Coal shares have fallen as a result of the Glasgow Climate Pact, which was agreed on Saturday and mandated a “phase-down” of coal production, Reuters reports. According to the newswire, coal futures in China have sunk amid a surge in output. Separately, the newswire explores the difference between a “phase-out” and a “phase-down” of coal, noting that China and India forced a last-minute compromise to replace the former with the latter. The newswire also reports that OPEC secretary general Mohammad Barkindo said on Monday that oil and gas were “targeted” for the first time at COP26 as having no place in the energy transition. Meanwhile, energy producers gathered in Abu Dhabi have called for “greater inclusivity”, which would “see more investment in hydrocarbons for energy security as they work to reduce emissions while developing their economies”, according to another Reuters piece. The newswire adds that at the meeting, Abu Dhabi National Oil Co chief executive said the world cannot “unplug” from fossil fuels and that the oil and gas industry would need to invest over $600bn per year until 2030 to meet expected demand. It also notes that the UAE energy minister expects an oil surplus in the first quarter of 2022, adding that energy minister Suhail al-Mazrouei said on Monday that the OPEC+ commitment to increasing oil production by 400,000 bpd on a monthly basis contributes to market stability and balance.

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that the Chinese state planner has said Chinese regions could face tight gas supplies during peak demand periods this winter, with overall supply and demand finely balanced, but coal supply will be assured. It also reports that India’s oil minister is concerned about high oil prices, warning that price volatility could harm the world’s energy transition.

Additionally, the Financial Times says that US coal prices have reached their highest level since 2009 – as the industry “scrambles to keep pace with surging demand driven by power producers switching to the heavily polluting fossil fuel”. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that global oil prices have “bounce[d] back”. Separately, it says that according to executives at oilfield service firms, “US oil producers are struggling to find enough crews, vehicles and equipment to take advantage of rising global demand and a seven-year high in crude prices”. Meanwhile, it adds that the Biden administration “is considering tapping the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to cool oil prices, which are raising fuel prices and driving inflation”. And he Financial Times says that in the US, North Dakota’s Bakken oilfield is unlikely to recover to pre-pandemic levels of production. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Kuwait’s oil minister has announced that the country will “increase oil production while reducing emissions”.

China’s role at COP26 continues to attract coverage, with almost opposite standpoints from the Chinese state media and international outlets. Bloomberg writes: “There’s a reason India and China defended coal’s future at the Glasgow climate summit: no nations have added more coal-fired power-plant capacity in the past decade than these two major emitters.” It adds that the two nations “are currently mining a combined 14m tonnes a day of the dirtiest fossil fuel”. Quartz says China “had a relatively subdued presence” at COP26, but “threw its considerable weight around as the final agreement was hammered out”. The website adds: “Together with India, China also argued for weakening the language on coal – in 2020, China consumed more than 50% of the world’s coal.” The Daily Telegraph’s environment editor, Emma Gatten, writes: “The historic climate deal secured at COP26 was thrown into ‘real jeopardy’ by a last-minute deal between India and China to object to calls to phase-out coal power and fossil fuel subsidies, Alok Sharma said on Sunday.” Louisa Greve, the opinion contributor at the Hill, says that “human rights advocates are concerned that the Chinese government will succeed in creating a tradeoff between climate goals and human rights”. Bloomberg runs a piece entitled: “ China doubles down on a slower coal exit after COP26 spat”, saying that China is “insisting a transition away from the dirtiest fossil fuel must be gradual”. The Washington Post adds that Chinese coal production has surged to its highest level in years – at the same time as India’s capital readied a shutdown due to air pollution. “Spurred by high natural gas prices, Beijing appears to be readying to burn dirtier, cheaper coal to ease its citizens’ economic pain as cold weather sets in”, it adds. The Guardian says that China is urging developing countries to take the lead in cutting coal, warning that developing nations cannot transition to green energy without support. And the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post – whose editorial stance is more liberal than that of the Chinese mainland media – reports that the “last-minute intervention by India and China” was “criticised by representatives of many island states that are most at risk from rising sea levels”. Meanwhile, Reuters says that, on Monday, China pushed back at the UK’s criticism, saying that it had already made “enormous efforts” to reduce its coal consumption.

In comparison, China’s state media praises the country’s performance in the climate talks. Xinhua – the state news agency – says that the Glasgow summit closed the rulebook of the Paris Agreement, “opening a new chapter for the implementation of the Paris Agreement worldwide”. It notes that China “plays an important and positive role” in the global tackling of climate change and “has contributed its strength to the success of this conference”. It adds that there were “still regrets and shortcomings” from the meeting due to the “insufficient response” from developed countries to developing countries “on issues including providing adaptation, financing and technology support”. Another Xinhua report quotes Zhao Yingmin – the head of the Chinese delegation – who described the closure of the Paris Agreement rulebook as “significant”. Zhao commended his team for carrying out “positive communication and consultation with various parties with a constructive attitude”, the state newswire says. Xinhua Finance says that “although there were disagreements about the wording on coal, the fact that coal has appeared in a UN climate agreement for the first time is still regarded as a positive signal sent out by this climate change conference”, the official channel reports.

Elsewhere in Chinese state media, Global Times – a state-run tabloid – reports that “India demanded changes of wording at the very last minute to reflect the interest of developing countries, as well as the regrets and dissatisfaction with unfulfilled promises from rich countries to poor countries”. It also cites Zhao, who urged all countries to “focus on pragmatic action” to prevent the Glasgow agreement from becoming empty promises. In a second article, Global Times says that “some encouraging progress was made” at COP26 “as agreement was finally reached on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement”. It also writes: “Negotiators also agreed to phase down coal…It is the first explicit mention of fossil fuels in a COP agreement.” The outlet has a third piece on COP26, titled: “COP26 strikes deal to strengthen emission pledges, keeps 1.5 C alive.“ CCTV – the state broadcaster – runs comments from Zhao Lijian, a spokesman at the Chinese foreign ministry. Zhao says that “the Chinese delegation, with its Chinese wisdom and Chinese solution, effectively safeguarded the common but differentiated responsibilities principle and the common interest of developing countries and played a constructive role in the forming of the successful outcome of the conference”.

Cailianshe – a financial outlet operated by state-approved Shanghai United Media Group – reports that “a change proposed by India ended the deadlock”. Beijing Business Today – a newspaper run by state-approved Beijing Daily Group – points out that “just as how difficult the two-week negotiations have been, in the path towards carbon neutrality, all countries will – undoubtedly – have to make more effort.” And, finally, Reuters reports that China’s finance ministry has set the 2022 renewable power subsidy at 3.87bn yuan ($607m).

Climate Home News refers to Australia as “the biggest laggard among rich nations”, highlighting that the country has no intention of strengthening its 2030 pledge. It continues: “During an interview with Australian media, the country’s deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said ‘we are happy with our 2030 targets… they are fixed.’ When asked why his government adopted the pact, he said: ‘I didn’t sign it, I wasn’t there.’” The outlet adds that the climate minister of New Zealand as also said Australia has no intention of revisiting its “highly insufficient” pledge. The Washington Post adds that Australian prime minister Scott Morrison said the country’s coal industry will be operating for “decades to come”, in response to Boris Johnson’s remarks that COP26 marks “the death knell for coal”. The Guardian also calls Australia a laggard. It notes that current nationally determined contributions would still result in 2.4C heating, adding that “the Paris agreement and the Glasgow pact contain no ‘policing mechanisms’ for ensuring that countries make pledges that are commensurate with the scale of the climate crisis”. It adds that the UK’s COP presidency will continue until the November COP in Egypt. On this note, Politico reports that current COP26 president Alok Sharma will stay in his post for another year. Meanwhile, the Times reports that Boris Johnson has called the change in language around coal in the Glasgow Climate Pact “frustrating” and accused some nations of “dragging their heels” on the environment.

Elsewhere, the i newspaper reports that Labour leader Keir Starmer has blamed Boris Johnson’s “guileless boosterism” for “embolden[ing]” big polluters to water down the deal. It adds that Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has warned that the pact fell “dangerously” short. Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that Australian deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce “mock[ed] Alok Sharma’s emotional reaction at COP26”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that European carbon prices jumped to a record on Monday, as “traders bet that the outcome of the COP26 climate talks was likely to strengthen emissions markets that are seen as a key tool of decarbonisation”. Bloomberg adds that an increase in the price of natural gas has “improved the profitability of burning coal, creating more demand for carbon permits”. Separately, Bloomberg reports that WWF is calling for the EU to strengthen its 2030 emissions-reduction target.

Reuters says that how humanity confronts climate change could come down to the difference between the phrases “phase down” and “phase out” – after the latter was replaced by the former in the Glasgow climate pact to describe about the transition away from coal. According to the newswire, coal producers say the wording change “showed they had successfully defended the use of natural resources for which demand is still high and supply is tight”. And Reuters says that the South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is disappointed with the “watered down” pact. BusinessGreen writer James Murray has penned a piece in defence COP26. And Bloomberg says that the deal sends a clear message to companies to speed up their net-zero plans. But Phys.org say: “While world leaders and negotiators are hailing the Glasgow climate pact as a good compromise that keeps a key temperature limit alive, many scientists are wondering what planet these leaders are looking at”. And the New York Times, the Independent, BusinessGreen, the i newspaper, Climate Home News, China Dialogue and the Washington Post have published summaries, highlights or “key takeaways” from COP.

BBC News reports that oil and gas company Shell has announced plans to move its HQ from the Netherlands to London, as “part of proposals to simplify the company’s structure”. The Times has published an analysis on Shell’s relocation, concluding that the decision “helps to fuel a green transition”. It says that the restructure will enable “easier deal-making”, which is “especially important as Shell pursues its goal of net zero emissions by 2050”. However, it also highlights the Dutch court mandate that Shell must make steeper emissions cuts, noting that, according to analysts, relocation could help Shell by making it “harder to claim that the Dutch court has jurisdiction”. The Wall Street Journal says that the move will not affect the court ruling, but might help Shell to “avoid other such cases once it leaves the Netherlands”. However, the Evening Standard says that the move may “ease pressure” from the court ruling. According to a separate Wall Street Journal piece, Shell said on Monday that ending its complex structure would “make it easier for investors to value the company” at a time when it has committed to reducing its emissions. The Financial Times adds that, according to Shell, the decision has more to do with shifting to greener forms of energy than with “politics, jobs or even Shell’s tax burden”.

Meanwhile, the Guardian says Shell’s decision has “sparked a political tussle” and was “greeted with dismay in the Netherlands” due to the money that it will cost Dutch taxpayers. The paper continues: “The UK’s business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, welcomed Shell’s relocation proposals on Twitter and suggested it was part of the firm’s plans to transition to a clean energy provider.” Meanwhile, the Financial Times says that the Dutch government has “launched an eleventh-hour attempt to keep Shell in the Netherlands” by seeking to abolish a tax cited by Shell as a reason to move to the UK. It adds that Shell shareholders are set to vote on the company’s planned changes at a general meeting on 10 December. “Dutch fury, British joy as Shell relocates to UK”, reads a Politico headline. Bloomberg, Reuters and BusinessGreen also cover the news.

Low wind speeds have been blamed for pushing British wholesale energy prices to their second-highest level in at least three years, the Guardian reports. According to the newspaper, energy prices reached £2.000 per Mwh between 5-6pm on Monday evening. It adds: “The UK’s power grid was forced to turn to gas-fired power plants and coal to make up for the lack of wind power generation, a problem that has exacerbated the energy price crisis that started in August.” The Financial Times adds: “Gas remains the single biggest source of electricity generation in Britain, typically accounting for nearly 40% of output. At lunchtime on Monday, gas-fired power plants were producing nearly 55% of electricity, while coal accounted for 3%.” The paper notes that over the past year, wind farms have contributed to 21% of the UK’s electricity on average, but contributed only 4% on Monday. Bloomberg also covers the news. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that the chief executive of Trafigura, Jeremy Weir, has warned that Europe risks “rolling power outage” if there is prolonged cold weather this winter. This is due to a shortage of gas – despite the promise of increased flows from Russia – the paper adds. Weir has warned that “global oil markets remain very tight and heavily backwardated”, Reuters adds.

In other UK news, the Independent reports that Boris Johnson has urged European countries to break their addiction to Russian gas and stop “mainlining Russian hydrocarbons”. The Financial Times adds that Johnson has warned that the EU faces a choice between “sticking up for Ukraine” and approving the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Meanwhile, the Times reports that John Ashton – special representative for climate change at the UK Foreign Office over 2006-12 – said that Nicola Sturgeon must oppose the Cambo oilfield. And ex-justice secretary Robert Buckland has said the UK should “set an example” to the rest of the world by not opening any new coal mines or oil fields, even if it means importing fossil fuels from abroad, the Evening Standard reports.

US president Joe Biden has signed a long-awaited $1tn infrastructure deal into law, the Independent reports. It says that the bill “provides billions for climate resiliency initiatives”, as well as tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles. The Guardian reports via AP News that Biden “tried unsuccessfully to tie the infrastructure package to passage of a broader package of $1.85tn in proposed spending on families, health care and a shift to renewable energy that could help address the climate crisis”, but adds that these measures are “yet to gain sufficient support from the narrow Democratic majorities in the Senate and House”. The Financial Times adds that the Biden administration will continue their “wrangling” over the “Build Back Better” bill, that would include “sweeping investments in early childhood education, public healthcare and measures to combat climate change”. Separately, the newspaper explains that the bill will include $550bn to tackle climate change, including $320bn of tax credits for individuals and businesses that shift toward clean energy. Reuters and BBC News also cover the news.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that Joe Biden and Chinese president Xi Jinping have met at a virtual summit, in which Biden told Xi: “We need to establish a commonsense guardrail, to be clear and honest where we disagree and work together where our interests intersect, especially on vital global issues like climate change”. The Wall Street Journal says that the pair discussed topics including “Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran, as well as human rights, climate change and concerns over Taiwan”. Politico adds that Jinping used the meeting to make his first public remark since COP26, saying that “there should be less blaming but more cooperation”. The Independent notes that the virtual summit comes after the “surprise joint declaration” between the US and China on climate change during COP26, but adds that according to analysis, “contentious issues” including climate change still “plague” the US-China relationship. Meanwhile, the New York Times writes that “climate policy is the rare area where the US and China at least appear to be on the same page”. But the Washington Post carries a piece entitled: “Can the US.and China work together? Don’t look to climate change action for answers.” It says that the US-China climate deal agreed at COP26 offers “a bright light for those concerned about the future of multilateralism”, but says that the move by China and India to water down language on coal “riled the US delegation”, according to a senior Biden administration official. Meanwhile, Politico says that the US and EU “want to gang up against China’s coal-fired blast furnaces in a green steel alliance — but no one is sure how that will happen”.

In other US news, the New York Times reports that the Biden administration is “moving to block new federal oil and gas leasing within a 10-mile radius around Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, one of the nation’s oldest and most culturally significant Native American sites”. The paper adds that Biden announced the move at a tribal nations summit meeting at the White House. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the EPA has decided not to rewrite airplane emissions rules finalised under former President Trump, which “face a legal challenge from 12 states and three environmental groups that say the rules do not go far enough”. Instead, the administration will “press for ambitious new international emissions standards at the upcoming round of international negotiations in February at the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)”, according to the newswire. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal says that Biden’s nominee for comptroller wants “smaller players” in the fossil fuel industry to “go bankrupt”, to tackle climate change. And the Guardian reports that record rainfall is prompting evacuations across the Pacific north-west. The Washington Post adds that floods were caused by an atmospheric river.

Christina Figueres – head of the UN climate change convention when the 2015 Paris Agreement was signed – has penned an opinion piece in the Guardian. She says that the “frustration, anger and incredulity at the pace of progress is warranted”, but adds that we need to “understand our double predicament”, noting that the change required to decarbonise the global economy is “ complex and far reaching than any transformation we have ever attempted”. She continues: “COP26 had to reset the pace of transformation to be commensurate with the increasing urgency we face. And it was challenging. Diametrically opposed interests were exposed. Pressure inside the negotiating rooms was intense. Common ground was elusive. Compromise was inevitable.” However,, Figueres says that COP26 increased the speed of action on three key developments. The first is making 1.5C “the new 2C” – she says, adding that “no one in their right mind is talking about ‘well below 2C’ any more. The second is implementing the yearly ratchet mechanism for countries to increase their goals on an annual basis and the third is recognising nature for is “solution potential”, according to Figueres. She concludes by noting that there are still “remaining areas of deep disappointment” – such as the “phase down of unabated coal” phrase of the agreement, but adding that “no one can deny that COP26 has hastened the speed of the wheels of change”.

Meanwhile, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz – the director of Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education) in the Philippines – has penned an opinion piece in the Guardian saying that Indigenous people’s vision for COP26 has not been delivered. She says that Indigenous groups wanted decisions made at COP26 to include the need to respect human rights and Indigenous people’s rights. “We also wanted Cop26 to adopt the local communities and Indigenous peoples platform, as agreed by the facilitative working group”, she adds. Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that Indigenous communities are facing “an upsurge in land grabs, water shortages and human rights violations” due to the COP26 deal.

There is continuing commentary reacting to the COP26 outcome. An editorial in London’s Evening Standard says that “notwithstanding last-minute changes and diplomatic hardball, COP26 represented a historic achievement”, adding: “It saw the completion of the Paris rulebook, COP’s first agreement to accelerate the end of coal and kept the dream of 1.5C alive, albeit on life support…Climate policy cannot be the purview of a single department. That is because working in silos simply will not adequately address a challenge as all-encompassing as the transition to net-zero.”

Following reports that Boris Johnson might be considering making COP26 president Alok Sharma the head of a new “net zero” ministry, Geoffrey Lean writes in the i newspaper: “Some believe that Sharma should have his own department to spearhead the campaign. But the effort is needed across government and having a special ministry can cause others to withdraw. Maybe a coordinating Cabinet Office role would work better. But whatever happens, the trusted COP President must be kept in charge.” Tim Stanley in the Daily Teelgraph watched Johnson speaking about COP26 in Parliament yesterday and notes: “Westminster has decided there is no debate to be had about going green, but a handful of Tory MPs beg to differ.”

Writing for the Conversation, climate scientist Prof Myles Allen says: “The greatest uncertainty of all, and one they don’t talk about much in COP meetings, is that until we actually start to reduce global emissions, we won’t find out how hard – or easy – it will be. Once we actually get started, transitions often turn out to be not nearly as expensive or traumatic as feared. We may be surprised again.” Another climate scientist, Peter Kalmus, writes in the Los Angeles Times says: “The one thing the climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, made clear is that human society remains in business-as-usual mode, with no meaningful curb on fossil fuel use. The soft pledges made at COP26 might have been acceptable decades ago, but not now…Unless COP26’s failure is recognized as failure, there is no way to learn from it.” Elsewhere, historian Adam Tooze has penned an opinion piece in the Guardian entitled “The COP26 message? We are trusting big business, not states, to fix the climate crisis.” In the climate sceptic Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead argues that “COP26 was the kind of hollow ritual that characterized Carlyle’s Age of Shams”. And in the Guardian, Australian editor Katharine Murphy says that “Australia has an inexplicable position on climate – it really isn’t funny”.

A new study shows that every dollar invested in land restoration projects in the Sahel Desert as part of the Great Green Wall initiative yields economic benefits between $1.1 and $4.4. Researchers carry out cost-benefit analyses of various land restoration projects in the Sahel over 2001-18. They find that when both market prices and non-market benefits are taken into account, restoration projects break even after a maximum of 10 years. The authors also identify “activities and locations where land restoration is both economically attractive and ecologically sustainable”, which they say can help to better plan for future projects and interventions in the region.