinsey.

The European Commission has launched a public debate on the EU’s upcoming “European Green Deal” climate law, aiming to enshrine its 2050 “climate neutrality” before the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, EurActiv reports. It notes comments from the Commission vice president in charge of the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, who says Europe faces a climate emergency and “we’re not wasting any time”.

In the UK, BusinessGreen reports that a new “net-zero taskforce”, composed of experts and business leaders, has been formed to provide advice on how UK infrastructure can be redesigned to accommodate the government’s targets. In the US, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee on have produced a draft of their new climate plan, which aims for net-zero emissions by 2050, according to the Hill.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports on German government draft plans to provide compensation for the phase out hard coal-fired power stations. Another piece in EurActiv asks what this phase-out of coal will mean for the region’s carbon market, as “millions of CO2 pollution credits will be flushed into the EU emissions trading system”. In other news, the Guardian reports that world’s biggest tech companies, including Google and Amazon, “fuelled a record surge in the amount of renewable energy sold directly to global corporations last year”.

A group of French cities and advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit against oil giant Total, stating it was not doing enough to cut emissions and tackle climate change, according to Agence France-Presse. The groups, which include 14 local authorities and NGOs such as Greenpeace, say Total’s plan is “clearly insufficient” if France is to meet its Paris Agreement commitments. In its coverage, EurActiv notes this is the first time a French company has been accused of “climate inaction” in such a case and it “remains to be seen whether this will be recognised under the law, which is not necessarily guaranteed”.

In the UK, various publications report on the dismissal of charges against five Extinction Rebellion (XR) protesters who had targeted London City airport. According to the Guardian, the judge said there had been an “abject failure” by the Crown Prosecution Service after a police officer who was meant to stand as a witness booked a holiday at the time of the trial and could not attend. The Daily Telegraph notes the protesters “were given £280 to cover travel costs to court”. Meanwhile, Daily Mail Australia warns that XR protesters there are planning more climate action for 2020. BBC News has a profile of the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg as part of its on-going climate change series.

As the UK government and even climate sceptic US president Donald Trump signal their interest in planting huge numbers of trees to tackle climate change, a piece in the MIT Technology Review warns that while afforestation in undoubtedly a good idea, it is also a “limited and unreliable way of addressing climate change”. Noting the enormous number of trees required to soak up even a fraction of global emissions, it also notes that: “Perhaps the biggest risk is that the appeal of natural-sounding solutions can delude us into thinking we’re taking more meaningful action than we really are”. The piece assesses the various issues associated with this “seductive idea”, including the time required, the scale on which planting would have to take place, and issues with accounting of CO2 and the permanence of these carbon stores. The piece concludes: “People and publications across the political spectrum will be inclined to embrace the myth that trees will save us, and those hoping to stall or limit more effective efforts will very happily exploit it”. A separate piece in the Conversation considers, in light of the UK Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) recommendations last week, “how to make space for 2bn trees on a crowded island like the UK”.

In a related piece in the Guardian by environmental columnist George Monbiot, he refers to a “target culture” and accuses the CCC of abandoning “scientific realities in favour of political priorities”. He says the government advisers have produced an “unambitious report” (covered last week by Carbon Brief), despite their statement that it is line with the 2050 net-zero target they set for the UK government. “The CCC’s board should be disbanded and replaced by people whose mandate is rigorously to explore every economic sector in search of the maximum possible cuts in greenhouse gases, and the maximum possible drawdown,” he concludes.

The most important obstacle to limiting global warming to 2C is “opposition from special interest groups”, according to a new survey of experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Researchers surveyed 917 experts to identify the perceived importance of different obstacles and response options for achieving 2C. The results show that “opposition from special interest groups is a top priority among experts from North America, Europe and Oceania”, the study says. The most important response is perceived to be technological research and development, the study notes.