With climate diplomats meeting in Bonn today for the latest round of UN negotiations, BBC News previews the two weeks of talks with an interview with John Kerry, the US envoy on climate change. Kerry has “criticised a number of large countries” for not living up to the promises they made at the COP26 climate summit, BBC News says, adding: “If countries extend their reliance on coal in response to the war, then ‘we are cooked’, Kerry said. The fragile unity shown in Glasgow last November is likely to be tested in Bonn as countries deal with the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis. Kerry told the BBC that despite these drawbacks, ‘as a world we are still not moving fast enough,’ to rein in the emissions of warming gases that are driving up temperatures. ‘We can still win this battle,’ the former senator said, but it will require a ‘wholesale elevation of effort by countries all around the world’.” The article asks how much progress on climate has been made since COP26. It answers: “Bluntly, not a lot. A BBC analysis shows that across a range of issues, very little has been achieved.” The article also asks: “What’s happening with the really big emitters, China and the US?” And it cites new analysis for Carbon Brief, published last week, which “found emissions [in China] had fallen since last summer and were down 1.4% in the first quarter of 2022”.

Agence France-Presse also carries a preview of the Bonn talks which it says “will set the stage for a fresh round of major UN talks later this year in Egypt”. It adds: “While the 6-16 June conference in Bonn is a largely technical meeting aimed at preparing for Egypt, there are a number of key issues up for debate. A particular focus will be funding from rich polluters to help vulnerable developing nations least responsible for global heating to cope with its increasingly ferocious consequences…Meanwhile, there are growing calls for ‘loss and damage’ funding for countries already struck by devastating climate impacts, with a specific dialogue on the subject slated for this week.”

Meanwhile, the Guardian carries an opinion article jointly written by three former UN climate leaders, namely, Michael Zammit Cutajar, Yvo de Boer and Christiana Figueres. It sits under the headline: “For 50 years, governments have failed to act on climate change. No more excuses.” A Guardian news report about their comments says they warn that the “policies currently in place to tackle the climate crisis around the world will lead to ‘catastrophic’ climate breakdown”.

The Guardian reports that environmentalists are threatening legal action in an attempt to halt the development of a new gasfield in the North Sea that has been given the green light by the UK government. It adds: “Climate experts reacted with anger after the government announced it had given the Jackdaw field, to be developed by the oil multinational Shell, ‘final regulatory approval’ on Wednesday. Announced just minutes before the UK began a four-day public holiday to mark the Queen’s platinum jubilee, business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, said: ‘Jackdaw gasfield – originally licensed in 1970 – has today received final regulatory approval. We’re turbocharging renewables and nuclear but we are also realistic about our energy needs now. Let’s source more of the gas we need from British waters to protect energy security.’” The Guardian says the decision “flew in the face of clear evidence from scientists that countries had urgently to cut greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis…Jackdaw is just the latest major UK fossil fuel project to have been approved since the UK hosted COP26.” BBC News says the Jackdaw field, east of Aberdeen, has the potential to produce 6.5% of Britain’s gas output, adding: “The regulatory approval comes as the UK government seeks to boost domestic energy output following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Shell’s proposals were initially rejected on environmental grounds in October.”

In other UK news, the Financial Times says “UK ministers have come under attack for taking a ‘last minute’ approach to bolstering domestic energy supplies this winter and avoiding the possibility of blackouts if Russia cuts off gas to Europe”. It adds: “Many involved in the energy sector have reacted with dismay that it has taken ministers this long to start making winter contingency plans given it was evident by last September that Russia’s president Vladimir Putin was weaponising his country’s dominance over gas supplies to western Europe…Britain is facing a rapid decline in nuclear generating capacity, which accounts for about 16% of total [generation]. All but one of the nuclear power stations is due to retire by the end of the decade and the only new plant under construction – Hinkley Point C – has been hit by numerous delays. Extending the life of coal-fired plants should be more straightforward but EDF was also forced to warn UK business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng last week that it ‘urgently’ needed a decision on extending the life of its West Burton A coal plant in Nottinghamshire so it would be available this winter…Labour’s shadow business secretary Ed Miliband said the government’s ‘short-sightedness has been staggering’. In a statement, the government insisted any extensions to the life of nuclear stations was ‘entirely a matter for the operator and the independent regulator based on safety considerations’. Privately, officials have sought to play down the warnings of rolling power cuts in Britain this winter, arguing they would only occur in the very worst-case scenario.” The Economist has a news feature on why “Britain’s overstretched electricity grid is delaying housing projects”.

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage of chancellor Rishi Sunak’s U-turn decision to levy a windfall tax on the “extraordinary profits” made by North Sea oil and gas companies. The Financial Times says the Labour party has accused Sunak of causing uncertainty and damaging investment plans with his “haphazard, last minute” threat to impose a windfall tax on British electricity generators, a move that wiped £3bn off their share price. It adds: “Government insiders said Sunak wanted to ‘determine any course of action swiftly’, with internal Whitehall estimates suggesting he could seek to raise £3bn to £4bn from power generators. Labour, which initially championed a windfall tax on oil and gas producers, claims that Sunak is damaging the investment environment for new energy projects by threatening to extend the levy [to all electricity generators].” The Independent covers Uplift analysis showing that “dozens of prospective fossil fuel projects in the UK that qualify for Rishi Sunak’s tax relief on oil and gas could together pump up to 899m tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”. (See Carbon Brief’s factcheck from February headlined: “Can new UK oil and gas licences ever be ‘climate compatible’?”) The Daily Telegraph says “Sunak has been accused of mounting a £17bn stealth raid on the oil and gas industry after the Treasury left the door open to levying his windfall tax for three years in a row.” And the Times carries the views of Meg O’Neill, chief executive of oil and gas company Woodside Energy, who argues that the North Sea windfall tax will “imperil government attempts to revive Britain’s oil and gas industry”.

Finally, the Times reports today that “Kwasi Kwarteng is mulling a support package for steelmakers and other manufacturers struggling to cope with rising energy costs”. The Sunday Telegraph broke the story with the headline: “Energy subsidy lined up for struggling steelmakers.” The Daily Express says “families have rushed to install renewable technologies at home in the wake of rising bills, green experts have revealed”. And the Independent reports on new polling showing that “three quarters of red wall voters support richest paying more tax to tackle climate crisis”.

Republicans in the US House of Representatives have published a “road map” describing how they would mitigate rising fuel prices and address climate change if the party wins control of the legislative chamber in the November midterms, reports CNBC. The news outlet says: “The plan arises from the energy, climate and conservation task force established last year by House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and involves proposals that run counter to the warnings of climate scientists. The strategy provides a broad overview of how the party would address high energy prices but doesn’t set specific greenhouse gas emission targets…The agenda also endorses legislation to expand hydropower, one of the oldest and largest sources of renewable energy, and condemns policies that increase US demand for critical minerals mined from China, which are necessary for electric vehicle and renewable energy production…Environmentalists and congressional Democrats argue the GOP plan is not only insufficient but would worsen the climate crisis.” Inside Climate News says: “House Republicans unveiled the initiative in New Mexico’s Permian Basin, with one backer referring to ‘the awesomeness and the goodness’ of the oil and gas industry. An environmentalist called it greenhouse gaslighting.”

Meanwhile, in other US news, Bloomberg reports that “the White House is preparing executive action to blunt the impact of a trade dispute that has paralysed US renewable power projects by boosting domestic manufacturing of solar panels, according to people familiar with the matter”. It adds: “President Joe Biden plans to invoke the Defense Production Act to provide support for US-made solar panels, said the people, who asked for anonymity as the details are private ahead of an announcement expected as soon as Monday morning. Biden is also set to announce a two-year halt in new solar tariffs, which would allow domestic project developers to continue using foreign-made equipment while US manufacturing ramps up, two of the people said.” Reuters says “Biden will declare a 24-month tariff exemption on Monday for solar panels from four Southeast Asian nations after an investigation froze imports and stalled projects in the US, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters”.

Separately, the Financial Times says “the World Bank Group leadership is facing renewed criticism from Joe Biden’s administration to step up its climate change efforts, after a blunt complaint from the US Treasury about its failure to take the level of action required”. It continues: “A letter to the international financial institution headed by Donald Trump appointee David Malpass, seen by the Financial Times, said progress had been made to meet Treasury secretary Janet Yellen’s requests but there remained ‘specific gaps and room for increased climate ambition’.” Another Financial Times article sits under the headline: “Climate graphic of the week: US’s climate legal cases boom, but not its laws.”

The Washington Post reports that “climate change poses a growing threat to American schools”, adding: “Regions where extreme heat was once rare – from the Northeast to the Pacific Northwest – now periodically find their buildings unbearably hot as spring turns to summer and again when classes resume in August or September.” And BBC News has a news feature on a “looming dead pool” that threatens the “drought-stricken” western part of the US, which is reliant on water from Lake Mead, formed by the creation of the Hoover dam on the Colorado river: “If the lake keeps receding, it would reach what’s known as ‘dead pool’ – a level so low the Hoover dam would no longer be able to produce hydropower or deliver water downstream. Californians have been told to conserve water at home or risk mandated water restrictions as a severe drought on the West Coast is expected to get worse during the summer months.”

The Hindu reports comments made over the weekend by India’s coal minister Pralhad Joshi who said that the nation’s “thermal coal requirement” would go up to around 1,500m tonnes [a year, compared to 777m tonnes produced last year] over the next 18 years “even as the country’s energy demand is set to double by 2040″. The news outlet continues: “The minister added that there was a need to be conscious about the environment and keep in mind sustainable mining goals…Though ‘best efforts’ were being made to balance the dependence on coal and lignite with development of renewables, the transition to green energy would mostly be gradual, Joshi said.”

Meanwhile, the Hindustan Times covers the views of India’s environment minister Bhupender Yadav, who has said that climate action for every country should be based on national circumstances, “adding that while India will continue to move towards renewable energy while phasing down coal, it will not phase out the fossil fuel”. He also says that “our government won’t compromise on development or environment” and India will “uphold the demands and needs” of developing countries both at the Bonn talks starting this week and COP27. The Independent reports that “India looks to coal as power crisis worsens and monsoons arrive”, adding “experts say India’s recurring power shortage is a result of a supply chain problem, not capacity, while slow progress of renewables continues to be a problem”.

Separately, the Financial Times reports that Tata Power is “betting” on microgrids for rural power supply in India: “The group wants to build 10,000 small local arrays in a country where not everyone has reliable electricity from the grid.”

Reuters reports that “European Union lawmakers have been inundated by lobbyists ahead of votes this week on more ambitious EU climate change policies, with some industries urging them to scale back the proposals”. The newswire adds: “The European Parliament is set to confirm its position on a raft of proposals to cut planet-warming emissions faster this decade, ahead of negotiations with EU countries on final laws. Among the measures are an upgrade of Europe’s carbon market, a planned tariff to impose CO2 costs on imported goods, and an effective ban on new combustion engine car sales in the bloc from 2035. Emails to EU lawmakers, seen by Reuters, show a last-minute lobbying push from industries unhappy with positions approved by parliament’s environment committee and up for a vote by the full assembly this week.” Reuters says a “flashpoint” is expected to be the committee’s plan to speed up the phase-out of the free CO2 permits the EU gives industries to help them compete with foreign rivals that do not pay for carbon emissions and discourage industries from moving to regions with weaker climate policies. “It proposes to replace them by 2030 with a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) – a new levy on imports of carbon-heavy goods like cement, steel and fertilisers,” explains Reuters.

The New York Times carries a comment piece by Zeke Hausfather, the climate research lead at Stripe who is also a research scientist with Berkeley Earth and a climate science contributor for Carbon Brief. He writes: “Planting trees and protecting forests are a major part of many corporate efforts to offset emissions. But there’s a catch. Carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere is only temporarily stored in trees, vegetation and soil, while a sizeable part of our emissions today, will remain in the atmosphere, much of it for centuries and some of it for millenniums to come. Trees can quickly and cost-effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere today. But when companies rely on them to offset their emissions, they risk merely hitting the climate ‘snooze’ button, kicking the can to future generations who will have to deal with those emissions.” Hausfather continues: “Companies using trees to offset their emissions often sign a 40-year contract. But the companies selling and buying carbon credits may not be around in 40 years. There is a real risk that no one will be left holding the bag if tree plantations are clear-cut for development, go up in flames or are devoured by mountain pine beetles a few decades hence. In short, the timelines over which carbon removal needs to occur are fundamentally inconsistent with the planning horizons of private companies today.”

Separately, the New York Times has an opinion piece by Ezra Klein pushing back against the idea that not having children is a way to tackle climate change: “I don’t just prefer a world of net-zero emissions to a world of net-zero children. I think those worlds are in conflict. We face a political problem of politics, not a physics problem. The green future has to be a welcoming one, even a thrilling one. If people cannot see themselves in it, they will fight to stop it. If the cost of caring about climate is to forgo having a family, that cost will be too high. A climate movement that embraces sacrifice as its answer or even as its temperament might do more harm than good. It may accidentally sacrifice the political appeal needed to make the net-zero emissions world real.”

Meanwhile, Kenya’s Nation carries an opinion piece by Mohamed Adow, the founder and director of Power Shift Africa. Adow argues that a “dash for fossil gas would be a great folly for Africa”. He says: “Oil and gas companies in Europe and North America are…turning their sights on Africa as fossil fuels lose their political appeal and those countries seek to reduce their emissions. They are switching their lobbying efforts to make the case for African fossil fuels in a bid to survive the loss of support back home. Africa should recognise these efforts for what they are: A cynical attempt at squeezing profits out of a polluting and failing industry, leave Africa holding the stranded assets during the inevitable transition and totally disregard its climate suffering.”

The diverse effects of climate change on different species have the potential to “restructure” entire ecosystems, according to a new study. Examining 40 years of data for nearly 1500 species, researchers determine how different climate drivers will impact high-latitude species within their ecological niches. The researchers find that most of the changes occur within a particular niche – that is, by changing the relative abundance of species. These effects were stronger at higher latitudes. They write that these complex interactions “mak[e] it difficult to generalise biodiversity responses and rais[e] concerns about ecosystem integrity in the face of accelerating climate change”.

A new study finds that marine cold spells off of southwestern Patagonia were “more severe and extreme” over 2014-9 than in previous decades, giving hope that the region can provide a suitable environment for giant kelp in years to come. Researchers analyse sea surface temperatures dating back to 1982 to determine the geographical patterns of both marine heatwaves and marine cold spells. They find that no marine heatwaves over this period reached high enough temperatures to stress the giant kelp that call this region of the ocean home. These increased cool spells are “conductive to counteract global warming trends”, the authors write, “highlighting southwestern Patagonia as a possible climatic refugium for the giant kelp ecosystem”.

More than three-quarters of the European Alps experienced “greening” over the past four decades, while less than 1% of the area experienced a loss in productivity, according to a new study. Using remote sensing, researchers examine changes in snow cover and in productivity in the Alps since 1984. They find that although snow cover has “declined significantly”, this has occurred over only 10% of the Alps so far, while increased productivity has been much more widespread. They note that while greening could promote carbon sequestration in the Alps, “this is unlikely to outweigh negative implications, including reduced albedo and water availability, thawing permafrost, and habitat loss”.