There is extensive – and contrasting – coverage across the UK media about the fallout from Labour’s narrow miss in securing a byelection victory in the suburban London seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip last Thursday. The seat was just held by the Conservatives, with most political pundits saying that local opposition to the ULEZ car-pollution policy was pivotal. This has quickly – and simplistically – been interpreted by some within the Conservative and Labour parties to mean that environmental policies should be watered down. The Observer reports on its frontpage that “environmentally minded Conservatives have urged [UK prime minister] Rishi Sunak to hold firm on net-zero commitments after others in the party used their unexpected win in the…byelection to call for an end to ‘very unpopular’ green policies.” The newspaper quotes Sam Hall, the director of the Conservative Environment Network, which has about 150 Conservative MPs and peers as supporters: “Environmental policies are an electoral asset when they are fair, affordable, and deliver for people and their communities. I’d warn Conservatives against listening to calls to ditch environmental commitments following the Uxbridge result. Insulating people’s homes, building more renewables, and attracting investment into new clean industries are popular, bill-cutting and job-creating.” The Sunday Telegraph carries an interview on its frontpage with the “levelling up” secretary Michael Gove under the misleading headline: “Michael Gove warns against net-zero ‘religious crusade’.” As Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans has highlighted on Twitter, Gove does not refer to net-zero in this way in his actual interview. Today’s Times says on its frontpage that “Sunak is planning to hold firm on net-zero goals while delaying or ditching a host of measures that would impose direct costs on consumers, as he comes under pressure from the right of his party to rethink Britain’s climate commitments”. The article continues: “Sunak is said to be sticking with the 2030 date [for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars] as well as the overall aim of reaching net-zero by 2050. However, he has not prioritised climate issues and one person who has worked closely with the prime minister on the issue said: ‘He’s just not interested in it. He’s not opposed to it – he’s just not interested.’ Allies of Sunak insisted that Britain was leading the world on climate measures, but one said: ‘The PM thinks we’ve got to take the public with us on this. You can’t impose on people.’ An ‘Aston Martin exemption’ to the 2030 deadline, which would give small carmakers longer to convert to electric vehicles, is being considered. ‘The strategy doesn’t change, but the tactics might do. We are looking at unpopular stuff that’s not really delivering,’ a government source said.” The Daily Mail claims that “a £120 hydrogen tax on fuel bills is likely to be removed from draft legislation over complaints it would be unfair on households struggling during the cost of living crisis”. It adds: “Tory strategists believe they could replicate that success [in Uxbridge] at the next general election by setting up clear dividing lines from the opposition on green policies.” [The government already indicated it would U-turn on this measure a month ago.] The Sunday Times says that “allies of [Labour leader Keir] Starmer claim [London mayor Sadiq] Khan has now promised to review the [ULEZ] policy in what would amount to a significant U-turn. A senior Labour source said: ‘It’s clear Sadiq is going to be reviewing it.’” It adds: “Labour has been divided over its green agenda for months amid fears among those in the top echelons of the party that its commitment to a plethora of unpopular, expensive green policies, could cost it the election…One critic called for the policies, many of which have been masterminded by the shadow climate secretary Ed Miliband, to be junked, adding: ‘This is the moment Labour should ditch the green crap.’” (See the Comment section below for editorial and comment page reaction.) Today’s frontcover of the i newspaper says: “Tories warned over fiddling with green policies…while Rhodes burns.” (See below for coverage of the fires in Greece.)

Meanwhile, the Financial Times carries an interview with energy secretary Grant Shapps in which he claims that “the government will ‘max out’ the UK’s remaining reserves of North Sea oil and gas, arguing this is compatible with Britain’s pledge to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”. (See Carbon Brief’s recent factcheck about Shapps’s various misleading claims about North Sea oil.)

Separately, in other UK news, City AM reports on its frontpage that “Octopus Energy will team up with institutional investors to spend $20bn (£15.6bn) on offshore wind projects over the rest of the decade…This will help Octopus reach its goal of generating 12GW [gigawatts] of renewable electricity a year, which is enough to power 10m homes. It will be sourced from both Octopus’ own resources – with the energy giant including former US vice-president Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management among its backers – and partners such as pension funds. Octopus is open to new projects across the globe, but its primary focus will be Europe including the UK, although it has not provided a breakdown of where the money will be spent.” The Daily Telegraph follows up a story broken on the frontpage of the Herald on Scotland, saying that “homeowners in Scotland face being banned from selling their properties unless they swap gas boilers for heat pumps, under plans being considered by Humza Yousaf’s government”. And the Sunday Times has a news feature under the headline: “As climate change bites, what will Britain in 2050 look like?”

The mass evacuation of thousands of tourists from the Greek island of Rhodes, where wildfires are raging amid an intensive heatwave across the Mediterranean region, has generated media coverage around the world. CNN says: “Greek officials [have said it is] the largest evacuation effort in the country’s history. Those caught up in the blaze described chaotic and frightening scenes, with some having to leave on foot or find their own transport after being told to leave. The wildfire in the central and south part of Rhodes – a hugely popular island for holidaymakers – has been burning since Tuesday. It is the largest of a number of blazes in Greece, which is sweltering due to a heatwave that experts say is likely to become the country’s longest on record.” Several UK newspapers feature dramatic images of British tourists fleeing the holiday island – but few reference how climate change is making heatwaves longer and more intense. The Guardian says “the heatwave engulfing Greece is expected to be the longest in the country’s history, with temperatures forecast to reach a 50-year high for July this weekend”. It quotes Kostas Lagouvardos, the director of research at the Athens National Observatory: “According to the data, we will probably go through 16-17 days of a heatwave, which has never happened before in our country.” The Observer carries a comment piece by its Athens correspondent Helena Smith under the headline: “As my home city of Athens burns, I can only watch in amazement as sunseekers fly in.” The Guardian interviews a range of people across southern Europe: “People in Italy, Spain and Greece describe their day-to-day struggles in soaring temperatures.” The Times publishes a report (using a picture of two young women sitting by the Trevi fountain in Rome) from its correspondent in Milan: “After trudging through shadeless streets in 45C heat, I sat down at a café to send my report to the Times this week and realised I could not see my laptop screen.”

Finally, the Sunday Times carries a lengthy interview with the climate scientist Dr Friederike Otto (who is a Carbon Brief contributing editor) in which explains that “every time there is a killer heatwave or freak flood she appears on the airwaves, patiently explaining whether each one was made more likely or more intense by human-induced climate change”. The interview quotes her saying: “I do sometimes feel quite angry. I can rationalise why we don’t see political change because you can make a lot of money by selling and digging up oil and gas. We have been brainwashed to think that the definition of freedom is to live in concrete and drive a car. That is a very stupid definition of freedom.”

Several countries led by Saudi Arabia have blocked a move by G20 nations to reduce the use of fossil fuels, reports the Financial Times, in the “latest sign of the global tensions over the future role of oil, gas and coal as the world grapples with climate change”. The newspaper continues: “G20 countries released a summary document on Saturday after several days of intense discussions hosted by India in Goa. It said that some member states had emphasised the need to cut back the use of fossil fuels without the capture of emissions ‘in line with different national circumstances’. But others ‘had different views on the matter’. Those countries instead want to focus on the development of technology to capture greenhouse gas emissions. Several people familiar with the negotiations said Saudi Arabia was prominent in the push against phasing down fossil fuels, and was backed by several other countries. In past negotiations Russia and China have consistently opposed the move, and they stymied a pact at the UN climate summit in Egypt late last year. The G7 nations have already agreed to accelerate the phasing out of fossil fuels. Saturday’s gathering also failed to make progress on setting a global goal for renewable energy development.” Reuters adds: “Disagreements including the intended tripling of renewable energy capacities by 2030 resulted in officials issuing an outcome statement and a chair summary instead of a joint communique at the end of their four-day meeting…Major fossil fuel producers Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, South Africa and Indonesia are all known to oppose the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity this decade.” The Hindustan Times says the talks “collapsed” due to disagreement over renewables targets, “although India’s minister for renewable added [that the] talks were still ‘one of the most successful’ for the [G20] and that it laid down important groundwork ahead of the COP28 climate talks later this year”.

German economy minister Robert Habeck, who attended the meeting, accused Russia of playing “a destructive role” in the negotiations, Die Zeit reports, noting that the Russian deputy minister of energy demonstrated “a complete misjudgment of reality” and a “completely twisted world view” by describing the energy crisis as a result of the financial crisis in 2008. The paper also quotes Alden Meyer from climate thinktank E3G saying that “with daily temperature records around the world and the spiralling effects of climate change, the world should have heard a trumpet call to action from G20 energy ministers” but “hardly anything came out of the meeting”. Tagesspiegel quotes Habeck saying that “everywhere in the world it’s getting hotter” and this is one more reason for an “energy partnership” with India, which Germany sees as a “green hydrogen” supplier. However, Habeck noted that India’s government should condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the outlet adds, because “energy partnerships are never neutral and economic issues are always power issues”. Süddeutsche Zeitung quotes Habeck commenting on the meeting’s results: “It’s a bit of a disappointment, but it was expected…It was possible to make significant progress with most countries.”

According to the National Energy Administration (NEA), by the end of June, China’s capacity of installed renewable energy reached approximately 1.3 terawatts (TW), an 18% increase compared with the same period last year, the state broadcaster CGTN reports. State news agency Xinhua, citing a report by the Economic Information Daily, writes that China should use renewable energy as a reliable “combat force” for ensuring a stable power supply during the summer. The country should also use coal-fired power as the “ballast” support, the state news agency adds. China Daily reports that China is expected to experience a “substantial surge” in solar installations this year, according to the China Photovoltaic Industry Association (CPIA). The CPIA’s projected capacity growth this year is being “increased from a range of 95-120GW [gigawatt] to a range of 120-140GW”, the state-run newspaper adds. The raised outlook comes after China installed 78GW in the first half of the year, pv magazine reports, reaching a total capacity of 470GW. Caixin writes that in the first half of the year, China’s solar exports exceeded “200 bn yuan ($28bn), an increase of approximately 13% compared to the same period last year”.

The New York Times writes that in reaction to recent heatwaves, China is “burning more coal” to ensure a stable power supply for air conditioning. The increase in recent weeks is a result of the “large-scale expansion” of coal mines and the construction of more coal-fired power plants nationwide over the past two years, the article says. It highlights that “the paradox of China’s energy policy is that the country also leads the world in installing renewables. It dominates most of the global supply chain for clean energy – from solar panels to battery storage to electric cars. Yet for reasons of energy security and domestic politics, it is doubling down on coal.” Separately, Reuters reports under the headline: “IEA chief says oil demand projections depend on China’s growth.” Another Reuters article reports: “Five people died and two were missing, after heavy rain burst a river bank in a village near eastern China’s Hangzhou city on Saturday, flooding houses and carrying away people and their belongings, state media reported.”

Meanwhile, Reuters quotes an EU diplomat saying: “It’s difficult to argue that countries like China, Brazil or Saudi Arabia should still be put at the same level as the least developed countries and small island developing states.” Financial media Caixin quotes the former US secretary of the treasury Henry Paulson who says that once China creates “a real carbon market, it will change the world”. Quartz says that Europe has “stockpiled” $8bn worth of Chinese solar panels as its latest “energy security tactic”.

In other news, energy website IN-EN.com reports that China Energy Outlook 2060, a report led by the state-owned China Energy Investment Group, was published last week. TIME carries an article, saying that “while China’s total emissions are massive, on a per capita basis, they rank closer to the range of Brazil and Indonesia, and around half that of the US”. Energy news outlet Bjx.com has an article which focuses on the outlook of the establishment of a “new power system” in China. Finally, Chinese outlet Jiemian writes that Chinese renewable energy companies, “including photovoltaic, wind power, and battery enterprises, are still encountering challenges in areas such as financing and trade barriers” in overseas expansion. 

Germany is not on track to meet its interim climate targets, including 80% renewables in the electricity mix by 2030, 15m electric cars, and 215 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports, citing the German Institute for Economic Research. It explains that to achieve the targets, the share of renewables must increase by 4% annually, solar must be expanded three times as fast as in the past twelve months, while onshore wind power needs to be expanded four times faster. In addition, FAZ notes that the number of electric cars must increase five times faster than in the past twelve months.

Most UK national newspapers have published editorials reacting to the political fallout from last Thursday’s byelection, particularly the call by some voices within the two leading parties to water down climate policies. The Observer says: “Reading too much into any byelection is always dangerous, and the lesson here for Labour is absolutely not to retreat on net-zero. But it is to get the economics right – which means more financial help for households replacing cars or boilers – and, crucially, the tone. Sanctimony is deadly, when people are really struggling.” An editorial in the Guardian says: “Labour’s failure to win the London seat is not the fault of Sadiq Khan, the capital’s mayor, or his ultra‑low emission zone. It was a strategic error by the Labour leadership to go into a byelection without a plan to make the switch to cleaner cars affordable for people hit by a cost of living crisis. This would be made possible by extending windfall taxes to pay for enhanced scrappage schemes, which lower the cost of replacement vehicles; investing in public transport; rolling out electric charging stations; and widening exemptions for vulnerable households.” The Financial Times urges Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak to “block out such siren voices” in his party calling to abandon net-zero policies. The FT editorial says: “Tax cuts are unaffordable, and many disaffected voters would recognise them as a bribe, pocket them, and vote elsewhere anyway. Backing away from green policies is irresponsible for the long-term future and, even if it shores up parts of the Tory base, will turn off young voters the party needs. Climate change is too important to be used as a political punchbag.” An editorial in the Independent is concerned that “the reverberations [of the Uxbridge byelections] certainly seem to be changing things for the worse so far as tackling the climate crisis is concerned”. The Daily Mirror looks at British tourists fleeing the fires in Greece and says “we [cannot] escape evidence that unless we act collectively, more of the planet will burn and lives will be lost”, adding: “As the Conservative government tears itself apart over environmental policies and the opposition hold an inquest over why they did not take Uxbridge in last week’s by-elections, now is not a moment for Labour to jettison fundamental targets.” The Times editorial today takes the line that “climate change is best addressed by a sober assessment of necessary trade-offs and using the innovative power of the market economy rather than by scaremongering”. It calls for a “carbon tax”.

Meanwhile, the climate-sceptic newspapers all adopt a predictable stance in their editorials. Today’s Daily Mail says: “The government can successfully woo voters by pushing firmly back against eco-extremism. Unpopular green schemes that will cost ordinary people a fortune should be ditched in favour of common-sense policies that make their lives easier. The unrealistic ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, which the Mail is campaigning against, must go. So must the mad rush to outlaw the installation of domestic gas boilers, given that heat pumps are exorbitantly expensive and often worse at warming homes. Labour has been captured by climate zealots, so Rishi Sunak can put clear blue water between the parties by adopting a pragmatic approach that strikes a balance between safeguarding the environment and not leaving people poorer.” An editorial in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph argues that the “anti-green revolt is the Tories’ big chance”. An editorial in the Sunday Telegraph goes a step further and calls for a “referendum on net-zero”. Today’s Sun has an editorial which states: “Rishi Sunak MUST delay the random 2030 ban on new fossil fuel cars to at least 2035, like the EU. Heat pumps could be mandatory in new homes only. The 2050 net-zero deadline must be revised, based on economic reality and not wishful thinking. Voters demand it.” [Polling consistently shows that voters do not, in fact, “demand” this.] The Sun on Sunday takes a similar line: “Labour’s obsession with green policies – it was the expansion of the hated ULEZ zone which cost them so dear in the outer-London seat – is a turn-off for much of the electorate.” [The ULEZ was introduced by the Conservative then-London Mayor Boris Johnson in 2015.] Finally, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal says the Uxbridge result shows that “parties of the left need to moderate their extreme green agendas”.

The UK’s comment pages are also full of commentators reacting to the Uxbridge byelection result. John Harris in the Guardian says: “The past 48 hours has seen a political story whose parochialist absurdity is off the scale: Conservative voices undermining the fragile cross-party consensus on reaching net-zero by 2050 and calling for many of the UK’s tilts at climate action to be either slowed or stopped. The reason? The results of three parliamentary byelections – and, in particular, the views of 13,965 Conservative voters in the outer London suburbs…the increasing awfulness of the UK’s climate politics…amid the summer’s awful heat, [means that] any solution needs action from both sides – which means that Conservatives with a conscience will have to find their voice, and fast”. The Guardian also carries a piece by author Richard Power Sayeed about “what Labour should do” to counter that “Tories and big business are in the driver’s seat on climate action”. And the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland argues: “Voters are clearly being pushed away from the Conservatives, but they need to be pulled to Labour too. Not by grandiose, impossible dreams, but by a few costed, immediately understandable pledges that illustrate how life would be better under a Labour government.” The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley says: “One moral here is that the way to sell environmentally friendly policies to voters is with carrots, not sticks. It was a blunder to fight that byelection without a plan to make the transition to cleaner vehicles affordable for voters struggling with the cost of living crisis.” On his “Climate Memo” SubStack, Joss Garman of the European Climate Foundation (which funds Carbon Brief) says bluntly: “We in the climate movement need to make sure we don’t do stupid sh*t.” He explains: “Making sure the climate solutions we’re promoting are affordable and accessible – and then persuading voters how they will work in practice to benefit them and be fairly paid for – is the entire job right now for us in the climate movement.” 

Meanwhile, in stark contrast, the right-leaning newspapers provide acres of space to their climate-sceptic commentators. Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph says: “The Tories’ only hope of winning is to put the ordinary voter ahead of net-zero dogma.” The Daily Telegraph also has David Frost saying the government should “[junk] the costly net-zero policies”, Sam Ashworth-Hayes claiming that “heat pumps are the next electoral disaster” and Ella Whelan arguing that “greenery is today’s established church”. Trevor Kavangh in the Sun says: “The lesson from Uxbridge… is that people are sick of having barmy woke policies rammed down their throats. They fume at schools secretly helping kids change gender. They hate Just Stop Oil idiots. Drivers resent being hammered by greedy councils. They rage against absurd green deadlines for net-zero. Rishi could stop these and many other woke issues at the stroke of a pen. And, dare I say it, the smack of firm government.” Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times promotes fracking as the solution (it isn’t) and the Daily Mail carries yet another article by the omnipresent Ross Clark under the headline: “Yes, climate change is real. But the prophets of doom ignore some very inconvenient truths…”.

More than 87% of planted forest area in East Asia is in China – mainly in lowland tropical and subtropical regions and the Sichuan Basin – according to new research. The authors use “extensive in situ and remote sensing data”, as well as models, to produce the “first spatial database of planted forests for East Asia”. They estimate that there is almost 950,000 square kilometres of planted forest in East Asia. “Our findings inform effective decision-making in forest conservation, management, and global restoration projects,” they add.