The Associated Press begins a news feature on the extreme heat affecting India with the opening line: “Almost 970 million Indians are voting in general elections amid sweltering heat and unpredictable weather extremes exacerbated by human-caused climate change, leading to loss of livelihood, forced migration and increasingly difficult living conditions for millions across the country.” The article continues: “In their election manifestos, India’s top political parties, including the governing Bharatiya Janata Party and the main opposition, the Congress party, have made multiple promises to act on climate damage and reduce emissions of planet-heating gases. But there has been little talk about climate change on the campaign trail. ‘Climate change is still not among the headlines during these elections despite its obvious impact on millions of Indian lives,’ said Anjal Prakash, author of multiple United Nations climate reports.” (See Carbon Brief’s interactive grid showing “what the manifestos say on energy and climate change”, plus Carbon Brief’s Q&A on “what India’s elections mean for coal communities and climate change”.)

Meanwhile, the Hindu reports that a “brutal heatwave swept swathes of northwest India on Friday, with the maximum temperature soaring to a scorching 47.4C in southwest Delhi’s Najafgarh, the highest in the country so far this season”. The article continues: “The mercury breached 45C at 19 places in Rajasthan, 18 in Haryana, eight in Delhi and two in Punjab. Conditions are expected to turn worse with the severe heat wave over the northwest Indian plains predicted to continue during the next five days. Researchers at Climate Central, a US-based group of climate scientists, said 543 million (54.3 crore) people in India will experience at least one day of extreme heat during this period. ‘Human-caused climate change has made this intense heat much more likely. The high overnight temperatures make this event particularly alarming,’ said Andrew Pershing, vice-president for science at Climate Central.”

Separately, several outlets continue their reporting of the extreme flooding in Afghanistan. The Associated Press says: “More heavy rains in Afghanistan have triggered flash floods, raising the death toll to 84 in the country’s north following weeks of devastating torrents that had already left hundreds dead and missing, a Taliban spokesman said on Sunday.”

In other news of extreme-weather impacts around the world, Reuters reports that the “governor of Brazil’s southernmost state of Rio Grande do Sul said on Friday that the costs of rebuilding the state after devastating floods in recent weeks will be ‘much higher’ than the 19bn reais ($3.72bn) initially estimated”. And the frontpage of the international edition of the New York Times carries a news feature on how in “Mexico City, one of the world’s largest cities, the struggle for water is constant”. It says: “A system of dams and canals may soon be unable to provide water to one of the world’s largest cities, a confluence of unchecked growth, crumbling infrastructure and a changing climate.”

The Financial Times reports that “China has signalled it will retaliate against trade barriers introduced by the US and the EU” by launching an anti-dumping probe into a “thermoplastic widely used in the consumer electronics and automotive industries”. The newspaper adds that “Beijing’s move suggests it will take tit-for-tat action against foreign trade barriers, but the narrow investigation into chemicals also highlights the limits on its ability to respond, given the huge trade surpluses it runs with the US and EU”. Another Financial Times article says that “former officials and government advisers in Beijing warned against exacerbating tensions with Washington”. Bloomberg reports that “Canada is examining whether it needs to raise tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles” in tandem with US tariffs. The New York Times “Climate Forward” newsletter says: “The [Biden] administration’s view of climate, China and tariffs, centres on this question: Would you rather have a fast but fragile energy transition? Or a slower one that’s more likely to stick?” A Washington Post editorial argues that Biden’s tariffs will make the “transition to a carbon-free future more costly and difficult”. An editorial in the Financial Times says “Biden’s flurry of support for manufacturing could…help him edge out a second Trump presidency…Even so, it is regrettable that global growth and progress on climate change has to be held hostage in the process.” Semafor climate and energy editor Tim McDonnell writes that the tariffs may “ultimately accelerate the energy transition”. The Hill carries a news feature under the headline: “Why Biden’s China tariffs could hurt his climate agenda.” The Daily Telegraph’s Jeremy Warner writes: “Idiotic net-zero rules are driving Europe’s carmakers to extinction. Punishing green targets are turbocharging China’s electric car assault.” Separately, state-run industry newspaper China Electric Power News reports that China and Russia have released a joint declaration pledging to enhance “strategic energy cooperation” on fossil fuels, as well as renewable energy, hydrogen energy and carbon markets. It also emphasises that climate funding from developed countries is “crucial” for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts and that both sides oppose “the setting of trade barriers under the pretext of addressing climate change”, the newspaper adds. 

In other China news, the National Energy Administration (NEA) announced the nation’s total power consumption grew 7% year-on-year to reach 741 terawatt-hours (TWh) in April, reports industry news outlet BJX News. State broadcaster CCTV reports that, in April, production of “raw coal” dropped 2.9% year-on-year, according to the National Statistics Bureau, while growth rates of thermal power, hydropower and solar power generation “accelerated”. Elsewhere, Science and Technology Daily publishes an article in its print edition quoting Yi Jun, deputy director of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference’s (CPPCC) population, resources and environment committee, saying “climate investment and financing is an important means to address climate change and improve climate governance”. Business newspaper Yicai covers comments by an industry association that “the price of high-purity polycrystalline silicon, the raw material used to make solar panels, has plunged below cost for all producers in China”, which has “forced some suppliers to halt production”.

Germany’s Federal Council, the Bundesrat, has approved a “controversial” reform of the climate protection law, reports Die Zeit. It explains that the reform eliminates sectoral targets, reducing pressure on sectors such as transportation and buildings, which previously “failed to meet their legal requirements”. According to the new law, adjustments for the climate protection plan will only be necessary if Germany’s overall goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2045 is at risk. However, the outlet notes that the higher administrative court of Berlin-Brandenburg decided that the federal government must make improvements to the law to achieve the goal. Die Tageszeitung (TAZ) quotes a representative of the German environmental group DUH saying that eliminating sectoral targets is needed “just to spare Porsche minister [Volker] Wissing’s concrete climate protection measures such as a speed limit on highways or an end to the promotion of climate-damaging company cars”. 

Meanwhile, EurActiv reports that the German-French parliamentary assembly plans to adopt a declaration urging both countries “to overcome their differences in energy policy”, focusing on hydrogen and geothermal energy. The outlet notes that the declaration, to be adopted on 24 June, will propose a joint European hydrogen strategy by 2025, with “openness” to nuclear hydrogen alongside “green” hydrogen from renewables. The outlet says that geothermal energy, lacking its own EU strategy, will also be addressed with plans for a joint German-French position by 2025.

Finally, the Guardian reports that eight climate activists have been arrested after causing Munich airport to close, leading to about 60 flight cancellations. The newspaper says that the activists from the group Last Generation were protesting against flying, “the most polluting form of transportation”. Reuters and ABC News also cover the story.

The Guardian covers new research which concludes that the “economic damage wrought by climate change is six times worse than previously thought, with global heating set to shrink wealth at a rate consistent with the level of financial losses of a continuing permanent war”. The article continues: “A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product (GDP), the researchers found, a far higher estimate than that of previous analyses. The world has already warmed by more than 1C (1.8F) since pre-industrial times and many climate scientists predict a 3C (5.4F) rise will occur by the end of this century due to the ongoing burning of fossil fuels, a scenario that the new working paper, yet to be peer-reviewed, states will come with an enormous economic cost.” The Guardian quotes the reaction of Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia University who wasn’t involved in the work, who says the study’s findings are “significant”: “They have taken a step back and linking local impacts with global temperatures…If the results hold up, and I have no reason to believe they wouldn’t, they will make a massive difference in the overall climate damage estimates.” (See the Twitter thread on the working paper’s findings by Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans.)

The cost of a return trip to New York is on track to “rise by £40 as a result of incoming net-zero regulations”, according to figures from Virgin Atlantic covered by the Daily Telegraph. The newspaper continues: “The extra burden on travellers is expected if the cost of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is passed on directly. Calculations by Virgin Atlantic, a pioneer in using the greener jet fuel, show that ticket prices would have to rise 6%. For a return flight to New York that would amount to a £40 increase at current prices, based on two one-way fares costing about £350 each. SAF is a refined blend of waste oils, animal fats and ethanol from corn.” (See Carbon Brief’s recent analysis showing that the “benefits of UK ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ will be wiped out by rising demand”.)

In other UK news, the Sunday Times reports that the BYD, the Chinese “electric vehicle giant [is] set to beat British competitors and seal contract to build more than 100 [London] double-deckers for £400,000 each”. The Daily Telegraph claims the “auto industry’s net-zero switch is killing the ancient art of haggling” by “herald[ing] the death of the [car] dealership”. The newspaper bemoans how many sellers are now adopting a “sort of direct sales model that has long been commonplace when making other big purchases such as a smartphone”, adding: “Under the agency model – so-called because dealers are relegated to the role of an agent or middleman – car manufacturers sell their latest models directly to the customer for the same fixed ‘no haggle’ price, regardless of which dealer it was bought from and whether it was purchased from a showroom or online.” The Times has a news feature on how Ineos is lobbying Labour for a “hydrogen fuel cell strategy”. It says: “[Ineos boss] Sir Jim Ratcliffe has turned to Sir Keir Starmer in frustration at the government’s ‘lack of engagement’ on an infrastructure for the green technology.” The article quotes a spokesperson from the Department for Transport “challenging” the comments from Ineos. “It was the car industry, not government, which decided across the world that battery electric technology was the most suitable choice for decarbonising cars and vans. Our zero-emission vehicle regulation applies equally to hydrogen powered and battery vehicles.” (Ratcliffe’s Ineos lays claim to 0.01% of the UK new car market.)

An editorial in the Guardian argues that a “state industrial strategy is needed to reduce carbon output, produce cleaner growth and redistribute jobs around the UK”. It adds: “Weaning the country off fossil fuels and on to green energy is a complex transition that should be a job for the state, not the free market. Yet Britain is bottom of the league for state spending on renewables in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In the offshore industry alone 30,000 workers could end up with nowhere to go by 2030 without new roles in green industries. Relying on big finance to meet that gap will entrench today’s failing model, which emphasises the need to attract significant capital flows through deregulation and privatisation, strengthening the hand of boom-and-bust financial services and weakening labour rights. The flipside is a bigger trade deficit and a destructive politics of redistribution to asset holders and to London.” Citing an “important” new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) , the newspaper says that “Labour should see, in a fair green transition, an opportunity to change the country from one dominated by private and selfish interests”. The New Statesman carries a comment piece by George Dibb and Luke Murphy from the IPPR which warns: “The US and Europe have joined China in using industrial policy to leverage net-zero goals. Britain can’t be left behind.” Their article concludes: “Forging a new economic path will not be simple or easy, but Britain’s well-trodden path of economic exceptionalism has proved to be a dead end. We need a new economic model, driven by a long-term industrial policy to secure faster, greener and fairer economic growth.”

In stark contrast, the climate-sceptic Sunday Telegraph carries an editorial under the headline: “The Tories should go to war on net-zero excess.” It continues: “While Labour persists in the delusion that rapid decarbonisation can be achieved, before the requisite technology is ready, without being extraordinarily costly, the Conservatives should stand up for prosperity and the consumer.” The Daily Telegraph also continues to platform climate sceptics, with a column by Matthew Lynn celebrating the new right-wing government in the Netherlands attacking net-zero policies.

An editorial published by Bloomberg says: “The Asian giants [China and India] are almost single-handedly keeping the world’s dirtiest fuel alive. They can afford to scale back plans for new plants.” It continues: “Better options exist for both countries. China could head off the worst risks by enforcing its own rules – revoking or rejecting permits for unnecessary coal plants while ensuring those that are built are used only as backup. Building more transmission lines and creating a truly national electricity market would lessen the need for every province to maintain spare capacity. Setting an overall emissions cap would signal China’s seriousness about its climate commitments. In India, the government can do more to speed the adoption of renewables. Tariff barriers blocking imports of Chinese solar equipment should be lowered, or at least kept steady to give domestic producers more certainty. Land reforms would ease construction of solar and wind farms. Gradually shifting to wholesale power exchanges, rather than locking utilities into long-term contracts with generators, should ultimately favour renewables. Both countries should also be pushing for more nuclear and pumped storage capacity to provide baseload power. India in particular needs to reexamine its overly broad nuclear liability laws, which have scared off equipment suppliers.” (The editorial links to two recent Carbon Brief articles to support its argument.)

Separately, the Guardian’s Fiona Harvey has the first in her now customary annual series of in-depth features on the COP host nation. The article is headlined: “COP29 at a crossroads in Azerbaijan with focus on climate finance.” She writes: “The problem for Azerbaijan, and the UN, is that although COP29 has the responsibility for delivering a finance settlement, the levers of power lie elsewhere. The World Bank is the biggest development finance institution globally, but in the eyes of many poorer countries it has failed on climate finance in recent years.” Finally, Climate Home News has a feature reporting from Baku, which hosts COP29 later this year, under the headline: “Azerbaijan pursues clean energy to export more ‘god-given’ gas to Europe.”

Video gamers are “a worthwhile potential audience for future climate change communication”, a new study finds, “combatting the stereotype of video gamers as disengaged or antisocial, at least in the context of climate change”. Using two surveys of video gamers in the US, the study examines whether video gamers “have unique value as a target audience for climate communication”. In the first survey, the study finds that being a video gamer is “slightly positively associated with intentions to take collective action on global warming”. The second survey finds that “having more friends and family who played video games, and/or being exposed to global warming content in gaming, were also positively associated with collective action intentions”.

The deployment of “clean hydrogen” could reduce the overall costs of global energy decarbonisation by 15-22%, a new study suggests. Developing a “more comprehensive and detailed representation of clean hydrogen production, distribution and demand” in an integrated assessment model, the researchers simulate 25 scenarios to explore the cost-effectiveness of integrating clean hydrogen into the global energy system. The findings suggest that “due to costly technical obstacles, clean hydrogen can only provide 3-9% of the 2050 global final energy use”. Nevertheless, it adds, this can reduce overall costs by up to 22% through powering “hard-to-electrify” sectors that would otherwise be particularly expensive to decarbonise.