Fossil-fuel prices have reached new highs amid fears that western nations may put sanctions on Russian oil and gas, the Times reports. The paper says: “Oil prices continued to rise sharply and Wall Street endured its steepest daily fall in 17 months as the reverberations of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to another turbulent day of trading. Brent crude climbed as high as $139 a barrel in early trading, its highest level in almost 14 years, after the US said it was in ‘active discussions’ with European countries about a ban on Russian oil imports.” Separately, the Times reports that gas prices have risen by 41% in 24 hours. Reuters calls the European and UK wholesale gas prices “unprecedented”. Meanwhile, BBC News says that UK petrol prices have hit 155p per litre. And US gas and oil prices have broken the 2008 record, according to the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, Guardian says that Russian deputy prime minister Alexander Novak said has threatened to close the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline, saying: “A rejection of Russian oil would lead to catastrophic consequences for the global market”.“ Novak claimed this move would push the price of oil above US$300 a barrel and that it would be “impossible to quickly find a replacement for Russian oil on the European market”. Bloomberg reports that Novak’s speech caused European gas futures to jump by one-third. The outlet adds: “Gas prices surged after climbing as much as 79% on Monday in the most volatile trading conditions markets in Europe have ever seen.” Meanwhile, the Guardian quotes an expert, who says a prolonged war could push the price of oil to $150 per barrel or more. BBC News says that “Russia has said it may close its main gas pipeline to Germany if the West goes ahead with a ban on Russian oil”. It adds: “Novak said a ‘rejection of Russian oil would lead to catastrophic consequences for the global market’, causing prices to more than double to $300 a barrel.”

Elsewhere, the Wall Street Journal carries a warning from US government officials and the chief executives of some of the world’s largest oil companies that there are no quick fixes to the high energy prices and market volatility. Similarly, Politico reports: “Executives at some of the world’s biggest oil and gas producers said on Monday they are ramping up their crude production as US gasoline prices surge to $4 a gallon…but the companies warned not to expect new supplies overnight.” Meanwhile, the Financial Times says: “Oil industry chiefs have called on Wall Street to stop holding back investment in new crude supply”. And Bloomberg reports that “Shell Plc is limiting sales of heating oil to some wholesalers in Germany”. Meanwhile, the Times warns that “the worst may yet be to come” for oil and gas prices. The piece goes on to discuss Russia’s importance in global oil and gas markets. And the Financial Times has a “Big Read” entitled: “Will the Ukraine war derail the green energy transition?” And, separately, the newspaper warns of “stagflation”.

Elsewhere, the Guardian reports that rising fertiliser prices – linked to higher gas prices – are putting pressure on British farmers. The Financial Times adds that rising costs are “severely hurting sectors from steel and aluminium to fertilisers and transport” for European industry. And the Daily Telegraph discusses other materials that are trading at high prices, including nickel and aluminium.

Key US lawmakers have outlined bipartisan legislation to ban imports of Russian oil into the US, Bloomberg reports. The House of Representatives could vote on the proposal as soon as Wednesday, the paper says. The New York Times notes that the legislation would ban Russian energy imports in the US and suspend normal trade relations with Russia and Belarus. And the Hill adds that it would also “give President Biden authority to boost tariffs and impose other trade barriers for goods from Russia and Belarus, require the White House to advocate for Russia’s removal from the World Trade Organization and oppose Belarus joining the organisation”. Separately, the New York Times says: “Environmentalists say now is the time to choke off Russia’s oil and gas profits.” The Hill reports that while the US “could survive” cutting off Russian oil and gas imports, it would “almost certainly strike a massive financial toll”. It continues: “Political support for banning Russian energy imports is growing in both parties, and the White House said the topic is under discussion — though it said President Biden had not made a decision.” Meanwhile, Politico calls the White House’s position “an about-face for an administration that just days ago feared an import ban would send gas prices skyrocketing”. It adds that the US had hoped to enact the ban together with European allies, but they are now “adjusting to what has become an overwhelming bipartisan interest…in ridding American markets of Russian oil”. According to the outlet, the administration wants to “avoid a protracted debate over bipartisan oil-ban legislation that could include even more unwelcome provisions further tying the administration’s hands diplomatically”. And Reuters says that, according to people “familiar with the matter”, the US is “willing to move ahead with a ban on Russian oil imports without the participation of allies in Europe”.

Elsewhere, the Guardian says that Biden is facing criticism for his plan to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss global oil supplies. And the Financial Times reports that Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro held talks held with US government delegates “as Washington explores a rapprochement with Caracas to secure alternative oil supplies to Russia”. Reuters says that US climate czar John Kerry called the Ukraine crisis a “defining moment” for this century, adding that “the stakes could not be higher, even if the world has to live with higher energy costs for a time”. Meanwhile, Axios reports that “former vice president Mike Pence’s advocacy group plans to spend $10m on TV ads targeting vulnerable House Democrats on energy policy and Ukraine”. The ads began airing on Monday, according to the outlet.

The European Commission will seek to adopt a new energy strategy on Tuesday, which will aim to cut imports of Russian gas by two-thirds within a year, the Financial Times reports. The paper says that European Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans “conceded that countries may have to burn coal for longer to avoid switching to gas”. Timmermans maintained that the EU could still meet its aims to limit global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, and a goal of net-zero by 2050, as long as renewable energy also increased rapidly.“ The paper adds that Russia currently supplies 40% of the EU’s gas, and 25% of its crude oil. Politico says that, according to Timmermans, the package will propose accelerating the rollout of renewable energy, biofuels and hydrogen. Bloomberg notes that the strategy “aims to deliver independence from the region’s biggest supplier of the fossil fuel well before 2030 – sooner than previous projections”. Elsewhere, Bloomberg says the EU “may authorise the deepest ever overhaul of the continent’s energy security strategy by pledging to phase out the bloc’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels”. But, in a separate piece, the outlet says that the EU are “divided over whether to join the US in potentially banning Russian oil imports”. It continues: “EU ministers are discussing broadening sanctions to include restrictions on oil and petroleum product imports. But divisions have been laid bare with several nations, including Germany, opposing such an abrupt move, while member states including Poland push the 27-member bloc to target fossil fuels.” Meanwhile, the Financial Times says: “The US has been saying it is in talks with European allies about barring Russian oil imports, but the EU is not ready to play ball.” It cites rising oil prices as the main deterrent.

Meanwhile, Politico says that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz “pushed back hard against calls from the US and Ukraine for a ban on imports of Russian gas and oil as part of international sanctions on Moscow”. And Bulgaria “will likely seek an exception on banning Russian natural gas and oil imports if such a proposal is put forward”, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, EnergyMonitor notes that the new strategy was originally intended to cushion the blow of rising energy prices, but was delayed a week to shift its focus to reducing reliance on Russian energy. “Decreasing fossil fuel use overall, not originally part of the draft strategy, will now be a major focus, according to EU sources,” it says. In other European news, Reuters says that Belgium’s Green energy minister wants the country to consider extending the lift span of its remaining nuclear plants due to the Ukraine crisis. And the newswire says Danish energy firm Orsted is preparing for potential disruptions to its gas supplies from Russia’s Gazprom.

And Reuters says that “EU leaders will meet in Versailles on Thursday and Friday to discuss boosting their joint defence capability and Ukraine’s bid to become a member of the 27-nation bloc.”

Boris Johnson is preparing a new UK “energy supply strategy” to reduce reliance on Russian energy, which will include more domestic oil and gas production, the Financial Times reports. According to the newspaper, Johnson held a joint press conference with Canadian and Dutch prime ministers Justin Trudeau and Mark Rutte, where he told journalists “it is completely the right thing to do to move away from dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, but we have to do it step by step”. The paper adds the more nuclear power and renewable energy are also expected in the UK energy strategy. The Guardian reports that Johnson “insisted the increased focus on North Sea production would not undermine the UK’s push for net-zero, but claimed it was a necessary move to ease the transition to renewables and nuclear”. However, it says there is scepticism among Johnson’s cabinet and that according to critics, “it would take two decades to ramp up significantly and would have little immediate effect on the impending rise in domestic energy bills.” Meanwhile, the Guardian carries warnings from experts that “ramping up production from the UK’s oil and gas fields in the North Sea could help ease the pain of high fuel prices in the short term, but should not be seen as a long-term solution to Britain’s energy woes”. The Daily Telegraph adds that “new [North Sea] exploration licences would not make a difference to oil and gas production for years, but would signal the government’s support for the domestic industry.” The new energy strategy is expected “in the coming days”, BBC News says.

Meanwhile, Politico reports that at the press conference, Johnson “talked up the prospect of Russian oil sanctions Monday even as his German and Dutch counterparts signalled their discomfort with the idea”. The paper carries a warning from Rutte, who stressed the “painful reality that we are still very much dependent on Russian gas” and said that “if we now would force European companies to quit doing business with Russia, that would have enormous ramifications around Europe and the UK, but also around the world”.

In other UK news, BBC News continues reporting from the weekend that nearly 40 MPs have called for an end to a UK ban on fracking, but says “government sources told the BBC there were no plans to resume fracking”. Meanwhile, the Sun says that Rishi Sunak “must cut fuel duty to soften pump prices rocketing due to sanctions”.

Chinese state planning officials have said that the Chinese government is capable of providing sufficient energy despite “geopolitical conflicts and the changes of global energy supply and demand”, Reuters reports. The newswire cites Lian Weiliang, a “vice head of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)” who met the press at a briefing on the sidelines of the country’s annual political meetings, known as “two sessions”. Lian is quoted saying: “Despite the increasingly severe challenges we face, China has the conditions, ability, confidence and means to ensure a safe and reliable supply of energy.” Yicai Global – a Shanghai-based financial outlet – reports that China “will take further steps to ensure stable energy supplies” in response to “rising international commodity prices”. Also citing Lian, Yicai says that China will accelerate the stockpiling of more than 200m tonnes of government-deployable coal reserves.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that “anyone hoping the world’s biggest carbon emitter would use its annual parliamentary session to speed up action on climate change was left sorely disappointed this weekend”. The outlet analyses how “China’s work reports fell short on climate policies”, plus “one reason for hope”.

Elsewhere, CGTN – the English arm of China’s state broadcaster – reports that, according to a Chinese government work report, the country “would shift from controlling energy consumption to controlling carbon emissions with overall quantity and intensity as key targets”. Professor Lin Boqiang – dean of the China Institute for Studies in Energy Policy at Xiamen University in China – told the channel: “By shifting from the current target to the carbon emission target, we can actually encourage renewable development and the limit is really put to fossil fuel.”

More than three-quarters of the Amazon rainforest lost “resilience” – its ability to recover from events such as fires and droughts – over the past two decades, the Independent reports. This is according to a new Nature Climate Change study, which has received widespread media coverage. The Independent continues: “This deterioration means that the Amazon may soon reach a tipping point, triggering mass dieback of trees and flipping the forest to a savanna, scientists say.” New Scientist says that, according to the study, areas that received less rainfall or were closer to human activities – such as farms and roads – lost resilience faster. Crossing an Amazon tipping point would “imperil biodiversity, shift regional weather patterns and dramatically accelerate climate change”, the Washington Post warns in its coverage of the study. “Any transformation of the Amazon into a hotter, drier grassland would bring major consequences for global climate change because of the disappearance of carbon-storing trees and potential increases in fires. Droughts would probably become even more frequent and severe across South America,” the Financial Times adds. However, the New York Times notes that the scientists cannot pinpoint when a tipping point might be reached from this study. The Guardian adds: “Computer models have previously indicated a mass dieback of the Amazon is possible but the new analysis is based on real-world satellite observations over the past three decades.” The study was also covered in outlets including BBC News, Bloomberg, MailOnline, InsideClimateNews, Phys.org and the Conversation. See Carbon Brief‘s coverage of the study here.

In other new research, MailOnline reports that “deaths linked to extreme temperatures will increase by 42% in England and Wales if temperatures rise by just 2C”. And Yale Environment 360 reports that spring is starting earlier in the US.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new limits on pollution from buses, delivery vans, tractor-trailers and other heavy trucks, the New York Times reports. The paper adds that the rule would require heavy-duty trucks to cut their nitrogen dioxide emissions by 90% by 2031. It says: “The EPA also announced plans to slightly tighten truck emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is driving climate change. The new rules for nitrogen oxide pollution would apply to trucks beginning with the model year 2027, while the carbon dioxide rules would apply to trucks starting with the model year 2024.” This move “marks the first potential update to those heavy-duty tailpipe standards in two decades”, according to the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal quotes EPA administrator Michael Regan: “These new standards will drastically cut dangerous pollution by harnessing recent advancements in vehicle technologies from across the trucking industry as it advances toward a zero-emissions transportation future”. The rules will apply to nearly 27m heavy trucks and buses nationwide, Associated Press says. “According to a White House fact sheet, the rule would prevent about 2,000 premature deaths as well as 6,700 hospital and emergency room visits. It would also result in 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma” the Hill says. And the Independent adds that the White House is also “rolling out investment for more clean and climate-friendly fleets of public and school buses”.

In other US news, the Guardian reports that “the US beef industry has escaped ‘relatively unscathed’ from Joe Biden’s attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to leaders at the industry’s recent CattleCon convention”. Similarly, Unearthed reports that beef lobbyists are celebrating a “methane ‘win’”.

An editorial in the Times argues in favour of oil but not gas sanctions, writing: “This is both politically easier to deliver and economically more effective than trying to ban imports of Russian gas.“ It continues: “While many European countries are reliant on Russian gas for most if not all of their supplies, Russian oil accounts for about 5% of global supply and is therefore easier to replace”.. Meanwhile, an editorial in the Daily Telegraph entitled “Can the West afford an energy embargo?” argues that America is less exposed than Europe. The Guardian warns in an editorial that: “Russia’s invasion could disrupt energy markets on a scale not seen since the 1970s”.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard concurs that, “oil matters more than gas: it makes up 40% of Russia’s state budget. It is what holds the patronage machine together.” He continues: “A crude blockade will make it impossible for the Kremlin to continue waging serious offensive war in Ukraine beyond a few weeks”. Jamie Henn, founder of Fossil Free Media, a nonprofit that advocates against fossil fuels, writes in the Independent: “There’s a clear way out that would help consumers, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, benefit our climate, and hold oil corporations accountable for their past collaboration with Putin: a Big Oil windfall profits tax.” Meanwhile, the Lex column from the FT notes the toll oil prices, and the need to fly longer routes to avoid Russian and Ukrainian airspace could have on the economy, writing: “Household budgets will be stretched and business profits will be squeezed. If the oil price rise is sustained, the pain will be widely shared.”

Nils Pratley, the Guardian‘s financial editor, argues in favour of North Sea oil and gas development, writing that while the UK’s “broad energy direction has been set towards nuclear and renewables…there’s no getting away from the fact that gas will be in the mix for a long time yet”. A Daily Mail editorial calls for the expansion of North Sea exploration and fracking: “With neither wind nor solar power reliable enough, the solution – combined with boosting nuclear power – lies under our feet and off our shores…The alternative is importing dirtier fuels from despots such as Putin, which means funding his war machine.” An editorial in the Sun appeals to Rishi Sunak to “cut exorbitant fuel duty as prices surge”. While David Frost, a former Brexit secretary, demands the UK “get cracking on fracking”, in a comment, also in the Sun.

For the Washington Post, David Beasley, executive director of the UN World Food Programme and 2020 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, comments on how the war in Ukraine will affect world hunger. “Russia and Ukraine together export about 30% of the world’s wheat. Indeed, Ukraine’s entry as a major player in the global food supply in the past decade was a part of its emerging success as a stabilising and prosperous country. As the war heats up, dozens of distant countries are set to feel the burn”, he writes. A climate-sceptic Daily Telegraph columnist and “farmer”, Jamie Blacklett, warns against the UK’s own precarious food supply chain, writing: “Our ability to produce food, and thus keep prices down, has been hampered by government policy that could not be more helpful to Putin if he had written it himself. We are only around 55% self-sufficient in food, and that number is falling. This means that – unlike France or the US – we are at the mercy of world markets.”

The Los Angeles Times has published an editorial praising the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate report for calling out “the role of misinformation in obstructing climate action”. The latest report is the first to highlight “the ways in which fossil fuel companies, climate deniers and conspiracy theorists have sown doubt and confusion about climate change and made it harder for policymakers to act”, the piece adds. It continues: “While the section on misinformation covers only a few of the more than 3,600 pages in the report approved by 195 countries, it’s notable that it’s in a chapter about North America and calls out the US as a hotbed for conspiracy theories, partisanship and polarisation…The IPCC’s language is measured but leaves no doubt that the fossil fuel industry and politicians who advance its agenda are responsible.”

Similarly, climate journalist Amy Westervelt has published a piece in the Guardian under the subheading: “For the first time, a IPCC report has acknowledged the role of misinformation. But it still doesn’t name the culprits.” Westervelt notes that oil companies have been involved in climate change since the 1980s. She continues: “The [IPCC] report’s authors did not draw a connection between misinformation and maladaptation, opting instead to assert that maladaptation is often unintended. Yet an increasing number of peer-reviewed studies point to the fossil-fuel industry’s fingerprints on that particular problem as well”. She adds that the latest IPCC report has mentioned misinformation because “the panel has finally included social scientists.”

Elsewhere, Times columnist Hugo Rifkind has published a comment piece arguing that Nigel Farage’s call for a “referendum” on net-zero “isn’t really about keeping bills down, but is just a cynical ruse to exploit our divisions”. He says that Farage’s argument is based on the idea that “rocketing bills are all their fault, because they’ve made us green” – which he says is “rubbish”.

“Perceived fairness and effectiveness” are the two most important factors in public acceptance of climate change policies, a new study suggests. The researchers examine the role of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws by analysing “89 datasets from 51 articles across 33 countries, with a total sample of 119,465 participants”. The findings also show that “self-enhancement values and knowledge about climate change showed weak relationships and demographic variables showed only weak or close to zero effects”.

Using new wheat varieties that can be sown deeper in the ground and earlier in the year could help maintain crop yields despite global warming, a new study says. Sowing earlier and deeper – to take advantage of stored soil water – is a potential climate change adaptation strategy, the researchers say. However, “modern semi-dwarf wheat varieties reduce emergence when sown deep”. Testing new crop varieties on Australian wheat production, the study finds that “these genotypes, coupled with deep sowing, can increase national wheat yields by 18–20% under historical climate (1901–2020), without increased yield variability, with benefits also projected under future warming”.

New research suggests it is possible to predict an Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) event one calendar year in advance. The researchers develop a “network-based predictor” based on an “enhanced seesaw tendency in sea surface temperature (SST)” in the northern-hemisphere winter and the “December equatorial zonal wind” in the tropical Indian Ocean. Of the 15 IOD events over 1984-2020, the new approach correctly predicted 11 events from December of the previous year – “a hit rate of higher than 70%”. (For more on the IOD, see Carbon Brief’s guest post from 2020.)