There is continued coverage of what Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means for energy supplies, security and prices across Europe and beyond. Many publications report that oil major BP yesterday pledged to offload its 19.75% stake in Russian state-owned oil firm Rosneft after facing pressure from the UK government. BBC News reports that BP chief executive Bernard Looney has resigned from the Rosneft board “with immediate effect”, as has fellow BP-nominated director Bob Dudley. It comes after UK business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng summoned Looney to an emergency meeting on Friday, Bloomberg reports. The Financial Times reports that BP has not yet specified how and when it will divest from Rosneft. “It could write off the shareholding, sell it back to Rosneft or find another buyer,” the FT says. A second Bloomberg story says the move could cost BP as much as $25bn. And a third Bloomberg article says the BP has “little chance of finding a buyer”. Reuters reports that Kwarteng on Sunday “welcomed” the move from BP. Meanwhile, the FT says this morning that “Norwegian oil and gas producer Equinor is exiting its joint ventures in Russia and will stop new investments there, just a day after BP said it was severing ties with the country following the invasion of Ukraine”.

Elsewhere, many publications report on a decision from the EU, US and their allies to cut off a number of Russian banks from the main international payment system, Swift. BBC News reports that Russia is heavily reliant on the Swift system for its key oil and gas exports. Politico says that Ukraine had called for this sanction for some time, but “some countries, including Germany, resisted excluding Russia…not least because they use it to pay for Russian gas, on which they are highly dependent”. It adds: “Even as they announced their move, allies were still working to find ways to limit its impact on energy prices. If removing Russian banks from the financial payments service prevented the country from selling oil and natural gas, prices could jump as European customers scrambled to find alternative sources.” Politico reports that the US and EU were coordinating with Swift “to see if there were ways to identify energy transactions in the system or whether exempting certain banks would limit the potential for disruption”. A second Politico story notes Ukraine has urged European leaders not to leave any loopholes in the sanction and called for a full embargo on Russian oil and gas. Associated Press says: “There is a glaring carve-out in President Joe Biden’s sanctions against Russia: oil and natural gas from that country will continue to flow freely to the rest of the world and money will keep flowing into Russia.”

Many publications continue to report on the consequences of the crisis for Europe’s energy sector. Bloomberg reports that EU members will meet today to discuss its response to US proposals for an emergency release of oil reserves in response to the crisis. “Member states are divided on whether the bloc should take part in a potential release, with EU law making any release conditional on strict criteria,” Bloomberg says. Reuters reports that Greece plans to propose a EU energy solidarity fund to help stem the impact to households and businesses ahead of this meeting. A second Reuters story reports that Kremlin-controlled energy giant Gazprom said on Sunday that Russian gas exports via Ukraine to Europe so far “continued normally”. The Atlantic reports that Russia “probably” won’t cut gas supplies to Europe because this would “essentially be an act of war”.

The Daily Telegraph reports on comments from German chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has said Germany will build its first gas terminals in a bid to break reliance on Russian imports. Reuters reports that Scholz also floated the possibility of extending the life-spans of coal and nuclear to cut dependency on Russia. EurActiv says that “keeping nuclear power plants online is being reviewed [by German politicians], but it may be unlikely…Yet, the long-winded process of shutting down the country’s nuclear plants may have already progressed too far to be able to stop it, the operators of the plants have warned.”

Similarly, Bloomberg reports that Italy is considering reopen shuttered coal plants to lessen its dependence on Russian imports. In the UK, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has called on the government to use cash from Russian sanctions to mitigate energy price rises in the UK, Press Association reports.

In the US, the New York Times reports that the US oil industry is using the crisis to push for more domestic drilling. Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that US natural gas futures advanced on the prospect of higher overseas demand after Europe imposed tighter sanctions against Russia.

Carbon Brief has produced an in-depth summary of what Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means for climate and energy, which will be continuously updated.

The Press Association is among many outlets previewing a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – set to be published today at 11am (GMT) – which it says will “send what may be the starkest warning yet about the impacts of climate change on people and the planet”. The assessment is the second in a series of three reports from the IPCC, which every six to seven years publishes an in-depth review of climate science for governments, PA reports. This report focuses on how climate change already impacts the world, how effects may worsen in the future and what the world can do to adapt, it adds. On the eve of the report’s release, the Guardian has spoken to the global chief of the Red Cross who says climate change must be treated as a “global security concern”. A second Guardian preview piece speaks to COP26 president Alok Sharma, who says: “The changes in the climate we are seeing today are affecting us much sooner and are greater than we originally thought. The impacts on our daily lives will be increasingly severe and stark. We will be doing ourselves and our populations a huge disservice if we fail to prepare now, based on the very clear science before us.” A third Guardian story answers: “What is the IPCC climate change report – and what will it say?” The Sunday Times also previews the IPCC assessment, noting that talks to approve the report overran into Saturday night “with international officials and scientists working to finalise the wording as they went line by line”. The newspaper adds: “Russia, Saudi Arabia and India repeatedly objected to the negative tone of the report. ‘They are delaying everything whenever they can,’ a source close to the discussions said. ‘Russia in particular is trying to emphasise any benefit from global warming and trying to remove mention of climate impacts caused by human activities.’” BBC News also previews the report.

Meanwhile, the Independent reports that Ukrainian scientists were forced to leave an approval session of the report for fear over their families’ welfare, based on a tweet from Climate Home News. Politico speaks to Svitlana Krakovska, a climate scientist who heads the Ukrainian delegation at the IPCC negotiations. She tells Politico: “It’s very difficult to think about climate change impacts when you have impacts of Russian missiles in our Kyiv, and tanks everywhere.” And Reuters speaks to Yakiv Didukh, a Ukrainian scientist contributing to the new IPCC report, who says: “I can hear explosions from my house. It is difficult for me now to think and talk about the climate, because the psychological situation is very tense. I am waiting and hoping that this will end and I will be able to do science.” Another Politico story reports that a Russian official present at the approval session apologised for his country’s invasion of Ukraine, saying: “First of all, let me thank Ukraine and present an apology on behalf of all Russians who were not able to prevent this conflict. All of those who know what is happening fail to find any justification for this attack against Ukraine.”

(Carbon Brief’s own in-depth summary of the IPCC’s second assessment report will be published shortly.)

The US Supreme Court will today hear arguments in a dispute that could “restrict or even eliminate” the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to cut greenhouse gas emissions in “the most important environmental case in a decade”, the New York Times reports. The newspaper says: “A decision by the high court, with its conservative supermajority, could shred President Biden’s plans to halve the nation’s greenhouse emissions by the end of the decade.” But the repercussions of the decision could stretch beyond climate change, “restricting the ability of federal agencies to regulate health care, workplace safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more”, the publication adds. Bloomberg reports that it is coal-mining companies and Republican-led states that are pushing for sharp limits on the EPA. The New York Times also carries a guest essay by Harvard Law School professor Jody Freeman on whether the Supreme Court is likely to hamstring efforts to tackle climate change.

African countries are already spending billions of dollars each year on efforts to help deal with the effects of climate change, the Guardian reports. Research by Power Shift Africa finds that Ethiopia is spending close to 6% of its GDP on dealing with extreme weather alone, the Guardian says. Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, tells the Guardian: “Some of the poorest countries in the world are having to use scarce resources to adapt to a crisis not of their making. Despite only having tiny carbon footprints compared with those of the rich world, these African countries are suffering from droughts, storms and floods which are putting already stretched public finances under strain and limiting their ability to tackle other problems.”

Many publications carry a range of comment, features and analysis on what Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means for energy. The Financial Times has published a “big read” on how the crisis has already led to a sharp rise in energy prices, “increasing the risk of higher inflation and reduced growth”. The FT says: “From crude oil to diesel to natural gas, the fossil fuels that power the global economy are trading at or towards record levels, threatening to redraw geopolitical relations between producers and consumers, drive up inflation and potentially even disrupt the fight against climate change.” Elsewhere, the Guardian explores how Europe can wean itself off Russian gas, while the Sunday Times asks whether Europe’s dependence on Russian gas is because “we’re going green too fast or too slow?” A Lex column in the FT says that China is the country least likely to suffer from disruption to Russia’s coal supplies. A third FT opinion piece by columnist John Dizard examines how Russia’s invasion could disrupt the global market for grains.

In addition, the Guardian carries an opinion piece from environmentalist Bill McKibben on how solar and wind power could help Europe “defeat Putin and other petrostate autocrats”. The Times carries comment from Dominic O’Connell, a business presenter for Times Radio, who argues economic sanctions are slow and Europe must harness the “power of oil” to punish Russia, and Graham Ruddick, deputy business editor for the Times, who argues that hydrogen could help to drive a green revolution “without Russia”. Another Times piece by energy editor Emily Gosden explores how BP’s pledge to offload its Rosneft shares could work in practice. Meanwhile, a Reuters column by analyst Clyde Russell says BP’s decision to abandon its stake in Rosneft is “the first high-profile example of the self-sanctioning by companies of their business links to Russia, a process likely to have short- and long-term implications for energy markets”. An op-ed in the Sunday Times by business editor Oliver Shah says “investment giants hugging China should pause and look at BP’s Rosneft plight”. The Daily Telegraph carries an op-ed from journalist and politician Patrick O’Flynn, who argues the UK needs a “nuclear renaissance” to end its dependence on Russia. And, finally, the Guardian carries an op-ed from activist Jamie Henn titled: “Fossil fuel companies are trying to exploit this war for their gain. We can’t let them.”

An editorial in the Daily Telegraph uses Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to push the newspaper’s repeated call for more fossil fuel use, including fracking, in the UK. The editorial reads: “We are paying the price for a staggering lack of foresight and a slavish devotion to our own self-indulgence, namely the rush to divest ourselves of any non-renewable use as soon as possible and, most stupidly, nuclear – a serious clean alternative for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. We must roll out a new generation of nuclear reactors in record time – it will take years, but we can still divide by three or four the time it would otherwise take – lift the moratorium on fracking and allow the North Sea’s gas fields to be fully exploited.” It comes as the Sunday Telegraph reports on comments from Steve Baker, a Conservative MP who is a trustee of the climate-sceptic lobby group Net Zero Watch (an offshoot of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, known as GWPF), who says fracking was ended on a “false pretext”. The Guardian has a story about how Baker, who is an evangelical Christian, has been the target of protests in his own constituency by other Christians who have “prayed and [sung] Amazing Grace outside [his] office” urging him to end his connection with the climate-sceptic lobbyists GWPF.

Meanwhile, an editorial in the Daily Mail also calls for further fossil fuel use. It says: “If ever a moment was screaming for us to exploit North Sea gas reserves and build nuclear power stations, it is now.” The Daily Mail, which has a long history of promoting climate sceptics and anti-renewables views, also carries a feature reported from Texas on wind turbine blades that haven’t yet been recycled.

Arctic amplification – where the Arctic region warms faster than the global average – is projected to be stronger in low emission scenarios than high emission scenarios after the mid 2040s, according to new research. The study compares historical and future Arctic amplification using a range of models and future warming scenarios. The authors find that “the strength of Arctic amplification in the low emission scenario is highly correlated with the amount of sea-ice reduction, whereas this relationship weakens in the high emission scenario” as “summer sea ice melts away by about 2050”. They conclude that “climate change mitigation may have a side effect because Arctic warming persists even if the global warming is stabilised”. For more on Arctic amplification, see Carbon Brief’s recent guest post.