There is widespread media coverage in the US of the Biden administration’s proposed new measures to “drastically” reduce greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants. The Wall Street Journal says the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposals, published yesterday, would place limits on the amount of CO2 emissions coal and gas fired power stations can release, pushing companies towards the use of carbon capture technologies or hydrogen. Reuters explains that the proposals would cut emissions from coal and gas plants by 617m tonnes between 2028 and 2042, according to EPA projections. An additional “factbox” from Reuters, citing EPA figures, says that the power industry would need to spend more than $10bn to comply with the new rules. Meanwhile, NPR quotes EPA administrator Michael Regan saying: “EPA’s proposal relies on proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future.” The Financial Times says the move comes “almost a year after the Supreme Court struck down an earlier effort”. The Washington Post runs its news story under the headline: “The US is taking a giant step toward meeting its climate goal.”

The New York Times says that the “regulations governing power plants come on the heels of other Biden administration plans to cut tailpipe emissions by speeding up the country’s transition to electric vehicles, to curb methane leaks from oil and gas wells and to phase down the use of a planet-warming chemical in refrigerants. Together with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which is pouring more than $370bn into clean energy programs, the actions would catapult the US to the forefront of the fight to constrain global warming”. But the newspaper is not alone in highlighting the likely pushback against the new proposals for power plants: “The plan is sure to face opposition from the fossil fuel industry, power plant operators and their allies in Congress. It is likely to draw an immediate legal challenge from a group of Republican attorneys general that has already sued the Biden administration to stop other climate policies. A future administration could also weaken the regulation.” Politico says: “When [the Democrat] senator Joe Manchin upbraided EPA on Wednesday for requiring power plants to reduce their carbon emissions, he didn’t mention that the agency’s rules could threaten his personal income…The risk to one plant, in particular, could jeopardise a lucrative source of money for Manchin. His family business Enersystems Inc delivers waste coal to the Grant Town power plant, a financially struggling coal facility near Manchin’s hometown that he has spent much of his political career protecting.” Politico has also published the “nerd’s guide to Biden’s new climate rule”. And the Hill has “six things to know about Biden’s proposed crackdown on power plant emissions”.

Inside Climate News says: “Fossil fuel industry allies in both Congress and the states are ready to push back, using essentially the same argument they have used for years: the technology [for carbon capture] is not ready. They have the advantage of a Supreme Court dominated by Republican-appointed justices who favour limiting the historical role of regulatory agencies like the EPA. Clearly cognisant of these challenges, the Biden EPA produced a highly customised set of rules designed to give the power industry both time and options for cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg says that Biden campaigned on a goal of decarbonising the US power grid by 2035, but “his EPA just proposed limits on power plant pollution that signal that target could be out of reach”. It adds: “Instead, the Environmental Protection Agency plan would allow some coal-fired power plants to keep operating through the end of the next decade as long as they swap in some cleaner-burning natural gas. Large gas-fired units could get until 2038 to transition to burning almost entirely hydrogen at the sites. And smaller units – those generating the bulk of US gas-fired power – wouldn’t face any new requirements.” Relatedly, Reuters reports that the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) said yesterday that the capacity of coal-fired power plants in the US by 2050 will “decline by more than half from 2022 levels, as environmental regulations raise costs and new plants powered by natural gas and renewable energy displace the ageing fleet”. The new EIA forecast does not take into account the new EPA proposals. (See the Comment section below for more reaction to the EPA proposals.)

Reuters reports that Christopher Waller, the governor of the US Federal Reserve, has said – in a “detailed rebuttal of demands for climate initiatives by the US central bank” – that climate change does not pose enough of a “significantly unique or material” financial stability risk that the Fed should treat it separately in its supervision of the financial system. The newswire quotes him telling an economics conference in Madrid yesterday: “Climate change is real, but I do not believe it poses a serious risk to the safety and soundness of large banks or the financial stability of the US. Risks are risks…My job is to make sure that the financial system is resilient to a range of risks. And I believe risks posed by climate change are not sufficiently unique or material to merit special treatment.” He added: “In March we watched a bank run on Silicon Valley Bank…Those are the kinds of things I am staring at right now. I am not as worried about climate as I am about things like banks failing because of bank runs.”

Bloomberg adds extra context: “Waller, who was appointed by former president Donald Trump, dissented in December 2022 from the Fed’s proposed guidelines that lenders with more than $100bn in total assets could use to safely deal with climate-related financial risks. The Fed draft guidance seeks to deal with possible risks tied to credit, liquidity and other areas. Many central banks in recent years have come to terms with the idea that climate change exposes national economies to new kinds of financial risks, in degree and in kind. A smaller subset, including Singapore and South Africa, have taken on clean development as a policy goal. Stress tests, climate-risk disclosures and, more controversially, banks greening their portfolios are all in play as general tools.”

China’s weak real estate market and slow industrial sector are having a negative impact on coal prices, despite the government’s efforts to limit production through safety checks, writes Bloomberg. Citing Chao Yuke, an analyst with the China Coal Transport and Distribution Association, it adds that major industrial users of the fuel, including steel mills and cement plants, are “demanding more discounts on coal purchases” to compensate for losses, with many having reduced operations. Chinese financial media outlet Caixin reports that Chinese power plants have “experienced enhanced profitability” due to the decline in coal prices, which lowered production costs and reduced losses for coal-fired operations. 

Meanwhile, Xinhua says that as China’s “new energy” industry rapidly expands, the cost decreases and the pace of product updates accelerates. The state-run news agency adds that behind the continuous cost reduction, China has emerged as the world’s “largest” manufacturer of renewable energy equipment, playing an “increasingly important” role in the global “new energy” industry chain and supply chain. In the first quarter, the combined exports of China’s electric passenger vehicles, solar cells and lithium batteries grew 67% compared to the same period last year, reaching a total of $265bn yuan ($38bn), the article notes. China Energy News says that, as an indicator of economic activity and direction, the overall electricity consumption in the first quarter of 2023 increased 3.6%, “showing positive signals” for “economic operation”. In the first quarter, the overall electricity generated by wind and solar grew 29% and “renewable energy” accounted for more than 80% of all new electricity capacity installed, the state-run industry newspaper adds.

Bloomberg covers new analysis for Carbon Brief by CREA under the headline: “China’s rising emissions may soon be eclipsed by clean power push.” It writes: “China’s post-Covid rebound is boosting its world-leading power emissions this year, but rapid deployment of clean technology means they could soon peak, according to a new report. Emissions grew 4% in the first quarter of this year and are likely to rise to a record high this year, according to an analysis by [CREA] for Carbon Brief. At the same time, wind, solar and nuclear power growth is accelerating, bringing the country near the tipping point where clean energy can meet all new demand and start putting fossil fuel use into long-term decline.” The South China Morning Post also covers the analysis with the headline: “China’s carbon dioxide emissions set to hit all-time high in 2023 based on current projections, topping 2021 peak: report.”

Elsewhere, the People’s Daily, the newspaper affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, carries an interview with Bi Baogui, an official from China Meteorological Administration (CMA), on the IPCC’s recent synthesis report. He says that, learning from the report, China should “vigorously develop low-carbon technologies, actively promote the utilisation of renewable energy, explore the energy-saving and emission reduction potential in different industries and sectors, adopt a series of policy measures to ensure the timely achievement of dual carbon goals, and advancing China’s low-carbon transformation and high-quality development”. Finally, research conducted by Chinese scholars has revealed that China’s rice yields have decreased by 8% in the past 20 years due to extreme rainfall, reports the South China Morning Post.

The Spanish government has approved a €2.2bn (£1.9bn) plan to help farmers and consumers cope with an enduring drought that has been exacerbated by the hottest and driest April on record, reports the Guardian. It continues: “The measures, described as unprecedented by the government, were signed off by the cabinet on Thursday. They include €1.4bn of funds from the environment ministry to tackle the drought and increase the availability of water, and €784m from the agriculture ministry to help farmers maintain production and avoid food shortages. The plan came a day after the Socialist-led coalition government announced legislation that will mean outdoor workers such as refuse collectors, street sweepers and builders will not have to work when the Spanish meteorological office issues high temperature alerts.” The Daily Telegraph explains: “Last summer a 60-year-old Madrid streetsweeper collapsed while working and later died on the day the Spanish capital experienced a record-equalling temperature of 40.7C. The death of José Antonio González struck a chord after it emerged that he had swapped shifts with a colleague to work at the hottest time of day as he was worried that his short-term contract would not be renewed.” Politico and Reuters also cover the story.

Ahead of next week’s G7 summit in Japan, Germany is pushing its international partners towards endorsing public investment in the gas sector, reports the Financial Times. However, nations including the UK and France have rejected Germany’s demands, arguing that such support is “incompatible with global climate goals”, notes the outlet. The FT quotes German officials saying that “we [Germany] need to use gas as a transitional source of energy…We can’t overlook the fact that things have changed [with the war in Ukraine] and the overall supply of gas is scarce”. The UK and France have, in turn, stressed that Germany has already built the liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals it needs to import more gas from countries other than Russia. The outlet quotes Petter Lydén, head of international climate policy at the NGO Germanwatch, calling on G7 leaders “to show their commitment to phasing out fossil fuels”.

Meanwhile, Die Zeit reports that Germany’s Building Energy Act, which envisages a ban on installing new oil and gas heating boilers in new and old buildings from 2024, will be discussed in the Federal Council, the Bundesrat, today. The article states that the discussion will show “how well the lobbying of the gas industry – also in the state governments – works”. The newspaper explains that the upcoming legislation puts the gas industry “in danger”, but is “good for the climate and, therefore, urgently needed”. However, there is a “threat” that an alternative version of the law could emerge, notes the outlet. Die Welt reports that the opposition German political parties Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) want to “attack” the act. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says that forthcoming amendments to the act have caused “the boom in sales” of heat pumps, with sales figures rising by 111% to 96,500 systems sold compared to the same quarter last year.

Elsewhere, Table.Media reports that German chancellor Olaf Scholz and finance minister Christian Lindner “stand against” subsiding industrial electricity from the state budget, fearing that the EU could intervene in this process. However, continues the outlet, Scholz’s party, as well as Greens and CDU/CSU, argue that the high price of electricity is causing problems for the electricity-intensive industries in Germany, in particular, which undermines their transition towards renewables. The outlet also notes that companies that apply for help must provide a commitment to make their processes “climate-neutral” by 2045. In addition, Tagesschau reports that the German energy giant RWE invested €‎8bn in renewables in the first quarter of 2023. However, the investments went out of Germany – to the US, due to its “financially attractive” Inflation Reduction Act.

The charity Christian Aid suggests that the UK can pay its “fair share” of support to developing countries vulnerable to climate change by taxing millionaires and fossil-fuel producers, reports the Press Association. The newswire adds: “Christian Aid said the UK should contribute 3.5% of the loss and damage fund [agreed at last year’s COP27] and raise the money through taxation. The charity calculated the contribution figure after the $100bn climate finance commitment and it is based on the UK’s historic emissions and relative wealth. It said recent estimates of the cost of loss and damage to developing countries is between $290bn dollars (£229.9bn) and $580bn (£459.8bn) a year by 2030. Therefore, the UK should contribute $15bn (£11.9bn) – worked out by applying 3.5% to the lower and higher current cost estimates and then landing in the middle – the charity said. The Guardian covers the same report under the headline: “Wealth tax of 0.5% could cover UK’s share of loss and damage fund, says charity.”

In other UK news, the Guardian reports that a £50m scheme to protect thousands of homes in England from flooding by the autumn “has been pulled by the Environment Agency”. And the Daily Telegraph says that the charity Citizens Advice has warned that “net-zero retrofit costs will be unmanageable for most homeowners”. The charity is reported saying: “If the UK is to achieve its net-zero targets, people will need support to upgrade their homes. More work is now needed to identify and deliver the right information, incentives and help for homeowners.”

Time’s senior correspondent Justin Worland says that the new EPA proposals for reducing emissions from power plants are, on their own, “significant”. But, he says, the “rule is also designed as a crown jewel of sorts, the anchor of a much bigger set of rules and regulations. To understand its significance, it’s important to look at it as part of that bigger picture.” He continues: “Biden entered office with a promise to put climate at the centre of his national agenda, and it was clear from the beginning that he viewed the private sector as critical to that goal. His top climate officials hit the road almost immediately to engage with industry, and the administration quickly embraced public-private partnerships aimed at cutting emissions. His international climate agenda, too, focused on catalysing private finance. Most importantly, his central legislative effort, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), focused almost entirely on positive incentives to encourage industry rather than penalties, proverbial carrots rather than sticks. EPA administrator Michael Regan described his goal to me last summer as using regulation to create ‘rules of the road’ rather than penalising industry. ‘This is not a hostage negotiation,’ he told me. ‘This is a conversation about how we’re all going to win the future.’” Worland concludes: “Some activists will complain that the administration’s approach to climate – including with this regulation – has been too business friendly. But, without Democratic control of Congress and with a Supreme Court that has severely limited the ability of agencies to manoeuvre, options are limited.”

Meanwhile, an editorial in the climate-sceptic comment pages of the Wall Street Journal describe the EPA proposals as a “death sentence” for fossil-fuelled power plants. The editorial says: “Even if power plants implemented carbon capture, their cost of generation would double, rendering them less competitive against subsidised wind and solar power. There’s also the not-so-small problem of permitting. Thousands of miles of pipelines would have to be built to transport carbon to geologic structures where it can be injected…Forcing fossil-fuel plants to shut down prematurely will endanger grid reliability. Don’t worry, EPA says, plants won’t have to fully comply for seven to 12 years. But their owners and utilities must make economic investment calculations today. The proposed rule won’t make an iota of difference to the climate as China and India ramp up coal power. Even EPA’s CO2 emissions reduction estimate over the next two decades amounts to only a third of that between 2010 and 2019 as natural gas replaced coal. The EPA is gambling that it can sneak this through the courts. But the rule is a de facto mandate to shift to renewables from fossil fuels, which Congress never explicitly authorised. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 Massachusetts vs EPA decision that let the agency regulate greenhouse gas emissions rests on shaky ground. EPA is inviting a legal challenge that could boomerang, and let’s hope it does.”

Writing in Heatmap, Robinson Meyer and Emily Pontecorvo say: “The EPA just shoved power plants towards the renewable energy transition. But don’t expect supporters to crow about it…the rules must survive the sharply conservative Supreme Court, which has blocked previous attempts at regulating power-plant pollution. And so environmentalists and Biden officials will be forced to walk a rhetorical and legal tightrope: In order to keep the all-important rules alive, they will have to describe them as not very significant at all. And even though the rules will likely increase renewables’ share of US power generation, few green groups will brag about it. Why? Because they are dancing around a major Supreme Court ruling, West Virginia vs EPA, that came out last year.” Dr Leah Stokes, an associate professor of climate and energy policy at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has commented on Twitter, saying: “It’s the right approach, but they’re too weak. The final rule must be strengthened, with earlier deadlines, and smaller plants in communities’ backyards covered.”

Writing in the FT, French president Emmanuel Macron argues that Europe needs an “industrial policy”. He adds: “In the past few months we have revamped this old concept and turned it into a powerful lever to meet the challenges of the ecological and digital transitions, as well as to match the ambition of our partners and rivals. The European Chips Act will boost research and development and the production of European semiconductors. The Net Zero Industry Act will simplify existing rules and drive more investment and skills to green and clean technology. In March, the European Commission announced amendments to state aid rules in order to better support Europe’s strategic industries. This has been accompanied by decisive progress on the reform of the electricity market…We have to implement this doctrine without delay. We have to take back control of our supply chains, energy and innovation. We need more factories and fewer dependencies. ‘Made in Europe’ should be our motto. We have no choice, as sovereignty is intertwined with the strength of our democracies.”

Meanwhile, BBC News has published a news feature under the headline: “Which European nations are winning the heat pump race?” It says: “Perhaps it is not surprising that Europe’s coldest countries, with the best insulation, have the highest heat pump penetration. According to the International Energy Agency, 60% of Norway’s buildings are fitted with a heat pump, followed closely by Sweden at 43% and Finland at 41%. In Germany the figure is a little over 4% and in the UK just 1%.” The Guardian interviews some people in the UK who have fitted heat pumps: “Climate crisis and high fossil fuel prices motivated some to invest in heat pumps – how did their first winter go?” In a presumed attempt at humour, the Daily Mail’s climate-sceptic columnist Richard Littlejohn remarks: “As part of the deranged net-zero drive to make us all colder and poorer, British Gas is offering refunds to people daft enough to install a heat pump.” In news of the UK’s other frequently platformed climate-sceptic writers, the Spectator gives space to Toby Young to remark on the “electric car boondoggle” and the Daily Telegraph sees Spectator editor Fraser Nelson complaining about fact-checkers: “The rise of fact-checking is powerful and helpful in many ways, but is most needed in areas where there is a fashionable and unchallenged consensus. Whenever all parties agree (as they did on lockdown, and still do on net-zero and international aid), the biggest policy errors are most likely to creep in.”

A new study finds that changing conditions in the Arctic Ocean could significantly alter sources and sinks of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times as potent as CO2. Researchers use field data of nitrous oxide concentrations in water from the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia to determine what factors affect the gas and its emissions. They find that while surface waters are, on average, in equilibrium with the atmosphere, there are significant sources and sinks across the sample sites. They conclude that nitrous oxide dynamics are likely to be altered by future climate change, but “emphasise the need for more observations from this understudied region to assess how representative these observations are”.