Efforts to finalise a global treaty to end plastic pollution have failed to reach agreement at talks being held in Busan, South Korea, Reuters reports. It says talks broke down with “more than 100 nations wanting to cap production while a handful of oil-producers were prepared only to target plastic waste”. The newswire adds: “[C]ountries remained far apart on the basic scope of a treaty and could agree only to postpone key decisions and resume talks, dubbed INC 5.2, to a later date.” Earth Negotiations Bulletin says that delegates agreed to reconvene and continue discussions based on the latest version of the draft treaty, which “contained heavily bracketed text” in areas including finance and limits on production. The Associated Press says the option of putting limits on plastic production remains on the table. The Hindustan Times says “developing nations including India and China opposed curbing primary polymer production, seeking instead to focus on plastic waste management”. It adds: “The 175 participating nations will reconvene in 2025 to continue negotiations on the treaty text, whose major articles currently remain bracketed.” BBC News, citing Carbon Brief analysis, says: “Plastic is…produced from fossil fuels, and is currently estimated to be responsible for 5% of global emissions – so efforts to restrict it could also help with efforts to tackle climate change.” The outlet quotes a negotiator from Kuwait saying “in the final hours” before the talks came to a close: “The objective of this treaty is to end plastic pollution not plastic itself, plastic has brought immense benefit to societies worldwide.” Politico reports: “At the heart of the disagreement was a refusal by oil-rich nations led by Saudi Arabia to accept a deal that put limits on plastic production.” It adds: “[T]hree negotiators…told Politico [that] Saudi Arabia had coordinated a push from oil-rich and plastic-producing countries to block any proposals for the treaty that threatened to reduce plastic production…At nearly every round of talks over the past two years, those countries – which also include Iran and Russia – have been accused of causing delays and obstructing progress on the talks. The Saudi and Russian negotiators declined multiple requests for comment when approached by Politico in Busan.” The day before the talks ended, the New York Times had similarly reported: “Saudi officials are leading an effort to block a United Nations deal to tackle plastic pollution, negotiators said…Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers of petroleum, which is used to make most of the world’s plastic, have pushed back against measures that would address plastic pollution by placing curbs on excessive plastic production.” Agence France-Presse reports: “France on Sunday accused a handful of countries of obstructing negotiations in South Korea to reach the world’s first treaty to curb plastic pollution.” It quotes Olga Givernet, France’s minister delegate for energy, telling reporters: “We also are worried by the continuing obstruction by the so-called like-minded countries.” The Independent notes the lack of voting provisions at the negotiations, meaning decisions must be taken by consensus. Another New York Times story says no date or time has been set for the next round of talks. The Financial Times and Climate Home News also cover the news.

The International Court of Justice is about to start two weeks of hearings in a “landmark” climate change case, the Associated Press reports: “After years of lobbying by island nations who fear they could simply disappear under rising sea waters, the UN General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice last year for an opinion on ‘the obligations of states in respect of climate change’.” The hearings will see interventions from 99 countries and more than a dozen international organisations, the outlet says. Reuters reports: “While the court’s advisory opinions are not binding, they are legally and politically significant. Experts say the court’s eventual opinion on climate change will likely be cited in climate change-driven lawsuits in courts from Europe to Latin America and beyond.” The Guardian also has the story.

Ireland’s two large centre-right parties Fine Gael and Fianna Fail “looked set to be returned to power” after Friday’s election, Reuters reports, adding that they are likely to need a new coalition partner in order to form a government. The newswire says: “The current junior coalition party, the Greens, were in danger of losing all 12 of their seats, their leader Roderic O’Gorman said.” The Times reports: “With the support for the Green party collapsing nationwide and the party set to lose all but one seat, Labour is seen by Fine Gael and Fianna Fail as the most viable junior coalition party.” The Guardian says O’Gorman “scrap[ed] through on the 13th recount”. It adds: “Among the issues that created problems for the Greens was a carbon tax on petrol, aimed at discouraging people from consuming carbon-emitting fuel, which was introduced by the previous government but blamed on the Greens.” BBC News quotes Irish environment minister and former Green leader Eamonn Ryan saying the governing coalition partners had “turned against the Greens”. The Press Association reports: “The Green party leader [O’Gorman] has ‘no regrets’ about going into a three-party government in 2020, but said the two main coalition partners did them ‘no favours’.” (See Carbon Brief’s grid comparing how climate and energy featured in the manifestos of the main Irish parties.)

The European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political grouping in the European Parliament, is “pushing for a reversal of an upcoming ban on combustion engines”, the Financial Times reports. The newspaper says a position paper from the grouping calls for a reversal on the 2035 ban on combustion engines: “Traditional engines should continue to be allowed if they run on biofuels and other low-emission alternatives, it said.” The newspaper continues: “[European Commission president and EPP member Ursula] Von der Leyen has maintained that Brussels will uphold the ban, which was enacted during her first term as part of a package of laws aimed at cutting carbon emissions in the EU to net-zero by 2050. This week, however, she announced that she would personally chair talks with stakeholders across the industry ‘to design solutions together as this industry goes through a deep and disruptive transition’.”

Separately, the Financial Times reports: “The EU’s top energy official, who stepped down at the weekend during the handover to a new European Commissioner, has warned against a deal to replace Russian gas piped through Ukraine by labelling the imports as Azerbaijani.” A third Financial Times article says traders expect European gas prices to be higher next summer than the following winter – “an unusual bet that reflects the steep cost of refilling the continent’s storage facilities as it tries to wean itself off Russian supplies”.

Finally, a comment in the Financial Times by European economics commentator Martin Sandbu says: “[T]he European Central Bank should…look at targeted operations for green investments. That would create confidence that even if monetary policy needed to be tighter for the economy on average, funding for investments elected politicians have said are imperative would be increasingly affordable.”

French utility firm EDF is “set to be given regulatory approval to extend the lifespan of four nuclear power plants across the country”, the i newspaper reports. It says plants at Hartlepool in County Durham, Heysham in Lancashire and Torness in East Lothian are set to be given approval for extended operation before the end of the year. The newspaper adds that the sites were due to close down in 2026 and 2028. Separately, Reuters reports that the UK government is consulting on plans to include shipping in the country’s emissions trading system from 2026. And the Guardian reports: “The UK has increased its contribution to the World Bank, in a move that will boost prospects for climate finance.”

In other UK news, the Financial Times reports comments by Prof Piers Forster, interim chair of the government’s advisory Climate Change Committee, under the headline: “UK must curb electricity costs to hit green targets, says climate body chief.” It quotes him telling the newspaper: “If you can reduce the price of electricity, you can then really make heat pumps and electric vehicles and electrifying industries more attractive.” It adds: “The UK put ‘extra costs on the electricity bill…and they don’t have to be there’, said Forster. ‘We are not in the business of being policy prescriptive, but there are several things electricity markets and the government could choose to do to reduce the cost of electricity compared to gas prices.’”

Elsewhere, the Guardian reports: “Global carbon emissions would be 6% lower than today if not for the ‘inaccurate narrative’ against nuclear power since the Chornobyl disaster that has created ‘unfounded public concern’, according to Tony Blair’s thinktank.” The Daily Telegraph reports that it will cost the UK government £129bn to decommission all of the nation’s old nuclear sites, a figure it says is “£23.5bn more than previously expected, after factoring in the cost of shutting eight power stations that are currently operational”.

State-run newspaper China Daily reports that China is expected to account for more than 50% of the global electric vehicle (EV) fleet by 2025 as global EV ownership rises “significantly to hit 85 million” and the country will “maintain this lead over the next decade”, according to a new forecast by consulting firm Gartner. The newspaper adds that the growth in 2025 will be “driven primarily by higher EV sales” in China and the EU, which together could “represent 82% of total EVs in use worldwide”, according to the forecast. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) publishes a commentary by David Dodwell  arguing that the collapse of Northvolt, Europe’s EV battery “champion”, threatens the EU’s net-zero goals and plans to “address the challenge from China as a world leader across the spectrum of clean energy industries”. Another SCMP article says that, according to observers, Morocco and other countries in western and central North Africa are “pivotal” to China’s ability to “sourc[e] critical materials” needed in EVs, quoting Chinese president Xi Jinping saying during a visit to Morocco that China’s “engagement with Morocco has become increasingly active”. Legal Daily, a Communist party-run newspaper, publishes an article focused on protecting the “privacy and security” of EV owners’ data. Chinese EV brands continue to “meet resistance” as they push into Europe’s EV market, Bloomberg reports, amidst declining registrations in Europe of Chinese-made EVs.

Meanwhile, China Daily publishes a comment article by its EU bureau chief Chen Weihua arguing that “many want China and the EU to play a more important role” in fighting climate change. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen held a meeting on “global non-market overcapacity”, indicating she is “looking for new ways to crack down on [China’s] economic overflows”, SCMP says. Business news outlet Caixin reports that China’s major battery makers are increasingly trying to increase their use of “green” electricity for manufacturing, as they face “stringent carbon footprint restrictions” in new EU battery regulations. Reuters reports that the US has “announced…a new round of tariffs on solar panel imports” from Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand. Dazhong Daily, a Communist party-affiliated newspaper, says wind and solar products exported from China helped other countries reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 810m tonnes.

Industry news outlet BJX News reports that Wang Hongzhi, former manager of China Southern Power Grid and deputy director of State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), has replaced Zhang Jianhua as party secretary of the National Energy Administration (NEA). Another BJX News article reports that a recent NEA meeting called for policymakers to “attach great importance” to building large-scale wind and solar power bases. China’s electrification rate is expected to reach 34% by 2030, according to the China Electricity Council, business news outlet Yicai reports, adding that greater “flexibility requirements” for the power system will be needed. 

UK government ministers are looking at cheaper loans to help people buy electric vehicles (EVs), as well as reduced financial penalties for carmakers that miss sales targets, the Observer reports. However, it says business secretary Jonathan Reynolds, in a comment for the newspaper (see below), “stood by the government’s ‘cast-iron commitment’ to reinstate a 2030 ban on new cars that run on petrol and diesel”. However, the Financial Times reports: “Carmakers may be permitted to sell Prius-style hybrid models in the UK until 2035, as ministers consider ways to water down the country’s electric vehicle sales regime, said people with knowledge of the discussions. A fast-tracked consultation launched this week will include a long-expected decision on what types of vehicles carmakers can sell after a 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars comes into force, the people said.” The Times and the Guardian also have the story. The Sun reports: “Ministers are digging in on plans to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and hybrids by 2035.” It says “ministers are looking only at tweaks to strict zero-emission vehicle rules…such as letting manufacturers buy permits or delay penalties for missing early targets”. The newspaper quotes a “source” saying: “There is no u-turn. The government has been clear it was just new cars powered solely by petrol and diesel that would be banned. Hybrids have always been part of the plan to support the transition.” It also quotes a spokesperson saying: “The government’s commitment is to phase out the sale of new cars powered solely by internal combustion engines by 2030 – this has not changed.” BBC News has an article titled: “Five ways to persuade more people to buy electric cars.” These include subsidies, the arrival of cheap electric cars, reduced-rate VAT on public charging points and “sort[ing] out the public charging network”. Separately, the Times reports that industry groups are “lobbying Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to scrap plans to extend the ‘expensive car supplement’ to EVs from April next year”.

In a comment for the Guardian, UK secretary of state of business and trade Jonathan Reynolds says that his government will not “play politics with people’s jobs by delaying the [2030] deadline for ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars…That’s why we made a cast-iron commitment in the manifesto to restore the original 2030 date to transition to electric vehicles and phase out the sales of new cars with internal combustion engines.” Reynolds continues: “But we want to work with industry and make sure its voices are heard on how we get there. That’s why we’re fast-tracking a consultation that will look at how the government can support manufacturers, investors and the wider industry to reach the target. To be clear, this consultation is about how, not if we reach this ambition.” He concludes: “The bottom line is: we can either sprint ahead and harness the clean energy transition to deliver growth, create new jobs and a greener future, or allow ourselves to fall behind.”

Meanwhile, an editorial in the climate-sceptic comment pages of the Wall Street Journal is headlined: “Britain is killing its auto industry.” In the Sunday Times, business editor Jim Armitage says the car industry “needs a little more carrot to power ahead with EVs” and calls for EV subsidies to be reinstated. Armitage also criticises Carlos Tavares of carmaker Stellantis for announcing the closure of a Luton van factory last week and blaming it on EV targets “rather than admit his company needs to cut costs because it’s haemorrhaging money in the US”. (Tavares announced his resignation as Stellantis CEO on Sunday, Reuters, the Financial Times and others report.) Also for the Sunday Times, writer Stephen Bleach opines under the headline: “Ignore the Luddites: electric cars are the patriot’s choice.” For the Guardian, columnist Gabby Hinsliff describes the fight over the UK’s EV targets as “the first really serious test of nerve for a Labour government that is genuinely committed to net-zero, but anxious about the human consequences of job losses in its old industrial heartlands”. In the Times, former Sunday Times business editor Dominic O’Connell writes: “The UK is at risk of becoming a victim of a shakeout in the world automotive industry as the shift to electric vehicles proves a trap.”

Elsewhere, analysis from BBC News asks: “Are we seeing more storms and is flooding getting worse because of climate change?” It says: “The short answer is ‘yes’, but there is other stuff going on we need to dive into.” Observer science editor Robin McKie writes under the headline: “People are angry about the floods – but turning to Reform endangers us all.” An article in the Guardian asks: “Could Tenbury Wells be the first UK town centre abandoned over climate change?” And a Daily Telegraph feature about the UK, by energy editor and former North Sea industry lobbyist Jonathan Leake, quotes extensively from oil and gas industry executive Chris Wright, who has been nominated for US energy secretary by incoming president Donald Trump. It runs under the headline: “How net-zero accelerated Britain’s national decline.” DeSmog says: “Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s head of policy slammed the UK’s 2050 net-zero emissions goal while working for a group that has been funded by BP, DeSmog can report.”

A feature in the Times looks at the prospects for US climate action under president-elect Donald Trump: “He looks set to withdraw America from the UN climate negotiations. For his energy secretary, he has picked Chris Wright, a fossil fuel executive who has said ‘there is no climate crisis’.” It cites Carbon Brief analysis showing Trump “could add four billion tonnes to US carbon emissions by 2030”. However, the newspaper continues: “But while many climate scientists and activists are certain that Trump will be a disaster for the planet, clean-energy advocates in Washington are markedly more sanguine. They are about to embark on a lobbying effort to save as much of [outgoing president Joe] Biden’s climate agenda as they can. They believe they can do so by re-framing it to Republicans as a plan to protect energy security, reshore manufacturing jobs and compete with China.” The Hill similarly asks what Trump’s presidency will mean for global climate efforts. It says: “Experts say they don’t expect [US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement] to derail international work to address global warming, but that it will cede US leadership on climate issues and technology in a way that could make the country less competitive in international markets down the line.” The Financial Times “moral money” newsletter looks at “what Trump’s energy department has in store for investors”. It says Trump’s return has “sen[t] oil and nuclear stocks surging”. The Associated Press says “Trump’s call for ‘energy dominance’ is likely to run into real-world limits”. It continues: “For one, US oil production under Biden is already at record levels. The federal government cannot force companies to drill for more oil, and production increases could lower prices and reduce profits.” In the Financial Times, a letter from Dustin Meyer of the American Petroleum Institute pushes back on reporting about how oil and gas companies “disguise their methane emission”. He writes: “Your article misses the broader picture of how the US oil and natural gas industry is driving innovation to reduce methane emissions.”

In other US comment, Ryan Maue, who served in the first Trump administration, writes for the New York Times under the headline: “Republicans would regret letting Elon Musk axe weather forecasting.” He writes: “For people who care about weather and climate, one of the most concerning proposals on the table is to dismantle the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The authors of Project 2025, a blueprint for the administration crafted by conservative organisations, claim erroneously that NOAA is ‘one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry” and should be “broken down and downsized’.” Maue concludes: “Building a weather-ready nation for the future will require hard work, but Americans of all political stripes should back NOAA to lead the way.” Another New York Times comment article, by author Nathaniel Rich, reflects on the vulnerability of New Orleans to climate change impacts.

Guardian economics editor Heather Stewart writes: “Policymakers must act as extreme weather events put more pressure on food inflation and production worldwide.” She walks through examples of food prices being affected by extreme weather including coffee beans, oranges and olive oil, noting: “In the rich world these cause inconvenience and make the lives of low-income households harder. In developing countries, they can mean outright hunger.” Stewart adds: “Sometimes these price jumps follow extreme weather events, as in the case of the Spanish floods. Scientists tell us such events have already become more common as a result of the climate crisis, and will continue to multiply. Or the jumps may result from the higher temperatures that have become a new and alarming normal, forcing farmers to rethink longstanding cultivation patterns.” She concludes: “Food price shocks are only one aspect of the climate crisis, but their growing frequency is a warning sign that we are entering a new, more volatile era, with a policy toolkit created in calmer times.”

For the Financial Times, columnist Camilla Cavendish reflects on the politics of land in the UK, writing: “The UK government is committed to increasing English woodland by a million acres – a larger area than Kent – and to creating new habitats for biodiversity by another million…At the same time, floods and drought are threatening harvests, which climate change will make worse. Some kind of land use framework is urgently needed to ensure, in the words of the parliamentary land use in England committee, that ‘we are doing the right thing, in the right place and at the appropriate scale’.” Cavendish adds: “I am all in favour of net-zero. But I’m not sure I want my taxes spent on the Forestry Commission’s impenetrable forests of spruce and corporate greenwashing. I’d rather subsidise farmers who reduce our reliance on food imports, who can steward the land to limit flooding, and who’ve spent the long years since Brexit learning how to farm with nature rather than against it.”

A new study finds that two “climate refugia” in the Great Barrier Reef will remain around 1C cooler than the surrounding water until at least the 2080s. Models and satellite data show that cooler regions are being created by the upwelling of cooler water to the surface, the authors say. They use a regional ocean model to assess temperatures in the great barrier reef under a high emission scenario. According to the paper, the two “relatively large refugia” will provide “thermal relief” to corals as the region warms.