There is continuing media coverage of the results of the EU election. Reuters says the provisional results show centrist parties continuing to hold a majority in the European parliament but with “gains for right-wing and far-right parties sceptical of the EU’s ‘Green Deal’ package of environmental policies, and heavy losses for Green parties”. The newswire notes that “a more rightward-leaning European parliament will make it harder to pass ambitious EU climate policies”. It quotes Bas Eickhout, head of the Greens group, saying: “I don’t think that we’ll be rolling back on (climate) policies. But I do think that it will be more complicated to get new policies off the ground.” Reuters continues: “EU climate measures over the next five years will depend on the incoming European Commission, which is responsible for proposing EU laws. But the newly-elected European parliament will get a say on every new green policy.” The Guardian reports that the Greens have lost about a quarter of their seats. The paper says that the European far right has “mostly stood together in its opposition to the Green Deal” but that supporters of these parties “generally accept the science of climate change and vote based on their other policy positions”. It continues: “Analysts say far-right gains are unlikely to unravel Green Deal policies put in place over the past five years but may dampen support for bringing the continent’s policies in line with what scientists say is needed to stop the planet from heating by 1.5C (2.7F) above preindustrial levels.” The Associated Press reports that the Green group was pushed from fourth to sixth place, adding that “most of the seats won by far-right parties have come at the expense of Green parties”. It continues: “The biggest losses for the Greens and liberals came from France and Germany, traditional environmentalist strongholds.” The Washington Post says that Green parties are “facing a backlash from voters tiring of the cost of combating climate change and the political centrists in power at Europe’s core”. Nature quotes experts, who say that they don’t think the Green Deal will be abandoned. And the Daily Telegraph says that Europe has “turned its back on net-zero and embraced the right”. 

Separately, the Associated Press says that “the star on a stunning electoral night was the National Rally party of Marine Le Pen, which dominated the French polls to such an extent that [French president Emmanuel] Macron immediately dissolved the national parliament and called for new elections to start later this month”. The newswire calls Macron’s decision a “massive political risk”, noting that the National Rally party won about twice as many votes as Macron’s centrist Renew party in the EU election. Elsewhere, Politico says the “newly-buoyed right” wants to roll back a 2035 ban on the sale of combustion engine cars, which currently forms “a central pillar of the Green Deal’s plan to cut planet-warming emissions on Europe’s roadways”. BusinessGreen reports that EU carbon prices fell as a result of the election results. [Prices recovered later yesterday.] And in the Conversation, Jesús Palomar i Baget – a professor at the University of Barcelona – writes that “while support for the far right is rising among younger generations, this growing and influential trend remains, for the moment, on the edge of European politics”. He continues: “Key concerns [among young Europeans] include climate change and environmental sustainability, which drives strong support for green policies and parties promising firm action to combat global warming.”

The Liberal Democrats have become the first major UK party to release their manifesto ahead of next month’s general election, BusinessGreen reports. The party has set out “a package of policies designed to put the UK back on track to meet its climate goals”, according to the outlet. It continues: “The manifesto confirms the Lib Dems’ long-standing commitment to pull forward the UK’s net-zero emissions target by five years to 2045, bringing the whole country into line with the more ambitious decarbonisation timetable pursued in Scotland. As such, it includes a raft of policy proposals designed to accelerate decarbonisation efforts, accusing the Conservative government of having ‘failed to act with anything close to the speed or ambition’ demanded by soaring energy bills and escalating climate impacts.” The Press Association reports that the Liberal Democrats “have pledged an extra £1bn per year for nature-friendly farming schemes and to ensure future trade deals meet UK food standards as they seek to appeal to rural voters”. (See the newly-launched Carbon Brief manifesto tracker for more details and for comparison with other parties.)

Elsewhere, the Independent reports that Labour leader Keir Starmer is “facing calls to be clearer on climate change as a new poll warns half of voters are unsure of Labour’s plans”. The poll, commissioned by Greenpeace, shows that fewer than one-third of voters “believe they know what the party would do in government”, the paper says. As a result, Greenpeace has launched a campaign called “Keir be Clear”, ahead of Labour’s general election manifesto launch on Thursday, it says. Meanwhile, the Times reports from the new constituency of Waveney Valley on the Suffolk-Norfolk border, which it calls “true-blue country, where the Greens eye a shock victory”.

State news agency Xinhua reports that a new book has been published compiling Chinese president Xi Jinping’s “discourses on China’s national energy security”. The news agency adds that the book is “crucial” for China’s “development of new energy and national energy security, promoting the energy revolution, building up China’s strength in energy, and securing a safe and reliable energy supply for advancing Chinese modernisation”. Xinhua also publishes an official “interpretation” of China’s newly planned “carbon footprint management system”. The article says the new plan is “aligned” with the country’s “dual carbon” goals, serving as a “task book” and “construction blueprint” for building the system. (Read more on the “carbon footprint management system” in Carbon Brief’s 6 June Daily Briefing.)

Meanwhile, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) carries the first article of a four-part series focusing on the global “green hydrogen” industry. The outlet says that although China joined the hydrogen energy race late, it “has taken the lead on electrolyser deployment, controlling 50% of global capacity at the end of last year, according to the International Energy Agency”. Another SCMP report says that “Beijing has pledged to slash emissions from four carbon-intensive industries – steel, oil refining, ammonia and cement”, citing a guest post from Carbon Brief on how China may reach a carbon-neutral energy system by 2055.

Separately, the Guardian reports that the EU will disclose its tariff rates this week for electric vehicles imported from China. Reuters also covers the story, saying that the EU’s move is “likely to prompt stern words and possible retaliation from Beijing”. The Financial Times publishes an article quoting Richard Laub, chief executive of Belgium-based Dragon Sourcing, saying that “the big trend right now is for companies to reduce their dependence on China”. Xinhua reports that the EU should “avoid trade frictions” and “seek consensus on new-energy cooperation” with China.

In other China news, Xinhua reports that the world’s largest solar power plant, on China’s Qinghai-Xizang Plateau, has a capacity of 8,430 megawatts. Elsewhere, Chinese battery firms, such as CATL and Gotio, have refuted allegations of “forced labour” from US lawmakers, calling them “groundless” and “unfounded”, economic news outlet Caixin reports. And CNN reports that “a major heatwave is forecast to spread across large swathes of northern China this week, bringing record high temperatures to some areas”. 

“The supreme court on Monday asked the Biden administration to weigh in on big oil’s request to thwart litigation that could put them on the hook for billions of dollars,” the Guardian reports. The paper continues: “Honolulu is one of dozens of cities and states to sue oil majors for allegedly hiding the dangers of their products from the public. In October, Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that the suit can go to trial. But the defendants petitioned the US supreme court in February to review that decision, arguing the cases should be thrown out because emissions are a federal issue that cannot be tried in state courts. The high court receives thousands of petitions each year, giving each one only a small chance of being reviewed. But in recent weeks, rightwing fossil fuel allies have pushed the justices to take up oil companies’ request, publishing a slew of op-eds and social media advertisements. Some of the groups behind the pressure campaign – which experts say is unprecedented – are connected to far-right supreme court architect Leonard Leo, who co-chairs the ultraconservative legal advocacy group the Federalist Society.” According to Reuters, Honolulu filed the suit in 2020 against oil companies including Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Sunoco. The Los Angeles Times adds: “Monday’s brief order asks solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar to file a brief ‘expressing the views of the United States’ in the two pending appeals, Sunoco vs Honolulu and Shell vs Honolulu.” The Hill also covers the news. Elsewhere, the Financial Times “climate capital” newsletter continues reporting that “California will attempt to use consumer protection laws to seize some of the world’s biggest oil companies’ profits”, as part of a lawsuit that it launched against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips last September, accusing them of spreading misinformation and deceiving the public about climate change.

In other US news, the Associated Press reports that “the federal Bureau of Land Management’s preferred alternative for a proposed large-scale wind energy farm in southern Idaho would shrink its size by nearly half and move it farther from a national historic site”. The Independent reports that Donald Trump plans to hold another “desert rally”, even though 11 people fell ill due to heat exhaustion at a rally last week in Phoenix. The Guardian has published an explainer on “how Biden is conserving land and water as Trump looms”. And the Washington Post says that “another round of broiling conditions is taking shape across the West, in many of the same locations that dealt with major heat last week”. 

Australian opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has confirmed that his coalition will not set a 2030 emissions target unless it wins the next election, the Guardian reports. The paper continues: “After foreshadowing on Saturday that the Coalition could walk away from the Paris Agreement and scrap Labor’s legislated target to cut emissions by 43% by 2030, Dutton said the Coalition remained committed to net-zero by 2050, but would not reveal its interim targets in opposition.” ABC News adds that Dutton will campaign against the 43% by 2030 target, arguing it is not achievable. Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce and a former cabinet colleague Keith Pitt have called for the Coalition to abandon the Paris Agreement altogether. 

In comment,  Adam Morton, Guardian Australia climate and environment editor, writes that Dutton’s rejection of a 43% cut in emissions by 2030 will “breach the text and spirit of the landmark Paris climate agreement”. And Matt McDonald, a professor of international relations at the University of Queensland, writes in the Conversation that “Dutton’s latest salvo on Australia’s emissions suggests our climate wars are far from over”. 

Pascal Lamy and Ibrahim Mayaki – former director-general of the World Trade Organization and former prime minister of the Republic of Niger, respectively – have penned a comment piece in the Daily Telegraph. They write: “Africa has the potential to not only feed its growing population – expected to reach 2.5bn by 2050 – but also to significantly contribute to global food security.” They continue: “African agriculture also plays a crucial role in combating climate change. Improved agricultural practices could sequester up to 23% of global carbon emissions by 2050, according to the IPCC. Increasing agricultural productivity on already cultivated land is the only way to stop deforestation, which accounts for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is linked to 80% of the expansion of cultivated land.” Investment into African agriculture could also lift millions out of poverty, they add. However, they note that only 5% of official development assistance is currently directed towards African agriculture. They say that a multi-stakeholder initiative led by the Paris Peace Forum, is “proposing a new South-North consensus centred on three main principles: Every country has a stake in the agricultural development of Africa. No country should have to choose between food security and environmental protection. Each country can choose its own path to sustainable agricultural development.”

Elsewhere, an editorial in Nature climate change on CO2 removal calls the technology “an important part of climate mitigation pathways”, but warns that “planning and implementation should be carefully reviewed given the potential limitations and risks”. 

Tasneem Essop and Elizabeth Bast – the executive directors of Climate Action Network International and Oil Change International, respectively – write in a comment for Climate Home News that wealthy countries are “once again trying to shirk their [climate finance] responsibilities”. Essop and Bast note that wealthy countries have so far offered only “tiny amounts of money” for climate finance, mostly in the form of “loans, investments and guarantees – which they profit from, while climate vulnerable ‘recipient’ countries rack up debt”. Essop and Bast continue: “Wealthy countries say the private sector can cover most of the costs instead…But as a former World Bank Director has argued, this approach has consistently delivered far less money than promised and ‘has injustice and inequality built in.’” They conclude: “Making fossil fuel companies pay for their pollution through a ‘windfall’ tax on fossil fuel companies in the richest countries could raise an estimated $900bn by 2030…Cancelling illegitimate debts in the Global South can free up even more.” 

An in-depth piece by BBC News climate editor Justin Rowlatt asks “What’s the real distance between [prime minister Rishi] Sunak and [opposition Labour leader Keir] Starmer on climate?” Rowlatt writes: “It sounds like there is an ocean of difference between the two main parties. But dig down into the detail of their policies and it’s a different story. The core agenda on climate – getting the UK to net-zero emissions by 2050 – has always been very much a cross-party project.” Elsewhere, Nameerah Hameed, advocacy manager at Climate Outreach, writes in BusinessGreen that British election candidates “can succeed when they talk about how climate action can improve daily life”. Hameed outlines new research from Climate Outreach, which shows that “the UK public is fractured but not deeply polarised, with climate change emerging as an issue that offers the possibility of hope and reconnection”. Finally, climate-sceptic broadcaster Andrew Neil writes that in the Daily Mail that “on everything from net-zero to wokery and immigration, Starmer will be way out of step with his beloved EU”.

New research explores the tussle over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) between pro-environment and pro-oil development factions of US politics at overlapping federal, congress, local and Indigenous levels. The ANWR is one of the largest environmental refuges in the US and has oil reserves of 4.3-11.8m barrels, the authors note. Federal policies of Republican and Democrat administrations “align with pro-drilling and pro-environment positions, respectively”, the authors say, while “Alaskan policymakers are pro-drilling, which puts them at odds with pro-environment legislators from Democratic states”. In addition, “Indigenous peoples are on different sides as well”. The paper concludes that “the fate of the ANWR will shape what happens with protected areas in the US and with species across national boundaries”. (See Carbon Brief’s recent article on the risks of fossil-fuel drilling in the ANWR.)