The UK is to grant more than 100 new oil and gas licences, Reuters reports, adding that the government said the move was “part of efforts to tap domestic supplies and become more energy independent”. The newswire adds: “Prime minister Rishi Sunak said the move was compliant with the government’s environmental targets, with around a quarter of the UK’s energy demand due to still be met by oil and gas when the UK reaches net-zero in 2050.” [There is a broad scientific consensus that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with the 1.5C target.] Reuters continues: “Sunak said the new licences would support domestic supply, reduce reliance on hostile states, boost jobs in the sector and reduce the carbon footprint when compared with an alternative option of importing liquified natural gas.” [The UK’s Climate Change Committee has estimated that new production in the UK would raise global greenhouse emissions if global demand increases by just 14% of new UK gas output or 3% for new UK oil.] The frontpage splash for today’s Times reports the new licences, saying Sunak “seeks to open up dividing lines with Labour”. It reports: “The prime minister will use a trip to Scotland to confirm that the government will issue 100 licences to companies that want to extract oil and gas from the North Sea. The licences will be granted in September. He will also seek to ‘max out’ production of the North Sea’s remaining reserves by agreeing to further licensing rounds in the future in an attempt to drive up production.” The newspaper also reports: “The prime minister will visit Aberdeenshire today to set out new funding for a carbon-capture project.” The paper adds: “A YouGov poll for the Times found overwhelming support for the government’s net-zero target, with 71% of voters supporting it. However, more than half of those polled – 55% – said they would be unwilling to back net-zero policies if they imposed ‘additional costs on ordinary people’.”

The frontpage splash in today’s Financial Times is headlined: “Britain makes it cheaper to pollute by watering down carbon market scheme.” It calls the move “the latest sign that the Conservative party is backsliding on its climate agenda”. The paper reports: “Whitehall recently quietly announced changes to the UK’s carbon-trading scheme, including offering more allowances than expected to polluting industries. The move has pushed carbon prices to trade at a steep discount compared with those in Europe, sparking warnings from industry that it will undermine green investments and increase fossil fuel use.” It adds: “Since the announcement, the UK ETS has fallen to trade at a near-40% discount to its EU counterpart, at £47 a tonne compared with €88.50 (£75.86). The two schemes previously traded near parity; a discount first emerged this spring as traders grew nervous over the UK government’s commitment to matching the climate ambitions of the EU. The gap has widened this month.” 

BBC News reports: “The prime minister will emphasise the need to strengthen Britain’s energy security when he meets industry leaders this week.” The Press Association reports: “Rishi Sunak will hail the role Scotland plays in the UK’s energy security plans during a visit on Monday.” The frontpage of the Sunday Times reports: “Rishi Sunak is to announce multimillion-pound funding for a carbon capture project in Scotland to open a dividing line with the Labour Party and SNP over North Sea oil and gas. The prime minister will visit Aberdeenshire tomorrow to set out new funding for the Acorn project, which aims to capture carbon dioxide emissions from across the country for offshore storage in the North Sea. The Daily Telegraph reports: “The closure and subsequent re-opening of Britain’s largest gas storage site will cost bill payers nearly £1.7bn, Labour has claimed.” The Press Association reports: “Approving the Rosebank oil and gas field in the North Sea would be a ‘death sentence’, climate activists have said.”

The frontpage of today’s Daily Telegraph reports: “Rishi Sunak is set to warn on Monday that Sir Keir Starmer’s ban on new North Sea oil and gas exploration licences will force up household energy bills.” The paper continues: “Sunak also believes the Labour policy has national security implications because it leaves the UK more reliant on sourcing oil and gas from authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir Putin.” [Last year, Conservative Party chair Greg Hands tweeted a government-badged card describing the idea that extracting more North Sea gas would lower prices as a “myth”. It said: “UK production isn’t large enough to materially impact the global price of gas.”] In an “exclusive” interview with the Sun on Sunday, energy security and net-zero secretary Grant Shapps “warned” that “Labour’s eco plans risk plunging Britain into 1970s-style blackouts”, according to the paper. The paper quotes Shapps trying to explain his claim as follows: “Basically that plan – reading between the lines – says just import a lot more oil and gas. And if you’re going to do that and prices spike, we could be looking at the danger of blackouts.” [The UK is currently heavily reliant on gas for electricity generation. However, Labour’s plan to move away from gas more quickly would see gas imports fall, Carbon Brief analysis shows.]

The frontpage of the Sunday Express is headlined: “‘Not again…’: Winter energy bills to soar.” The paper says: “Households across Britain face a second winter of sky-high energy bills due to a lack of gas storage facilities to prevent supply shortages…energy experts have warned the UK’s continued dependence on imports will put us at the mercy of wholesale price fluctuations.” It adds: “Rishi Sunak is set to announce fresh investment in Britain’s oil, gas and renewable energy industry to ensure tyrants like Vladimir Putin can never again use energy as a weapon to blackmail.”

The frontpage of the Sunday Telegraph features a sympathetic portrait of the prime minister Rishi Sunak under the headline: “I am on motorists’ side, says PM, as he orders review of anti-car schemes.” The article – and a further piece inside the paper – misreport recent comments from Chris Stark, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, falsely implying that he thinks the 2030 ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars is too soon. [In a June report, the committee called the 2030 ban “vital”.] In the interview itself, Sunak tells the Sunday Telegraph: “The 2030 target has been our policy for a long time and continues to be. We are not considering a delay to that date.” The Saturday Daily Telegraph has a feature, trailed on its frontpage, titled: “Why cars could hold the key to a Conservative victory.” BBC News picks up Sunak’s Sunday Telegraph interview in an article titled: “Sunak orders review of low traffic neighbourhoods in pro-motorist message.” The frontpage of Monday’s Sun says “campaigners urged” Sunak “to do much MORE to end the war on motorists”. It reports: “MPs and motoring groups demanded additional action from the PM to target anti-car policies and ­protect cash-strapped drivers. They also pressured Sunak to push back the 2030 cut-off date for new petrol and diesel engines.” The Times reports: “Seven in ten Tory voters oppose the government’s plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, a poll has found. Rishi Sunak this weekend rejected calls by Conservative MPs to delay the ban. A YouGov poll for The Times found that 68% of Tory voters were opposed to the 2030 deadline, while 27% were in favour. Overall, 42% of voters opposed the plans, while 42% backed them.” Monday’s Daily Mail reports: “Dozens of Tory MPs yesterday urged Rishi Sunak to delay the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars. In a letter to the prime minister, 40 Conservative MPs and peers warned that sticking to the controversial timetable would cause ‘grave harm to the economy’ and leave motorists ‘worse off’.” [In fact, the 2030 ban would save the UK an estimated £6bn.]

More than 50 environmental groups claiming to represent 20 million people in the UK have “warned the prime minister” not to row back on climate and environment policies, BBC News reports. It says a joint letter from the groups, including the National Trust, RSPCA and RSPB, refers to recent wildfires across the globe and flash floods in India, in arguing that the environment “remains a central concern for voters” and there is “no public mandate for delay”. The Guardian says the letter “comes after the Conservative party narrowly succeeded in holding on to the safe Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat”. It reports: “The constituency’s Conservative candidate, Steve Tuckwell, centred his campaign on opposition to the planned expansion of London’s ultra-low emission zone (Ulez).” The paper continues: “Despite polls showing broad public support for action on the environment, the perception that successfully mobilising anti-Ulez campaigners in Uxbridge to vote for the Tories – or, at least, to not vote for their opponents – has led some to identify the environment as one such wedge issue. Since the byelection, Sunak has signalled that the government’s approach to its 2050 net-zero commitment will be malleable under his leadership, saying he will follow a ‘proportionate and pragmatic’ course that ‘doesn’t unnecessarily give people more hassle and more costs in their lives’.” The Times runs the story under the headline: “Rishi Sunak threatened with mass protest if climate policy watered down.”

Bloomberg reports: “Trailing in the polls, battered by economic headwinds and seeing businesses and the City of London flirt with the Labour Party, Rishi Sunak is rolling the dice that a shift to the right could keep his Conservatives in power…Downing Street’s political shift accelerated this week, starting with the signals the government was willing to row back on some environmental commitments…Turning away from green issues is a long-held demand on the climate-sceptic right of Sunak’s party.” The outlet quotes one expert saying: “Taking on more divisive issues may help bolster his position with core Conservative voters, but may weaken it with the more socially liberal voters that he was appealing to.” Another Bloomberg article says “Britain is backpedalling on Johnson’s climate legacy.”

The frontpage of the Observer reports: “Rishi Sunak has been accused of showing disregard for the climate crisis after Whitehall officials warned that some of his key green pledges were already unachievable.” The paper says: “A scheme to reduce packaging, a deposit return plan for plastic bottles, a boost for recycling and a tree planting and woodland creation programme have all been given a ‘red’ rating by Whitehall’s major projects body. It concluded that their successful delivery ‘appears unachievable’.” The report quotes Prof Jim Skea, elected last week to head the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), saying: “We need to be very aware that the ambition of the climate action we need to take really does have social and economic consequences…We need to keep talking to people to explain what’s going on, explain what the choices are, and explore ways of minimising the effects of the measures themselves on disadvantaged people. It’s really, really important because frankly, unless we address these issues, we will not be able to take people with us and we won’t get the action that is so very clearly needed.”

The Daily Telegraph reports the comments of Conservative former home secretary Priti Patel, speaking to the paper’s assistant editor on GB News, under the headline: “Priti Patel: We must pause all net-zero targets.” It quotes Patel saying: “My views on this are that actually we need to pause all this activity – 2030 is not that far away you know, click your fingers [and] 2050 will be upon us…Now if we want a sensible conversation about climate and the impact of climate change, recognising there are problems is one thing, but making sure that we have the tools and the ability that doesn’t impose costs and taxes on ordinary people, this is the space we have to be in. And we’re not – we’re not in that space at all.” The Daily Telegraph reports the comments of Conservative former chancellor Philip Hammond, saying successive Conservative prime ministers have been “systematically dishonest” about the cost of reaching net-zero. The paper notes: “As chancellor, Lord Hammond was in Number 11 in 2019 when Theresa May enshrined the 2050 target for net-zero carbon emissions into law. He caused controversy at the time by telling May that the cost of the UK achieving the goal could exceed £1tn.” [As he did at the time, Hammond is focusing on the costs but ignoring the benefits. The government’s official advisors the Climate Change Committee has estimated that reaching net-zero would require investments of £1.4tn, with this total substantially offset by savings – largely in reduced fossil fuel imports – amounting to £1.1tn. This is before taking account of avoided climate impacts and other benefits such as cleaner air.]

The Guardian covers the results of a focus group, reporting: “For all the fanfare about UK political parties facing pressure to re-examine their climate policies given the cost of living crisis, voters in two areas near clean air zones support measures to ensure net-zero targets are met…During a focus group, convened by More in Common for the Guardian, they broadly backed current commitments to tackle climate change – and in some areas thought the government should go further.” The frontpage of the Sunday Mirror reports: “Rishi Sunak got a roasting last night for borrowing a chopper to travel 200 miles – while the world fries.” It says a train journey would have taken just 10 minutes longer to arrive. The frontpage splash for Saturday’s i newspaper is headlined: “Poll boost for [opposition Labour leader Keir] Starmer after Sunak rows back on net-zero.” It says Labour’s lead in the polls “stretche[d]” to 17 points, leading by 44% to 27%,  after the recent byelection and the Conservatives’ “climate change retreat”. The Sunday Times writes: “Labour faces losing seats at the election after a judge gave the green light for Sadiq Khan to expand his ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), a pollster has said.” It says 11 London marginals are in the expanded Ulez. The Evening Standard reports: “Inside Labour’s battle with its own green agenda.”

The Group of 20 major nations failed to agree “concrete targets to cut dangerous emissions”, Reuters reports. It says the “impasse” came at a three-day meeting in Chennai, India, where “organisers released a document showing the bloc remained divided on calls, led by developed nations, to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by 2025 and cut them by 60% by 2035 over 2019 levels”. The newswire continues: “Members could not agree on depleting carbon budgets, historical emissions, net-zero goals and the issue of financing to support developing countries, the document showed.” It adds: “China and oil-rich Saudi Arabia backed away from making commitments in the G20 talks, members of a European delegation said.” The outlet notes: “The failure to reach an agreement comes just a week after the G20 major economies’ disagreement on phasing down fossil fuels following objections by some producer nations.” Climate Home News says the outcome of the meeting conflicts with a joint plea by the COP28 boss Sultan Al Jaber and the head of the UN climate body Simon Stiell urging G20 ministers to ‘leave Chennai on the right path and with a clear signal that the political will to tackle the climate crisis is there’.”

The Financial Times reports: “China has obstructed G20 climate negotiations, refusing to debate crucial issues such as greenhouse gas emissions targets, according to several people familiar with the talks. The people said Beijing’s stance was backed up by Saudi Arabia, putting in jeopardy hopes of concluding an agreement on ending fossil fuel use and boosting renewable energy.” The paper quotes one anonymous person at the negotiations saying: “I’ve never seen such wrecking tactics employed at a multilateral meeting before.” Another person “familiar with the talks” and quoted by the paper describes the Chinese negotiator as a “one-man wrecking ball”. The paper adds: “Those present said China argued the G20 was an economic forum and should not be the venue for climate change policy. Beijing also pushed back on proposed trade restrictions to deal with climate change, such as tariffs on imported carbon-intensive goods.”

Speaking at the meeting, COP28 president-designate Sultan Al-Jaber “voiced his concern that his call at a meeting [the previous] week in Goa, southern India, to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 has ‘yet to find expression in G20 outcomes’”, the National reports. The outlet adds: “G20 nations have a duty to take leadership roles when it comes to climate action, [Al Jaber] said.” Agence France-Presse quotes French ecological transition minister Christophe Bechu telling the newswire: “We are not able to reach an agreement of increasing drastically renewable energies, we are not able to reach an agreement on phasing out or down fossil fuels, especially coal.” Al Jazeera quotes EU environment commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius saying: “We were asked to make bold choices, to demonstrate courage, commitment and leadership, but we collectively failed to achieve that.” Indian broadcaster NDTV reports: “In a shot in the arm for India’s G20 presidency, 39 global corporate giants, including Coca Cola and Maruti Suzuki, have forged a coalition to boost circular economy at the G20 environment and climate ministers summit in Chennai.”

The House of Commons science, innovation and technology committee has published a new report saying that the UK government’s ambition to more than triple Britain’s nuclear power generation capacity by 2050 badly lacks a strategic delivery plan, notes the Financial Times. The newspapers says that the MPs sitting on the committee warn that the “stretching” government target on nuclear energy is the “right direction. but ministers need to be clear on how they propose to get there in order to encourage investment”. Bloomberg highlights how the MPs have “raised doubts about the UK’s plan to finance EDF’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant, saying protecting taxpayers should be a top priority”. It adds: “The government is trying to attract private investors through a mechanism that shares the risk of construction costs with the public. However, this so-called regulated asset base model has considerable downside, leaving consumers unfairly exposed, [say the MPs].” The Daily Mail picks up that the MPs describe the government’s current nuclear plans as a ”wish list”. It also notes that Greg Clark, the Conservative chairman of the committee, says that the “24GW of nuclear by 2050” would be” almost double the highest level of nuclear generation the UK had managed previously”. The Daily Telegraph says that the report stresses that the government has not set out a strategy for how it will quadruple atomic energy output by 2050. The newspaper adds: “Campaigners with the Stop Sizewell C group criticised the report, saying it ‘ignored legitimate concerns about whether nuclear can deliver reliable, affordable electricity’.” City AM says the MPs have called for a comprehensive nuclear strategic plan to be drawn up, consulted on and ratified before the end of the current parliament next year. (See Comment below.)

Typhoon Doksuri has brought heavy rainfall to several regions in northern China, including the capital Beijing, CNN reports. Beijing has issued “a red alert for rainstorms” (the highest warning alert) that are expected over the following three days, CNN adds, citing source from Chinese state news agency Xinhua. Xinhua reports that the typhoon has disrupted the lives of 880,000 people in Fujian province in south China. Chinese media Economic Daily says that “experts point out” that, due to global warming, “normal summer” is becoming rare. Reuters says the typhoon has prompted the evacuation of thousands of people from Beijing. The Independent says the typhoon has killed 39 people in the Philippines. Reuters reports: “As Khanun forms, China warns of third typhoon in three weeks.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph warns that “Chinese electric car ‘invasion’ could paralyse Britain”, citing Professor Jim Saker, president of the Institute of the Motor Industry. He believes “a coming influx of Chinese electric cars represents a security risk” as those cars “could be remotely controlled” by their manufacturers in China and that “there was ‘no way’ of stopping Chinese cars coming under remote control”. Finally, the Tehran Times reports that Iran oil shipments to China have been following “an upward trend since 2019”.

Brazilian news agency EPBR reports that Canada’s Sigma Lithium Corp has sent the world’s first shipment of “green lithium” to China. The shipment is part of a three-year “environmental offtake agreement” through which China converts “green tailings” into batteries for electric vehicles, another Brazilian outlet the Mining Observatory reports. According to the outlet, the extraction of lithium has already caused “widespread social and environmental imbalances”, based on interviews with the local Quilombolas ethnic group and indigenous peoples.

The Daily Telegraph reports the comments of Jon Butterworth, chief executive of National Gas, in an article subtitled: “Rush to phase out gas risks leaving working families behind, energy boss warns.” It says: “For Butterworth, hydrogen is the future for Britain’s gas network.” The paper notes recent comments from energy security and net-zero secretary Grant Shapps questioning the role for hydrogen in home heating.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times carries an interview with Conservative donor and industrialist Lord Bamford titled: “We’re too mesmerised by Musk – here’s why I’m building a hydrogen JCB.” In the Daily Express, Sarah Williams, director of the regulation and asset strategy at Wales and West Utilities, which runs the region’s gas grid, argues that there should be a role for hydrogen heating – and her employer’s assets – in the future, noting: “We can repurpose our existing gas pipes to carry hydrogen by continuing the work we’re already doing to replace older parts of the gas network under our streets.” She writes: “Large scale energy storage and many energy intensive processes need an alternative with similar properties to natural gas – and that means using hydrogen.”

The Daily Telegraph reports: “Lord Willie Haughey, the business tycoon, said the heating system [heat pumps] is unsuitable for the Scottish climate as its performance declines markedly in freezing weather.” [Europe’s coldest climates, including Finland, Norway and Sweden, have the region’s highest rates of heat pump use.]

In a comment for Saturday’s Guardian, Labour’s shadow climate and net-zero minister Ed Miliband says this summer has been defined by the ongoing cost-of-living crisis and “the climate crisis, which is playing out in horrifying ways across the world”. He writes: “The Conservative party is saying we can’t tackle both these crises together – and is, in fact, tackling neither. The Conservatives are wrong. Tackling both these crises goes hand in hand. That’s what Labour’s green prosperity plan will do – cutting energy bills, creating good jobs, delivering energy security and providing climate leadership for our country.” Miliband says that Labour’s plan to decarbonise the UK’s electricity by 2030 “will cut bills by £93bn over the coming years – or an average of £400 a year for every household in the country. The Tory plan to stay on fossil fuels as long as possible is a recipe for higher bills, energy insecurity and deepening climate disaster.” He adds: “Of course, in some areas, unleashing the benefits of moving away from fossil fuels does require investment. As we make the transition to cleaner, cheaper alternatives, the vital principle is that individuals or sectors should not be left to bear the transition costs on their own. This is one of the purposes of our green prosperity plan, the investment ramping up to £28bn a year in the second half of the parliament.”

For the Observer, Joss Garman, executive director of the European Climate Foundation [which funds Carbon Brief] writes: “There was always going to be a moment when the seemingly dry question of decarbonisation became a dominant – the dominant – question in British politics; a moment when the government and opposition would have to genuinely address a question that was no longer abstract, no longer about measures to take in distant decades to prevent climate impacts in distant lands. Are we actually going to clean up our economy, and if we are, then who’s going to pay for it?” Garman continues: “All last week, influential pundits and politicians were urging Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer to row back, not double down, on their climate plans. The argument they were making is odd. They recognise we are all being made poorer by the crippling cost of gas but argue in response that people should be left even more reliant on gas to heat their homes. Charging a car is now so much cheaper than filling your fuel tank, but the sceptics say the government should ensure more households depend on petrol and diesel vehicles to get to work…And so on.” He adds: “It’s true that if voters are left with the impression that going green will add to their bills at a moment when they are more sensitive than ever to inflation, and when taxes are already higher than for 70 years, then net zero policies will fail. But it should follow from this collective Westminster wobble that the most effective climate policies won’t be about taxing struggling households, but about investing to make the green options affordable, accessible and desirable to as many families and businesses as possible in the shortest period of time.”

In the Financial Times, contributing editor and columnist Camilla Cavendish has a piece titled: “The climate crisis requires a wartime footing.” She says: “Even as extreme heat is demonstrating that no country will be immune from climate change, the politics are becoming more treacherous. Parts of the right are mobilising to slow down the path to net-zero, as inflation bites and the fossil fuel industry comes under pressure.” Cavendish writes: “I have the eerie sense that some of the old tunes of the 1990s are being replayed. Although outright climate denial is now patently delusional, rightist politicians are quick to claim that the west has already done enough, or that new technology will save us. There have also been some bizarre attempts to distract from the main issue.” She continues: “The dilemma is how to balance climate action with the preservation of livelihoods. This can feel frustrating to those of us who fear we may soon reach planet tipping points which will wreak their own economic havoc…Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask which solutions will be most cost-effective, and where the costs should fall.” Cavendish concludes: “The path to net-zero demands that governments pull off the equivalent of a new Industrial Revolution in only three decades. Politicians are reluctant to move ahead of where they think public opinion is – and the public dislike blank cheques. The answer is surely to invoke a wartime spirit, and make the fight against climate change a joint endeavour against a common enemy. If the public and political will is there, human ingenuity can prevail, with remarkable speed.”

An editorial in Saturday’s edition of the Times says: “Both main parties must be more candid about the costs of global warming”. It begins: “Climate change due to human activities is real and remorseless. Tackling it is essential. Doing so will involve difficult trade-offs. Politicians who are keen to state the first and second of those propositions are notably reluctant to utter the third.” For the Sunday Times, Robert Colville, director of the Centre for Policy Studies thinktank, says the “lesson” of the byelection in which the Conservatives narrowly held the seat, in part due to campaigning against London’s ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ), designed to tackle air pollution, is that “voters like eco policies, as long as they cost net-zero”. Also in the Sunday Times, economist and editor of the magazine Works in Progress Sam Bowman writes: “The recent debate over net-zero and the cost of living has highlighted that cutting emissions by rationing energy use is likely to be costly and painful, when we could instead opt for cheap, abundant clean energy by making it easier to build new renewables and nuclear power.” An editorial in the Guardian welcomes a “new alliance” between Wales and Cornwall, saying: “Offshore wind power could kickstart an economic renaissance in the west of Britain.”

The right-leaning UK newspapers have published a torrent of comment pieces and editorials attacking net-zero policies. An editorial in Monday’s Daily Telegraph reflects on moves by prime minister Rishi Sunak to boost North Sea oil and gas production, saying: “The invasion of Ukraine has made it painfully clear that we must source as much energy as possible domestically.” The paper continues: “Successive governments have failed for decades to safeguard our energy security, preferring instead to kick the issue into the long grass with short-term fixes…We cannot afford to repeat such errors. Sunak has made small steps in this direction, committing to new oil and gas licences in the North Sea and working to revive the fortunes of nuclear energy. He must now press on to take full advantage of our natural resources to free ourselves of Moscow’s pressure, and to allow a transition to renewables that people’s wallets can bear.” An editorial in the Sunday Mirror says: “Now is not the time for politicians to go wobbly over tackling global warming…To back away now from net zero by 2050 would be fatal – literally.” The paper adds: “Sceptics are right to say climate change did not start wildfires consuming Greece or Italy. But that misses the point. It does not matter whether the flames began with a carelessly dropped cigarette, a spark from farm machinery or arson. Scientists are near unanimous that it was heatwaves caused by burning too much fossil fuel which turned them into uncontrollable, raging infernos.”

An editorial in Monday’s Daily Mail says low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) were “unleashed by the Tories”, but are “electorally toxic”. A second editorial says Sunak would “be on firmer ground” in attacking the Labour Party’s energy plans “if the Tories hadn’t spent 13 years neglecting our energy security”. The paper says it is “inexplicable” that the government has “shelved fracking”. An editorial in Monday’s Daily Express says: “It looks as though the Tories may just have found a way to bolster their ratings in the polls if the prime minister can prove that he really is on the side of motorists.”

An editorial in the Sun says: “It’s time Rishi Sunak slams the brakes on car-crash policies hitting ordinary motorists.”The paper also repeats misreporting of the views of Chris Stark, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, over the 2030 ban on petrol and diesel cars  (see above). An editorial in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph calls for the government to recall parliament so as to pass legislation reversing – or at least delaying – the expansion of the Ulez. A Sunday Telegraph editorial says: “It is right to seek to lower emissions, but not through coercion and a war on motorists.” The paper’s arguments include: “Electric cars are the future, but their rise should be allowed to happen spontaneously, rather than through absurd and arbitrary deadlines.” [In addition to the UK, the EU and China are among those to have set dates for the end of combustion engine car sales.] For the Daily Telegraph, associate editor Camilla Tominey has a comment titled: “Net-zero extremism is turning into a middle-class war against the poor.” In the Sunday Times, columnist Camilla Long has a piece titled: “As the wildfires blazed, out came the raging hypocrisy of the climate-deranged classes.” For the Daily Telegraph, Tim Stanley writes under the headline: “Britain is a world leader in net-zero fantasies and delusions.” Also for the Daily Telegraph, Liam Halligan claims: “The cost of hitting net-zero by 2050 will be vast for households and businesses.” He claims, apparently ignoring the standard dynamics of supply and demand, that the shift to renewables “inflates” the cost of gas. Halligan also points to an Office for Budget Responsibility report to highlight the increase in UK national debt that could be caused by investing to reach net-zero – but fails to note the same report said debt could increase far more steeply if the country continues to rely on gas.

For the Observer, comedian Stewart Lee writes under the headline: “Europe burns while the Tories’ net-zero plans are set to go up in smoke.” For MailOnline, columnist Janet Street-Porter writes: “There are fires every summer in the Mediterranean, but Europe’s extreme weather and the hottest July ever shows climate change is NOT a myth. It’s time to get used to the new normal.” In the Sunday Express, climate-sceptic columnist James Whale writes under the headline: “Let’s all agree that net-zero is a silly idea.” [It will be impossible to stop global warming unless carbon dioxide emissions reach net-zero.] The Sun gives a comment slot to former music journalist Tony Parsons to write under the headline: “It’s time Labour and the Tories give up on the green pipe dream of net-zero and stop punishing ordinary folk.” The Financial Times Lex column says: “The heat is on for urban areas as the threat grows that some may become unliveable in the not too distant future.” In the Wall Street Journal, Allysia Finley, a member of the paper’s climate-sceptic editorial board, writes under the headline: “Climate change obsession is a real mental disorder.” She claims: “Before the media began reporting on putative temperature records – the scientific evidence for which is also weak – heatwaves were treated as a normal part of summer. Uncomfortable, but figuratively nothing to sweat about.” [The month of July is expected to be the hottest on record for the Earth – and 2023 the hottest year, as Carbon Brief reported last week.] In a similar vein, Janet Daley writes for the Sunday Telegraph under the headline: “Climate hysteria is a serious threat to mankind’s survival.”

For the Financial Times, former UK secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy Greg Clark, who is now chair of the House of Commons science, innovation and technology select committee, writes: “The current government claims to be all-in for new nuclear. Its Energy Security Strategy, published last year, set a target of 24 gigawatts of nuclear energy generating capacity by 2050. That is highly ambitious.” He continues: “Today the cross-party [committee], which I chair, will publish a report endorsing the government’s decision to look to nuclear power to meet our future electricity needs – especially if we are to achieve the legal requirement of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050…However, we will also warn that expansive ambition will not get nuclear power built. Much more than with other energy technologies, the scale, financial demands, workforce planning and – in the case of advanced nuclear technologies – research and development needed for new nuclear requires a dependable strategic plan if hopes are to have any chance of being turned into reality.” Clark says: “Witness after witness who appeared before our inquiry told us that such a strategic plan for nuclear is missing. For example, there is no indication from the government on what proportion of the 24GW is intended to be met by gigawatt-scale plants like Hinkley Point C, or smaller, more distributed nuclear reactors such as small modular reactors.” He concludes: “If Britain is to have substantial new nuclear capacity, there is an urgent need to turn hopes into action.”

Meanwhile, in a comment first published by iai news and since republished by RenewEconomy, Allison Macfarlane, director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia and former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, criticises the attention given to small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) in recent years by investors, governments and the media. She says: “Behind the hype there is very little concrete technology to justify it. By exploring the challenges facing small modular reactor technology, I will demonstrate that this resurgence in nuclear energy speaks to the popular imagination, rather than materialising as actual technological innovation.” Macfarlane notes that no SMRs are commercially available – ”they are just designs” – that they won’t be viable for “a decade or more” and, as such, “they are not likely to have a significant impact on CO2 emissions reductions for decades, and as a result their relevance to the climate argument shrinks”. She says the interest in SMRs is driven, among other things, by “hype”, a media “echo chamber”, “activists such as Michael Schellenberger and Stewart Brand” and the “‘tech bro’ libertarian culture”.

Global cropland exposure to flooding (CEF) increased by more than 83,000 square kilometres – almost an 8% rise – over 2000-19, according to new research. The authors assess changes in CEF over 2000-19 using the 30-metre resolution “global land analysis & discovery” dataset. The largest increase in CEF over this time was in South Asia, while North America was the only region to see CEF decrease, the paper finds. The authors add that “a total of 46 countries are considered to be at the highest level of risk, mainly in Europe and Asia”.