As the northern-hemisphere summer nears its close, the Guardian has spoken to more than 40 scientists from around the world about the role of climate change in recent record extremes. The Guardian says: “They said that the rise in global temperature was entirely in line with decades of warnings and was being boosted this year by the return of the El Niño climate pattern. But they said that people and places were more vulnerable to extreme weather than expected and were suffering effects never previously experienced as climate records were shattered.” Prof Piers Forster, interim chair of the UK’s Climate Change Committee and a climate researcher at the University of Leeds, tells the Guardian: “July was the hottest month in human history and people around the world are suffering the consequences. But this is what we expected at [this level] of warming. This will become the average summer in 10 years’ time unless the world cooperates and puts climate action top of the agenda.” Prof Krishna AchutaRao at the Indian Institute of Technology tells the Guardian: “The impacts are frighteningly more impactful than I – and many climate scientists I know – expected.” The full quotes of the 40 scientists are included in an in-depth feature by a team of Guardian environment correspondents. The Guardian also runs a feature focusing on extreme weather events in the US this summer.

The special report comes as the Guardian reports that south-east Australia could face a marine heatwave that is “literally off the scale”.

Children everywhere have a right to sue nations over their failure to tackle climate change, including by failing to curtail business activities, a UN panel has concluded, according to the New York Times. It explains: “In an expansive 20-page document released Monday, the Committee [on the on the Rights of the Child] said all countries have a legal obligation to protect children from environmental degradation – including by ‘regulating business enterprises’ – and to allow their underage citizens to seek legal recourse. The committee’s opinion is not legally binding and is therefore impossible to enforce. But it is significant because it is based on a widely recognised international treaty and explicitly recognises children’s right to go to court to force their government to slow down the climate crisis. That treaty is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is considered the most widely ratified treaty in history because every country in the world except the US has signed on to it. In the past, courts in many countries, including on rare occasions the US, have relied on the committee’s interpretations in their decisions.” The Guardian also covers the committee’s ruling.

In the UK, there is extensive coverage of London mayor Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emission zone (Ulez), which today has expanded to cover the outer areas of London. The Financial Times reports this morning that Khan “has shelved plans for a zero emissions zone in central London that would have levied a charge on drivers of all combustion-engined vehicles, marking a shift in his politically contentious crackdown on pollution”. The newspaper notes that “the revelation comes as Khan faces a backlash over his decision to push ahead with [the Ulez]”. The FT reports: “Khan had previously pledged to go further and introduce a zero emissions zone in central London in his transport strategy, which was first published in 2018. It was updated last year to highlight ‘the triple challenges of toxic air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion’. In the plan, the mayor had pledged to work towards a new central London zone by 2025, which it said would ‘likely’ require any non-zero emission vehicle to pay a daily charge. As well as Ulez, central London has a congestion charge zone that levies a £15 daily fee on drivers of all petrol or diesel-engined vehicles. A spokesperson for the mayor said that although the zero emission zone plan had been shelved, it was still possible that individual London boroughs could implement their own schemes with support from Transport for London.” The Times reports that Khan has clarified that he is also not currently considering a “pay per mile” road scheme for London.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Khan says he will be “on the right side of history” for sticking with the Ulez, despite backlash from political opponents and environmental sceptics. The newspaper says: “Khan is becoming increasingly frustrated by his opponents’ tactics, particularly as Ulez was first introduced by Boris Johnson, his predecessor, in 2008. He said: ‘I’m doing what the government wants me to do. So this mock anger from the government is pure hypocrisy.’ Khan points to the fact the Conservatives have introduced clean-air zones in 16 cities across the country, including Bristol, Birmingham and Portsmouth, supported by government funding. ‘So they want clean air in other parts of the country, but for some reason they’re against it in London,’ he said. ‘The Tories are trying to weaponise the issue of tackling air pollution, tackling the climate emergency, because they think there is some short-term advantage to doing so. But people aren’t stupid. They’ll see both the reasonable need to take action and that this government was previously in favour of this policy.’”

Elsewhere, Bloomberg reports on whether Khan’s decision to push forward with the Ulez was “worth it”, saying: “The city now has fewer dirty cars and better air quality, and while the expansion of the Ulez has sparked controversy in the UK, it’s inspired mayors around the world to consider similar plans.” The FT reports on a “major loophole” with the Ulez, whereby van drivers can offset the charge against tax. The i newspaper speaks to families with severely asthmatic children, who are extremely vulnerable to air pollution, that are thankful for the Ulez’s expansion.

UK government plans to fasttrack the development of new North Sea oil and gas fields have been “held up amid fears that they could harm wildlife including harbour porpoises”, the Times reports. It says: “Last year the North Sea Transition Authority, which awards licences to drill for oil and gas, identified four ‘priority clusters’ of fields in the southern North Sea where gas had been found in the past but not developed. It estimated that the four areas combined could contain a trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas, the equivalent of the gas used by 25m homes in a year…Documents from the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning show that concerns affecting the priority clusters in the southern North Sea include the effect on harbour porpoises, which are protected in Special Areas of Conservation. The regulator is assessing how the species may be affected by disturbance from drilling rigs, including potential discharges and noise. Other blocks in the southern North Sea thought to be part of the priority clusters are subject to concerns about birds, including the sandwich tern and the red-throated diver.”

In other UK news, the Sunday Times interviews former prime minister Theresa May, who says she is “very pleased” that current prime minister Rishi Sunak has not yet tried to abandon the UK’s legal net-zero target introduced by her. She tells the newspaper that net-zero is “the most important economic opportunity of the 21st century”, adding: “Lots of people talk about the costs but don’t talk about what would net off those costs in terms of positives for the economy, for jobs, for people and so forth.” It comes as the Financial Times reports that Sunak “is to become the first UK prime minister in a decade not to attend the UN general assembly, a move that is expected to draw strong criticism from environmental groups”.

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph has a story that is critical of a suggestion from the Climate Change Committee that households could lower energy bills by pre-heating their homes outside of peak times. The story quotes prominent climate sceptics, including Conservative MP Craig Mackinlay, head of the net-zero scrutiny group of Tory MPs, and Andrew Montford, the director of Net Zero Watch. [The article does not mention that the two groups are connected nor that they have a history of climate sceptic lobbying.] The Daily Telegraph also carries a story saying that a gas company employee has claimed that forcing “luxury” heat pumps on households will spark a backlash. The Daily Mail reports that the Labour candidate standing in the by-election triggered by the resignation of Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has taken garden leave from his Bank of England job over his involvement with Greenpeace.

Lastly, the Times reports that UK investors have warned the government that “a lack of clarity on green policies risks stalling investments needed to reach the 2050 net-zero target”. And the Guardian reports that hundreds of new EV charging points have been installed in UK regions over the past year.

China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) has issued guidelines to further standardise management of local electricity markets, reports financial media outlet Caixin. The guidelines “clarified the responsibilities” of management committees to “study” relevant rules and articles of association and assist in establishing self-disciplinary and oversight mechanisms, and called for management committees to consist of representatives of a wider range of stakeholders, adds the outlet. Xinhua publishes the text of the NEA’s Guiding Opinions on the matter, in which the body states that such committees should be independent of the local power market, and are “an important safeguard for the independent and standardised operation of power trading institutions”.

Meanwhile, Chinese consumers “stayed away from sea food stalls and rushed to stock up on salt” following Beijing’s condemnation of Japan’s release on Thursday of treated radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, reports Reuters. The Guardian writes that China has been “accused of hypocrisy” of “banning all seafood from Japan” while a power plant in south-eastern China’s Fujian province has “released about three times more tritium” into the ocean than the scheduled Fukushima discharge. Bloomberg’s analysis by its energy reporter Dan Murtaugh looks at how China’s nuclear industry is pulling away from America’s, under the title: “China’s fast and cheap nuclear gives its climate ambitions a boost.” 

Elsewhere, the Wall Street Journal covers the Biden administration’s efforts to extend the US-China Science and Technology Agreement (STA), a landmark agreement which was due to expire on 27 August, despite opposition from Republican lawmakers. China’s foreign ministry says it is “willing to communicate closely with the US and hopes both sides would work together to promote an early renewal of the agreement”. Saudi Arabia is considering an offer from the Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear (CNNC) to build a nuclear power plant in the country, a decision which could disrupt US plans in the kingdom, says Reuters, citing a report by the Wall Street Journal. Caixin writes that president Xi pledged $10bn to promote global development centred around the UN sustainable development goals at the 15th BRICS summit. The state news agency Xinhua says that a geothermal power plant financed by China is accelerating Kenya’s clean energy transition.

Separately, the energy news site Upstream Online writes that Chinese demand for “natural” gas “continues to surge”. The country has seen an increased annual import capacity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to 120mn tonnes in 2023, the article adds. The world’s largest “clean energy corridor”, powered by the China Three Gorges Group, reached a record-high level of daily power generation at more than 1,400 gigawatt-hours, according to Chinese industry news network China Energy News. And BBC News has a report on China’s extreme weather this summer with voices from local farmers.

Finally, China Science Daily carries an interview with Kan Haidong, associate dean of the school of public health at the Fudan University. He says that “the majority of the Chinese population is concentrated in the monsoon region”, which is vulnerable to the impact of climate change. He also highlights that studies have shown air pollution and climate change have an impact on physical and mental health.

The leader of the Christian Democrats (CDU) opposition party in Germany, Friedrich Merz, “opposes the climate policy of the current government coalition”, consisting of the Social Democrats (SPD), Greens, and Free Democrats (FDP), reports Deustchlandfunk with reference to ARD television. The source highlights that Merz sees the heating law, which proposed a shift towards heating systems that use more than 65% of renewables, as “immature”. FOCUS reports that Merz spoke out in favour of return to nuclear power, stating that “we [CDU] would immediately put all decommissioned nuclear power plants back on line”. Daily Mail adds that Merz also pledged to “lower the tax and levy burden on energy”. 

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel reports that SPD’s party leader, Lars Klingbeil, was questioned about “climate money”, which was initially seen as a “climate policy miracle”, involving the state redistributing the revenue generated from elevated CO2 prices when selling and burning fuels like petrol or heating oil, incentivising “eco-friendly behaviours”. However, “the practice looks like this: wait, pay, wait”, notes the newspaper. Elsewhere, Die Zeit reports that the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia has voted to eliminate the 1,000-metre distance requirement between wind turbines and residential areas. Finally, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports that extreme weather is causing growing uncertainty for farmers, according to German agriculture minister Cem Özdemir. The outlet adds that this year’s grain harvest in Germany is projected to be about 4% lower than last year due to “unpredictable weather patterns”.

An editorial in the Times criticises the UK government’s windfall tax on profits made from extracting UK oil and gas as “the most irrational energy strategy in western Europe”. Following the news that Harbour Energy, a North Sea oil and gas producer, “had announced an after-tax loss [of $8m] for the first six months of the year after booking a $302m charge to meet the government’s energy profit levy”, the newspaper argues that the high tax burden “harms industrial competitiveness and environmental sustainability”. Harbour Energy “has cut some 350 onshore jobs this year as it scales back its activities”, the newspaper says: “To some climate activists, this is only good news. And they have found a receptive audience in the Labour Party, which pledges to ban new oil and gas exploration licences. This a short-sighted posture born of populism rather than serious environmental thinking. Almost 80% of the energy used in the UK last year came from coal, oil and gas, down from almost 90% in 2012. The transition to net-zero carbon emissions will necessarily be incremental; simply shutting down production while doing nothing to curb consumption will require Britain to import more of its energy requirements, resulting in a still bigger carbon footprint.” The editorial concludes: “The opportunistic taxes on the energy sector are an example of how pressure-group politics can undermine good policy…Both government and opposition should think again about Britain’s energy needs.” A Daily Mirror editorial takes the opposite view, arguing that “a proper windfall tax on the bumper profits of oil and gas giants” could have protected people “struggling” with high energy prices.

Meanwhile, an editorial in the Guardian cautions that while “hydrogen is being touted as a fuel of the future”, it is “perhaps not as green as you think“. The newspaper notes that “Europe’s green deal…relies on green hydrogen production in north Africa and Ukraine”, but “the trouble is, this fuel is obtained by splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen with electricity generated by renewable sources”. The editorial cites the example of Tunisia, which “has lots of sun but precious little fresh water”. The push for some industries – such as steel or petrochemical manufacturers – to adopt green hydrogen “cannot come at the cost of environmental destruction abroad”, the newspaper warns. It concludes: “Transitioning to net-zero emissions globally should not mean the rich gain at the expense of the poor.”

Elsewhere in UK comment, an editorial in the Sunday Mirror warns against “costly” and “risky” carbon capture technologies. It says: “The alternatives are deeply unsexy – but they work. More onshore wind farms, home insulation and replacing spluttering old boilers with heat pumps would reduce household bills and boost Britain’s energy independence.“ City AM’s energy editor Nicholas Earl writes that “net-zero may be expensive but the UK cannot afford to sit out [the] green energy subsidy race”. In the Times, writer and consultant Edward Lucas argues that “smarter consumption is the way to net-zero”. In the Independent, David Callaway – former editor-in-chief of USA Today – warns that the “climate crisis is shutting down our cities“ in the US. In the Financial Times, Prof Jonathan Ostry from the department of economics at Georgetown University discusses the “remarkable” hesitancy of politicians in implementing effective climate policies. Also in the FT, Prof Sarah Gordon from the London School of Economics writes on the potential for “financing structures that blend private and public capital” for tackling climate change.

Finally, American author and Spectator columnist Lionel Shriver says in the Times that “blaming climate change for everything is lazy”. Shriver criticises “knee-jerk allegation[s]” linking extreme weather to human-caused climate change, arguing: “sloppy attributions on a daily basis sound like propaganda – because that’s what they are”. [Shriver overlooks the entire academic field of attribution science.] They add: “In the past 10 years, we’ve suffered no fewer than four international social manias: the transgender craze, #MeToo, Covid lockdowns and post-Floydian Black Lives Matter. Having accelerated from scientific hypothesis to fever dream, climate change apocalypticism now displays all the markers of another mania.” And, in the Daily Telegraph, climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark writes that “energy prices really are a conspiracy against the public”. 

Many newspapers comment on the expansion to London’s ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez), which comes into effect today. A Daily Telegraph editorial describes the move as “a great betrayal”, adding: “The danger now is that extreme environmentalists will be emboldened, and will pressure local governments to enact similar schemes elsewhere. Already some have raised the spectre of road charging, which could see motorists paying more if they drive at peak times. There appears to be no end to the creativity of green activists in devising schemes that will hinder people from being able to use their cars. This may ultimately prove self-defeating. While voters broadly back efforts to decarbonise the economy and help the environment, polling has shown that support declines for individual measures if there is a direct cost to consumers. The whole environmental project could be derailed if its proponents fail to bring the public with them.” Another Daily Telegraph editorial also focuses on road pricing, noting that “sooner rather than later”, the issue of declining fuel duties “will have to be confronted or spending cut elsewhere to make up the shortfall”. It adds: “This is an issue that a Tory or Labour government will need to deal with. But they have seen from the Ulez expansion just what a fight they have on their hands with the motoring public to justify the consequences of their green policies.” 

An editorial in the Mail on Sunday makes a similar point on road pricing: “Driving is already heavily taxed. Now it is to be taxed again in ways which will push people into buying expensive and supposedly greener vehicles which are exempt or penalised less heavily…So new taxes and charges will no doubt have to be devised to keep the money flowing in. For in the end, these schemes have at least as much to do with raising cash for spendthrift local government as they have to do with high-minded efforts to make us all go green.” An editorial in the Daily Mail describes Ulez as “a green con trick”, while a Guardian editorial – which describes the Ulez expansion as “doing the right thing” – says “finding ways to protect the environment, while sharing out the cost of the transition away from fossil fuels, is the key public policy challenge of our time”. It adds: “It speaks volumes about [Prime Minister] Rishi Sunak that rather than come up with solutions he prefers to whip up resentment about the need to adopt greener lifestyles…Rather than capitulate in the face of Tory attempts to exploit the climate crisis for short-term political gain, Labour nationally should call them out.”

New research attributes up to 10% of the landslides in the south-eastern Alpine forelands in June 2009 to human-caused climate change. In June 2009, 952 individual landslides were recorded in the south-eastern Alpine forelands, according to the study. The authors simulate meteorological conditions in the region, both with and without the impacts of climate change, to assess the role that climate change played in the event. They find a “substantial influence of anthropogenic climate change” on the landslides.

Floods that currently occur only once per year could be seen hundreds of times per year under amounts of sea level rise projected this century in most locations, a new paper finds. The authors present a tool that can identify potential future tidal flooding hotspots using only one year of observational records. “Once floods of any severity become annual occurrences, tides are the most important physical process that modulates how flood hazards respond to further sea level rise,” the authors find. The paper adds that “future chronic coastal flood hotspots will likely differ from present-day coastal flood hotspots and future episodic coastal flood hotspots”.