A high-profile independent review into the cost of energy has concluded energy prices are being pushed up by years of government policymaking distorting the market and shackling consumers with hefty legacy costs. Led by Oxford academic Professor Dieter Helm, the controversial review argues the costs of high-profile clean energy policies such as the Renewable Obligations Certificate, Feed-in Tariff and Contracts for Difference (CfD) schemes are largely responsible for rising energy prices. The report was widely covered across the press. “Helm concluded that energy-users should have benefited more from falling costs and technical efficiencies”, reports the BBC, and “recommended a new default tariff to replace current variable tariffs”. He argued that the Big Six suppliers are effectively earning far higher profit margins than thought and suggested the government should cap suppliers’ margins, the Times reports. The review also makes an “overwhelming” case to harmonise carbon pricing, says Carbon Pulse. The probe revealed a series of “spectacularly bad” decisions have “burdened” households with higher green energy subsidies than necessary, writes the Sun. The Telegraph says Prof Helm found the cost of renewable energy – as well as gas, coal and oil – has fallen but the benefits have not been passed on because ministers locked the taxpayer into long-term contracts that overestimated those costs. The Financial Times, Energy Live News, Reuters, the Daily Mail, BT and City A.M also covered the new review. Carbon Brief published an article looking at the context of the review – including the wider political context and Prof Helm’s strongly held views on energy policy – back in August when the government first commissioned the review.

Peabody Energy Corp. is “for now off the hook” for liabilities related to its role in global warming, reports Bloomberg. St. Louis Judge Barry Schermer, who oversaw the Chapter 11 case, said the company’s 2016 bankruptcy protects it from lawsuits brought in California State court by Marin County, San Mateo County and the city of Imperial Beach. The plaintiffs alleged that Peabody is among about 40 companies responsible for extracting fossil fuels that created 20% of carbon dioxide emissions over a 50-year period. “They did not file a proof of claim or otherwise participate in the case,” Schermer said in his Tuesday ruling. The Wall Street Journal also has the story.

Markings left by huge icebergs breaking free from ancient glaciers 10,000 years ago may give an insight into future effects of climate change. Researchers from Cambridge University, the British Antarctic Survey and Stockholm University imaged the seafloor of Pine Island Bay, in West Antarctica. The markings show how the Antarctic Ice Sheet retreated rapidly at the end of the last Ice Age as it ‘balanced precariously’ on sloping ground and became unstable. A separate study using X-ray scans to surveyed coastal areas around Shetland and the northwest of Scotland to show how glaciers disappeared from the British Isles at the end of the last Ice Age could provide clues about the effect of melting glaciers in future, the Times reports. “The similarities between what we see happening in west Antarctica today and what we see on the seabed around Scotland are striking,” said Tom Bradwell, a geologist at Stirling University, who led the study.

Theresa May yesterday said the government will set out further proposals to support fracking, insisting it is good for the UK. The Prime Minister made an impassioned case for the controversial technique for shale gas extraction during Prime Minister’s Questions on Tuesday. The comments come after the Scottish Parliament this week backed a fracking ban in Scotland. Some commentators had previously noted the absence of shale gas in the UK government recently released clean growth strategy (Carbon Brief covered this in detail). Carbon Briefalso published detailed Q&A on fracking in the UK and what it could mean for the climate.

Electric cars emit significantly less greenhouse gases over their lifetimes than diesel engines, according to a new report. This is the case even when they are powered by the most carbon intensive energy such as in Poland, the full lifecycle modelling study by Belgium’s VUB University found. CO2 reductions for electric vehicles on Europe’s cleanest grid in Sweden were 85%, falling to around one half for countries such as the UK. “On average, electric vehicles will emit half the CO2 emissions of a diesel car by 2030, including the manufacturing emissions,” said Yoann Le Petit, a spokesman for the T&E think tank, which commissioned the study.

British oil majors BP and Shell continue to put both their businesses and shareholder capital at risk by failing to grasp the pace of change as the world moves towards a low carbon economy, responsible investment campaign group ShareAction has warned. Fresh analysis published today by the non-profit argues neither firm is comprehensively adapting to climate, technological and economic change. It urges shareholders of both companies to escalate boardroom engagement to demand better risk assessment and disclosure from the companies.

Depending on what is included in the calculation, agriculture accounts for up to a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases. In a long read article Chris Goodall sets out his argument both for why an industrial revolution in agriculture is needed, and that the raw technologies for higher productivity with low carbon impacts are already in place. He argues the only way to achieve substantial greenhouse gas cuts is to move as much agriculture as possible out of fields and into factories. “This will directly reduce emissions but also cut greenhouse gases by decreasing the pressure to switch forests to agricultural land,” he writes. More specifically, he says, we first need to shift to artificial meat. “The need to stop farming beef cattle is particularly urgent; Silicon Valley startup Impossible Foods is a highly plausible contender in the race to create acceptable meat substitutes.” Meanwhile organics are a “distraction from the difficult task of feeding up to 10 billion people with the lowest possible carbon footprint” he says. “We need a new industrial agriculture to reduce emissions and to allow much of the world’s land area to return to forest. Unfortunately, organic agriculture, often seen as a crucial part of reducing emissions, seems unlikely to assist in rapid decarbonisation.”

Lithium, which is dominated by three large producers, has surged as demand increases for lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles and energy-storage systems. “Yet while production might struggle at first to catch up with demand growth, lithium isn’t really rare compared with other battery metals like cobalt and graphite, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Eily Ong.” Meanwhile mining history is full of cautionary examples of booms that ended in bust when the rush to boost supply overshot demand growth.

The 23rd meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP23) begins soon in Bonn, Germany (6-17 November). “If this information fails to set your pulse racing, you’re probably not alone,” writes Adam Corner in New Scientist. This is a problem, he argues, given that “these are the blockbuster events dedicated to the global problem of climate change”. What’s worse is that “they may in fact be creating a more relaxed attitude among the public when it comes to taking action on the issue,” he adds, pointing to the results of three-part survey conducted in Germany before, during and after the Paris UN conference in 2015 (COP21). “It found that rather than catalysing concern, the “historic” event left citizens less inclined to push for a leading role for Germany in climate politics.”

Almost every nation agrees that we can’t afford not to limit further warming, an analysis in New Scientist says. That’s why they signed up to the Paris climate agreement. But just how bad will the effect on the global economy be, and how much should countries spend now to limit the economic fallout? Some recent studies suggest we are wildly underestimating the long-term damage – perhaps by a factor of 100.

The conversion of rainforest to palm oil and other cash crops could have had a direct effect on the land surface temperature in Indonesia, a new study finds. Indonesia is currently one of the countries with the highest rate of forest removal for crop production in the world. The research finds that areas where forests have been removed, including urban areas, palm oil plantations and rubber plantations, have a land surface temperature that is on average 10C higher than areas of intact forests. “The differences in surface temperatures are explained by an evaporative cooling effect, which offsets the albedo warming effect,” the researchers say.