The EU burned less coal last winter, despite the energy crisis, the Financial Times reports, citing new analysis from thinktank Ember. It says the findings “quash fears that consumption of the most polluting fossil fuel would soar as countries scrambled to find substitutes for lost supplies of Russian gas”. The paper continues: “The study…shows that between October 2022 and March 2023 [EU] coal generation fell 27 terawatt hours, or almost 11% year on year, while gas generation fell 38 terawatt hours, as consumers cut electricity consumption in response to soaring prices. Renewable energy supplies also rose, with combined wind, solar and hydroelectric output outstripping fossil fuel generation for the first time, providing 40% of all electricity supplies.” BusinessGreen also has the story.

The US Senate has voted 50-49 to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule on emissions from heavy duty trucks, Reuters reports. It says the Republican-sponsored measure was backed by Senate Democrat Joe Manchin, but will be vetoed by president Joe Biden. The newswire explains: “Under the Congressional Review Act, a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress can reverse recently finalised rules. The House of Representatives has not yet voted on the bill.” It adds: “The new standards, the first update to clean air standards for heavy duty trucks in more than two decades, are 80% more stringent than current standards.” The Hill also has the story. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Manchin has become the first Democrat to co-sponsor a measure introduced by Republican Rick Scott, which would repeal Biden’s suspension of tariffs on solar panels from four southeast Asian nations. Again, the outlet explains that Biden would veto the measure if it passed in both houses of Congress. The Hill also has the story. Separately, the Hill reports Democrat opposition to Republican plans to cut renewable energy tax credits as part of their proposed legislation to raise the US government’s “debt ceiling”. It says the proposal is “almost certainly doomed in the Democratic Senate”. The New York Times reports that some Republicans “who expect funding from that law [the Inflation Reduction Act] to benefit their districts…threaten[ed] to withhold their votes for the [debt ceiling] legislation” and successfully forced the Republican leadership to water down some of its efforts to roll back the Biden administration’s climate efforts.

In other reporting from the US, Politico previews “Biden’s big bet to take on coal power”, referring to upcoming EPA proposals to limit emissions from power plants. It says: “The upcoming rule from the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to depend on rarely used technology for capturing power plants’ greenhouse gas pollution…Environmentalists hope EPA will go bold by targeting not just coal, the dirtiest fuel in the power mix, but also natural gas – the reigning champ in the US energy economy. The EPA and the White House have declined to confirm any details about the rule, which is still undergoing review and could be released as early as next week.” The New York Times says the rules “could give carbon capture a boost”. It explains: “The EPA can’t require that electric utilities use any specific technology to cut emissions. But, in theory, the agency could set limits on greenhouse gases that are so stringent that some coal or gas plants might have to install carbon capture to meet them – or else shut down altogether…Some utilities might simply find it cheaper to shutter their large coal and gas plants and get more electricity from wind, solar and batteries, which were also heavily subsidised in the new climate law.” The paper quotes one analyst saying: “We just don’t see a lot of carbon capture being deployed in the power sector…It’s not because there are big technical barriers, but because there’s so much competition from other sources.”

Finally, Reuters reports that the US ethanol industry “expands focus to lower-carbon aviation sector”, the Independent says climate activists “plan to blockade White House Correspondents’ Dinner over Biden record on fossil fuels”, Bloomberg says activists are “urg[ing] US officials” to drop the use of the word “natural” in “natural gas” and another Bloomberg article says Biden’s pledge to end public finance for overseas fossil fuel projects “imperils Indonesian oil refinery loan”.

Ahead of today’s annual meeting of BP shareholders, BBC News reports that some of the UK’s largest pension funds are planning to vote against reappointing the firm’s chairman “over a decision to weaken its climate plans”. It continues: “The five pension funds told the BBC that their vote against the company’s chairman, Helge Lund, was a protest against the company’s actions. The pension funds have £440m invested in BP, which represents less than 1% of the company’s total shares. But they manage the pensions of more than a third of the UK’s workers so are an influential voice.” City AM says BP “defended its decision not to permit shareholders to vote on its watered down climate targets” ahead of the meeting. The paper explains: “The energy giant considers its plan to ease reductions in oil and gas production from 40% to 25% at the end of this decade to be an adjustment to its wider climate strategy, which was resoundingly approved by shareholders last year. It also regards the moves to be in line with both its net-zero target over the next three decades, and the ambitions of the Paris Climate Agreement to contain temperature rises to well below two degrees from pre-industrial levels.” The Daily Telegraph, meanwhile, leads its coverage with the headline: “Focus on your savers instead of net-zero, critics tell BP pension funds.” Among the “critics” quoted by the paper are Conservative former energy secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, Craig Mackinlay, the chair of the fringe climate-sceptic Net Zero Scrutiny Group of Conservative backbenchers and one “retail shareholder” in the firm. Rees-Mogg is quoted as saying pension funds voting against BP “are failing in their fiduciary duties to their beneficiaries”. The paper also quotes one of the funds saying: “Our fiduciary duty requires us to act in the best interests of members and we see the management of transition and climate risk as clear material concerns for a company which need to be managed.”

In other corporate climate strategy news, the Financial Times reports: “A rising tide of investors have backed demands for climate change plans from Goldman Sachs and Bank of America this week, as lenders face continued pressures over the role they play in financing global warming.” Separately, Reuters reports that Woodside Energy, Australia’s largest independent oil and gas producer, “faces an investor backlash at its annual general meeting on Friday, as shareholder groups call for a vote against its executive pay and seek to remove three directors over what they say is an inadequate climate strategy”. The Guardian also has the story. Finally, Reuters reports: “Despite mounting climate disasters, companies slow to heed UN call to fund adaptation.”

The Bank of England should be stripped of its remit to consider climate change so it can focus on inflation and financial stability, Bloomberg reports an adviser to former UK chancellor Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, telling a House of Lords hearing. It quotes Balls saying: “It concerns me, the idea that you start to throw into the mix objectives which aren’t really affected sensibly by the instrument the bank has – which is interest rates.” The outlet notes that current prime minister Rishi Sunak “added the goal of supporting the government’s net-zero ambition to the BOE’s monetary and financial policy remits in 2021” when he was chancellor. Bloomberg says former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, also speaking at the House of Lords hearing, “agreed with Balls” over the net-zero remit. It reports: “Osborne said that while he respected ‘the desire to get all arms of the British state trying to deal with the challenge of climate change, I don’t think it’s necessary to single out that objective’.”

The severe drought that has “gripped swaths” of east Africa since 2021 is the worst in four decades and “would not have occurred without climate change”, the Financial Times reports, citing a new rapid attribution study. It explains: “In the absence of human-driven climate change, the agricultural drought in southern Ethiopia, southern Somalia and eastern Kenya would not have occurred, the World Weather Attribution group concluded on Thursday. The independent international collaboration draws on academics and scientists from around the world to assess whether the effects of climate change can be linked to extreme weather events.” Reuters quotes one of the study authors saying: “This drought is primarily due to the strong increase in evaporative demand caused by high temperatures.” The Guardian says the drought has “affected about 50 million people in the Horn of Africa directly and another 100 million in the wider area”, adding: “About 20 million people are at risk of acute food insecurity and potentially famine.” The New York Times reports: “Climate groups have for years pointed to the calamity in East Africa as evidence of the immense harm inflicted on poor regions by global warming from emissions of heat-trapping gases. The new analysis could give more ammunition to those urging polluter nations to pay for the economic damage attributable to their emissions.” Bloomberg and the Independent also have the story. And Carbon Brief has in-depth coverage of the new attribution study.

Separately, the Conversation carries an article by researcher Nicholas Leach titled: “‘Statistically impossible’ heat extremes are here – we identified the regions most at risk.” He writes: “Overall, our work raises two important points: “The first is that statistically implausible heatwaves can occur anywhere on the Earth…Policymakers across the globe should prepare for exceptional heatwaves that would be deemed implausible based on current records. The second is that there are a number of regions whose historical record is not exceptional, and therefore is more likely to be broken. These regions have been lucky so far, but as a result, are likely to be less well prepared for an unprecedented heatwave in the near future.” Politico, meanwhile, carries a video of US Republican senator Ron Johnson saying that climate change is bad in Africa, but that the US is in “good shape”.

Data released by the China Coal Industry Association shows that in the first quarter of 2023, the national raw coal production reached 1.15bn tonnes, a year-on-year increase of 5.5%, maintaining “steady and rapid growth”, reports state-run newspaper People’s Daily. Large coal companies, especially state-owned coal production enterprises, have ensured the energy supply for the whole country, the article adds.

Online news website Hellenic Shipping News writes that over the coming summer, emissions from China’s power industry are expected to reach record highs. This is because rising temperatures would lead to increased air conditioners usage, and factories and heavy industries would continue to increase output from levels affected by the pandemic last year. Thermal coal imports saw consecutive record months in March and April “indicating that utilities are bracing to crank coal-fired power generation as they look to keep pace with the anticipated climb in overall power demand,”the article adds. 

Meanwhile, Chinese state-affiliated newspaper China Electric Power News carries an “exclusive interview” with Francesco La Camera, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). He says that “China’s role in the global energy transition is irreplaceable, and I sincerely hope to work closely with Chinese friends in every possible way”, the state-run industry newspaper adds. 

In other news, China Dialogue publishes an article by climate journalist You Xiaoying. She quotes Elizabeth Robinson, a professor and director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Robinson says that “as China and countries around the world strive to improve their food systems and meet climate goals, government policy is therefore ‘very important’”. (In February, Carbon Brief published an article titled: “China: What the world’s largest food system means for climate change.”)

Finally, BBC Chinese writes that more and more countries, such as the US and China, are interested in lithium reserves in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. Lithium is a key metal used to make batteries for electric vehicles and those countries are eager to enter the enlarging EV market, the media outlet says.  It quotes Benjamin Gedan, director of the Wilson Centre’s Latin America programme, who writes: “The major powers [like the US and China] are competing for the minerals needed for the energy transition, and Latin America is their main battleground.”

The UK government must urgently develop more effective plans to defend critical infrastructure against climate risks, BusinessGreen reports, according to a joint letter from the National Infrastructure Commission and Climate Change Committee. The outlet says: “The government’s official advisors highlight how the UK has already faced widespread disruption to energy and transport networks as a result of record breaking storms and temperatures in recent years.” It adds: “​​The NIC and CCC implore government to embed fully net-zero and climate adaptation goals into all infrastructure planning, warning that climate resilience needs to be properly considered when delivering new net-zero infrastructure, such as low carbon homes or new hydrogen networks”.  The Daily Telegraph coverage of the same report is titled: “Net-zero drive will leave UK more vulnerable to power cuts caused by storms.”

An editorial in the Financial Times reflects on the competing pressures on the likes of BP: “Some shareholders – and politicians – want them to pump more; others, along with climate activists, want to accelerate their shift to clean energy.” The paper says it would be “a mistake” for major oil companies to “revert to more of a business-as-usual strategy” by rolling back green targets. It says: “Companies that want to thrive long term – and their investors – should be looking out beyond a 10-year horizon. Few in the industry seriously doubt oil demand will peak, probably within a decade or so. US majors such as ExxonMobil have adopted what amounts to a ‘last man standing’ strategy. But they will struggle, in a shrinking market, to compete with low-cost behemoths such as Saudi Arabia. Oil companies that have not by then developed solid positions in wind, solar and clean technologies risk slowly withering away.” The editorial notes, however: “Activists and investors alike might do well to focus less on whether western supermajors are cutting oil output; as long as demand persists, others such as petrostates’ national oil companies will be happy to meet it instead. A better measure is how much of the profits from oil they are investing in clean energy.”

An editorial in the Times says the law “has not caught up with public opinion” on recent climate protests. It writes: “For the third day running, central London was brought to a standstill by the smiling arrogance of protesters with orange placards blocking main roads and deliberately intensifying the fury of drivers. The police made no immediate attempt to move them on but ambled along beside them, intervening only to warn drivers that any attempt to punch the protesters or throw them out of the way would constitute assault, leading to their arrest.” It continues: “The law is as asinine as the tactics of those narcissists ostensibly campaigning to force an immediate halt to all use of fossil fuels.” (Just Stop Oil is not campaigning for an immediate halt to all use of fossil fuels. It is calling for an immediate halt to the licensing of new fossil fuel projects.) The editorial concludes: “Until the proposed tougher penalties are enacted, [home secretary Suella Braverman] and police chiefs should always deem such protests as ‘serious disruption’, stop the paralysis of the capital and make those self-appointed climate extremists pay more for their arrogance.” A comment for the Daily Telegraph by columnist Judith Woods is titled: “If the police won’t stop the eco-bullies, the public surely will.”

A Financial Times “special report” on “sustainable food and agriculture” includes a feature on fertiliser manufacturers’ efforts to cut their emissions. The article says: “New [fertiliser] production techniques will help, but more judicious use by farmers will help even more.” Other features in the special report, which is “supported” by Rabobank, include a piece on investors “push[ing] food companies to go greener”, an article on businesses counting the “true cost of water” due to climate pressures and a graphical primer on whether the world can feed itself sustainably.

Trees in wet forests have less resistance to drought, while trees in drier forests are better prepared for drought, according to new research on Amazon forests. The authors assess “hydraulic traits” in 129 tree species across 11 forest plots throughout Amazonia to determine their sensitivity to drought. They find that forests operating close to their “hydraulic limits” — the thresholds for plants before “hydraulic failure” — experienced the greatest mortality. The paper suggests that forests in the western and southern Amazon may be most vulnerable to future changes in climate, as they may already be at their hydraulic limits.