There is widespread ongoing coverage of the UK’s upcoming energy strategy, which had been expected to be published on Wednesday. A story trailed on today’s Financial Times frontpage says the strategy has been “delayed again, as chancellor Rishi Sunak continues to hold out against big new spending commitments”. It reports: “Officials close to the process said they did not expect an announcement this week and that 4 April, during the Easter parliamentary recess, was now the earliest date.” Press Association also reports the “further delay” to the strategy. BBC News reports that the government “plans to take a 20% stake in a £20bn large-scale nuclear plant at Sizewell”, with developer EDF taking another 20%. The article says: “Ministers hope the confirmation of two cornerstone investors will encourage infrastructure investors and pension funds to take up the remaining 60%.” It adds: “The government’s strategy will also include plans for solar and wind power, as well as stimulating additional investment in oil-and-gas fields in UK waters.” The Observer reports that prime minister Boris Johnson is expected to hold “crunch talks with senior cabinet ministers this week to resolve fractious talks over plans to tackle rising bills and boost the country’s energy security”. It adds: “The government’s energy strategy has been delayed by cabinet splits over onshore wind, funding for nuclear energy and the role fracking should play given spiralling energy prices and the Ukraine invasion.” Citing “a source”, the Times reports that Johnson is “resolutely opposed to fracking and is open to onshore windfarms only if communities want them”. It nevertheless reports that the energy strategy “will include commitments to review the moratoriums of fracking and onshore wind”. It adds that the business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng wants to offer communities hosting new windfarms cheaper energy bills. MailOnline also reports the idea of cheaper bills for homes near windfarms. A feature in the Sunday Times, quoting Carbon Brief’s deputy editor Simon Evans, is titled: “Spin for victory: are you ready for more wind turbines?” According to a frontpage story in today’s Daily Telegraph, households living near new nuclear plants “could get their electricity free of charge as part of the government’s energy strategy”. It says: “Government sources said that Johnson’s preference was for nuclear over onshore wind farms.” Today’s Daily Mail (not yet online) reports the same story under the headline: “Good news: Your electricity is free. Bad News: You live by a nuclear plant.” BBC News asks if solar farms can “overcome Tory MPs’ concerns”, saying at least 20 have spoken out publicly against developments in their constituencies. The Daily Express reports that the UK could, according to the publication’s headline, “replace Russia” as an energy exporter to the EU. It quotes Zoisa North-Bond, chief executive of Octopus Energy Generation, saying the UK could become a “major exporter of energy” by “building lots of renewables”. Another Observer article looks at the “fences to jump” to realise the prime minister’s ambitions on new nuclear. The Guardian says the push for new nuclear plants “lacks [a] facility for toxic waste, say experts”. Monday’s Guardian reports calls for the upcoming strategy to include “further measures to make homes more energy efficient”.

The Sunday Telegraph covers a “report” from the climate sceptic lobby group Net Zero Watch, formerly known as the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It says: “A government push for a new generation of onshore wind farms could make Britain even more reliant on gas, campaigners have claimed.” (The article offers no explanation of how generating more electricity from wind would leave the country needing more electricity from gas.) The paper quotes a government spokesperson saying: “Gas is expensive and renewables are cheap. By boosting cheap renewables and nuclear power, we will reduce our dependence on expensive fossil fuels and bring down costs for consumers. Our upcoming energy security strategy will supercharge our renewable energy and nuclear capacity, as well as supporting our North Sea oil and gas industry.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that Johnson “tells friends” he wanted to limit rising energy bills next winter but “failed to get the plan past the chancellor”. It adds: “The claims were denied by No 10 and the Treasury on Friday night.” The Daily Mail also reports that No 10 told cabinet ministers on Friday “to come up with ideas for easing the cost-of-living crisis”. The Sunday Express frontpage says: “Tory MPs have warned Sunak that he needs to do more to tackle the cost of living crisis”, including on energy bills and Monday’s Daily Express frontpage says a “new council tax cut [is] on way”. Similarly, the Sunday Times reports that the chancellor “is considering proposals for a new council tax rebate after his spring statement failed to allay panic in No 10 over the spiralling cost-of-living crisis”.

Reuters reports that China’s state-run Sinopec Group has suspended talks for a $500m petrochemical investment in Russia due to western sanctions, citing its network of sources. Meanwhile, China Dialogue highlights capacity flexibility as a key strand of China’s 14th five-year energy plan. (See Carbon Brief’s latest China Briefing for analysis of the plan.) The plan will see coal power plants in China “built or retrofitted as flexible”, including retrofitting 200 gigawatts (GW) of existing coal plants, the outlet says, adding that this will lead to “a system flexible and smart enough to accommodate a large amount and proportion of renewables”. However, it notes that ramping up and down coal power generators “will dramatically increase coal consumption per unit of electricity generated”. Separately, Chinese industry publication International New Energy Network looks at provincial-level five-year energy plans published since 2020. It reports Inner Mongolia anticipates the biggest increase in renewables, based on its five-year plan announced in March of this year, with 51GW of new wind and 33GW of new solar installations between 2021-2025. It says in total, projects included in Chinese provincial governments’ plans add up to 600GW of additional wind and solar power capacity.

The idea of banning imports of Russian coal had “gained traction” among policymakers in Brussels during the early states of drafting sanctions, before Germany “struck it down”, Reuters reports, citing “two European diplomats familiar with the plan”. It adds that Germany’s permanent representation to the EU “declined to comment on the matter”. Reuters notes that Germany’s economy minister Robert Habeck said on Friday that his country hoped to end all Russian coal imports by the autumn. Politico also reports that Germany is aiming to “be nearly free of Russian oil and coal by year’s end”, with coal imports being halved “over the coming weeks”. The Daily Telegraph also has the story. Separately, the Financial Times reports that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky “urges energy-rich countries to call time on Putin’s ‘blackmail’” by increasing alternative sources of production.

A comment in the Daily Telegraph by columnist Matthew Lynn argues that Germany “can afford a total and immediate ban if it wants to”, adding: “[I]f Germany is not willing to take that step it hardly deserves to be part of the Western alliance, nor to count itself as part of the club of civilised nations.”

Meanwhile, the Belfast Telegraph reports that a “huge” shipment of Russian coal had been set to dock in Belfast, Northern Ireland over the weekend, bound for the Kilroot coal-fired power station. The Sunday Express reports calls for Russian coal to be banned from the UK from “campaigners who want the government to give the green light to domestic mining to power the UK steel industry”. The Daily Telegraph reports that UK imports of Russian diesel have “nearly doubled” in the last decade. It says ministers “insist…UK is ‘not dependent’ on Vladimir Putin for energy”.

The UK’s National Grid has agreed to sell a controlling stake in its gas transmission network to Australian bank Macquarie, the Financial Times reports. It says the bank will pay £4.2bn for the stake and has promised “significant” investment to “upgrade it for a green economy”. It quotes the bank’s Martin Bradley saying: “[T]he transmission system will play a leading role in making the network ready for this transition. In doing so it will support the expansion of hydrogen’s role in the energy mix to deliver a competitive edge to the UK and its industry.” Reuters and the Times also have the story.

German newspaper Tagesspiegel reports on the results of three summits – EU, Nato and G7 – and how far the states involved are from a consensus on action against Russia as an energy supplier. It notes that Austria made its position clear, with chancellor Karl Nehammer stating: “With us there will be no gas-and-oil embargo against the Russian Federation”. He warned of economic risks that also apply to Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. German chancellor Olaf Scholz said in Brussels that it was a conscious decision by the EU not to include these sectors in the sanctions package, given the very high dependence of some countries on gas, oil and coal from Russia. The European Commission is examining scenarios in which Russia stops delivery of oil and gas to the region, the piece adds. In contrast, it notes that Latvian prime minister Krisjanis Karins urged his EU counterparts to extend sanctions against Russia to energy imports, and Estonia’s prime minister Kaja Kallas supported him.

Meanwhile, Clean Energy Wire, citing a report by the Court of Auditors, says that German government spending “must be more targeted to achieve emission reductions”, adding that “Germany cannot reach its goal of becoming climate neutral by 2045 with the programmes for climate protection currently in force”. The auditors recommend systematic analyses of project expenditures and revenues related to their climate impact. Finally, FAZ reports about worldwide action “Earth Hour”, which took place on Saturday. Millions of people switched off their lights for one hour at 8:30pm local time to send a signal for peace, climate and environmental protection. Famous buildings such as the Brandenburg Gate, Cologne Cathedral, the Eiffel Tower and the Sydney Opera House were also shrouded in darkness.

Today’s Daily Mail reports the news, announced six days ago, that the UK’s oil and gas regulator has been renamed from the Oil and Gas Authority to the North Sea Transition Authority. It says the change is, according to the authority, designed to reflect “its evolving role in the energy transition”. In the online version of its article, it quotes Steve Baker MP of the so-called Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Conservative politicians, which campaigns against climate policies, saying of the move: “It sends worrying signals that the UK’s oil and gas regulator daren’t now use the words ‘oil’ or ‘gas’ in its title.” The Sunday Telegraph also reports last week’s news in an article quoting Baker, as well as Craig Mackinlay MP, another of the small number of Conservatives on the Net Zero Scrutiny Group. It also quotes a “Tory source” criticising the authority for being “unhelpful” over fracking.

A short comment in today’s Daily Mail criticises the decision: “There may be a time in the distant future when we no longer need fossil fuels. Until then, the watchdog should be working to secure and expand our domestic supplies – not treating them as some sort of outdated embarrassment.”

Meanwhile, an “exclusive” in the Independent reports that Boris Johnson’s “new push for oil and gas will ‘blow’ net-zero commitment, analysis shows”. It reports analysis from NGO Uplift suggesting that giving approval to six North Sea oil and gas projects could increase emissions by 205m tonnes of carbon dioxide. It adds: “Tessa Khan, director of Uplift, said the expansion of fossil fuel production on that scale would destroy any chance the government has of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”

The UK government has launched a consultation on changes to its emissions trading system (ETS) including bringing shipping into the scheme and tightening its cap in line with the country’s net-zero target, Reuters reported on Friday. It says the consultation also leaves open the “possibility of linking the UK ETS internationally”, with the newswire noting that many participants “have called on the government to link it to the European scheme”.

Baby boomers are “the world’s worst polluters with the biggest carbon footprint”, the Times reports, citing new research. It says that boomers – those born between 1946 and 1965 – are the most likely age group to take overseas holidays, live in large houses and “spend more on technology and gas-guzzling cars”.

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that one in 10 young people in the UK are now vegan. It says they are “leading the charge in green ‘virtue-signalling’, a new report has revealed”. It says: “The issue of green virtue-signalling is not one limited to the household as it is increasingly informing government policy.”

An editorial in Saturday’s edition of the Times begins by noting that Russia is receiving “more than $700m a day from European nations in revenues for its exports of natural gas alone”. It says “the west” needs “urgently to find alternatives to Russian oil and gas”. The piece continues: “Replacing these energy sources will take years and will make energy more expensive, at least for a while.” It says that in the interim, “some countries will have to extract more gas from areas such as the North Sea and burn more coal, however unattractive that is”. But it adds that this imperative “should add urgent impetus to renewables sources of energy, including wind and nuclear power. These will signal a long-term commitment to energy independence from Moscow.”

In the Sunday Telegraph, an editorial criticises the government for failing, in its eyes, to “take the energy crisis seriously”, because it is “on net-zero ideological autopilot”. The piece continues: “Yes, the UK needs more renewable capacity. But it also needs a great deal more nuclear, and it will need more, cheaper fossil fuels for some time too, if only as a transition.” The Wall Street Journal uses an editorial to ask: “Will Boris Johnson get real on energy?” It claims that the UK’s net-zero target, adopted in 2019, “got Britain into this jam”, despite acknowledging that the “energy-price emergency” is “crashing over Europe” and is being driven by high gas prices. It adds: “[Johnson’s] embrace of ‘net-zero’ emissions has put Tory rule in jeopardy.”

Today’s Daily Mail gives climate sceptic former hereditary peer Matt Ridley space across two pages to criticise the “madness of our deluded worship of wind”. In an error-strewn article that appeals to “reason and data”, Ridley claims that wind power – widely acknowledged as one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity in the UK – is “expensive”. He says less that 4% of the UK’s primary energy in 2020 was from wind and picks a single moment when it was generating 3% of electricity, but fails to note that the technology now generates a fifth of the country’s electricity on an annual basis. Elsewhere, Ridley describes wind turbines as “akin to a post-modern Easter crucifix” and, later, as “monsters”.

In an article for EurActiv, Dan Jørgensen, Danish minister for climate, energy and utilities and Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency write that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has “destabilised global energy markets, setting off sharp spikes in fuel and commodity prices that are hurting consumers around the world”. The immediate challenge, the pair say, is to “wean European economies off Russian fossil fuels”. But they continue: “At the same time, we must not lose track of the world’s vital efforts to tackle climate change and limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C…Many of the ways to address today’s energy security crisis are also part of the solution to the climate crisis.”They continue: “At the heart of the immediate solution to today’s challenges are efforts to make our use of energy more efficient.”

Elsewhere, Associated Press says there is “friction between [the EU’s] security and climate goals, at least in the short term”. A comment for the Financial Times by columnist Martin Sandbu says: “The EU’s need to remove the national security risk of relying on Russian energy is a new opportunity to make a virtue out of necessity”. He argues the EU should move to collectively procure the gas it needs, adding: “In the long run, joint procurement would make it easier for EU countries to pre-announce plans for scaling down gas use – which, through its global market influence, would cast doubt on the wisdom of investing in long-term gas development elsewhere. The overall effect would be a boost to incentives for global renewable energy investments today.” A Financial Times Lex column calls for efforts to limit gas usage to help reduce reliance on Russia, pointing to the example of Japan.

“A heatwave at the north pole and collapsed Antarctic ice shelf are reminders to redouble our efforts, and focus on climate,” says an editorial in Saturday’s edition of the Guardian. It continues: “When policymakers and the public are focused on war in Ukraine and the rising cost of living, it is hard to be reminded of the existential threat posed by rising temperatures.” The editorial concludes by noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will “update its recommendations to governments on how to limit emissions” next Monday when it releases its Working Group III report, adding: “The shift to green power remains achievable. But time is running out.”

In an article for the journal of left-leaning thinktank the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), the UK’s COP26 president Alok Sharma says the main ambition for the summit was to “keep [1.5C] alive, and we have done so”. He points to the net-zero targets that now cover 90% of the world’s economy and the Glasgow climate pact that “commits countries to come back to the table this year to revisit and strengthen their emissions reduction targets as necessary to meet the Paris temperature goals”. Yet, writes Sharma, the “key thing now is implementation”, adding: “Our COP26 achievements will come to nothing if we do not deliver on them.” Other articles in the journal issue include from Sam Hall of the Conservative Environment Network on public support for climate action after COP26, Moustapha Kamal Gueye of the International Labour Organization on just transition and climate scientist Prof Emily Shukburgh, director of Cambridge Net Zero, on how to deliver on net-zero targets.

Against the backdrop of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, “a discussion has flared up in Germany about whether it makes sense to continue generating nuclear energy”, writes economic correspondent Christian Geinitz in German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Economy minister Robert Habek is a member of the Green Party, which is a strong opponent of nuclear power generation. But after the start of the war, Habek changed his rhetoric, stating that he would “not ideologically resist” it. Geinitz adds that “the second pillar of Habek’s party is the peace movement.”

At the same time, another member of the Greens, federal minister for the environment Steffi Lemke, continues to adhere to the position of moving away from nuclear power: “The great global concern about the safety of nuclear power plants in Ukraine is a dramatic reminder to all of us of the potential extent of damage from nuclear power plants.”

German citizens themselves are not opposed to increasing the production of nuclear power, Geinz notes, citing statistics that “seven out of 10 respondents in a survey conducted by the public opinion research institute Civey were in favor of extending the life of nuclear plants”.

A feature in the New York Times looks at how: “At every step of his political career, [Democratic senator] Joe Manchin helped a West Virginia power plant that is the sole customer of his private coal business. Along the way, he blocked ambitious climate action.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Manchin has “launche[d] new push for ‘all of the above’ energy bill”. It says he has “restarted talks with fellow Democrats about reviving the party’s climate and social spending bill, according to two people familiar with the matter, as administration officials search for oil and gas policies that could make the measure more palatable to him”.

In an interview with the Guardian, energy efficiency “guru” Amory Lovins extols the virtue of energy conservation. It says he is “arguing for the mass insulation of buildings alongside a vast acceleration of renewables”, adding: “He sees Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine as an outrage, but possibly also a step towards solving the climate crisis and a way to save trillions of dollars.” The piece quotes Lovins saying: “[Putin] has managed to bring about all the outcomes that he most feared, but he may inadvertently have put the energy transition and climate solutions into a higher gear.” He is also quoted saying: “Solar and wind are now the cheapest bulk power sources in 91% of the world, and the International Energy Agency expects renewables to generate 90% of all new power in the coming years. The energy revolution has happened. Sorry if you missed it.”

One third of subsea permafrost will be lost by the year 3000 under a high emission scenario, new research finds. The authors implement subsea permafrost into the land component of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model. “This is the first implementation of subsea permafrost processes in an earth system model component,” they note. The study projects that over the 22nd century, subsea permafrost will melt four times faster than it did in the preindustrial period, given a moderate emission scenario. Meanwhile, it will melt 15 times faster in a high emission scenario, the paper adds. The authors suggest that sea ice concentration could be used as a proxy for subsea permafrost melt, because according to the authors, the length of the local open-water season is linked to the rate of melting of subsea permafrost ice.

New research projects that by the end of the century, snowfall in Eurasia will decrease by an average of 17% in a moderate emission scenario and 31% in a high emission scenario. The authors evaluate the performance of 23 models from the sixth coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP6) in simulating snowfall across Eurasia. They find that the multimodal ensemble can “reasonably capture the climate means of snowfall indices” over 1995–2014, but that “most of CMIP6 models generally overestimate snowfall amounts, snowfall days and snowfall duration”. The study also notes that “heavy snowfall, snowstorms and their number of days will increase over part of Northern Asia, the Tibetan Plateau and Central Asia, where the risk of snowfall extremes will increase”.