Reuters reports that the European Union has reached a deal over its carbon border adjustment mechanism “after all-night negotiations”. The measure will “impose a carbon dioxide [CO2] emissions tariff on imports of polluting goods such as steel and cement, a world-first scheme aiming to support European industries as they decarbonise”. It continues: “Companies importing those goods into the EU will be required to buy certificates to cover their embedded CO2 emissions. The scheme is designed to apply the same CO2 cost to overseas firms and domestic EU industries – the latter of which are already required to buy permits from the EU carbon market when they pollute.” The Wall Street Journal says that the “move will likely unsettle manufacturers in the US who are concerned it will create a new web of red tape to export to Europe”. The newspaper adds: “The agreement on Tuesday morning between European national governments and the European Parliament ends more than a year of negotiations on the details of the plan. It is expected to be adopted formally by the EU in the coming weeks as part of a sweeping package of legislation that would step up the bloc’s efforts to limit global warming.”

Meanwhile, another Reuters article reports: “Some European Union countries are trying to weaken the bloc’s planned law to cut methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, documents show, weeks after the EU pledged at the COP27 climate conference to do more to tackle the potent greenhouse gas.” It explains: “The European Commission last year proposed legislation to require oil and gas companies in Europe find and fix leaky infrastructure allowing methane to escape. Checks would be required every three months, starting six months after the regulation takes effect. But EU countries, who are negotiating the law, want to delay the first survey to 12 months, and then set different timelines – in some cases less frequent – for checking different types of infrastructure, according to their latest draft compromise, seen by Reuters.”

The EU has enough gas for this winter, but could face shortages next year if Russia cuts supplies further, Reuters reports, citing a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) that sets out ways to plug the gap with faster action on energy efficiency, renewables and other measures. The newswire says: “The shortage could be averted by expanding subsidies and policies to renovate gas-guzzling buildings, replace fossil fuel-based heating with heat pumps and massively expand renewable energy, the IEA said. The €100bn ($106bn) investment this requires would be paid back within two years through lower gas bills, [IEA executive director Fatih] Birol said.” The Times also has the story, reporting: “Gas demand must be reduced by improving energy efficiency and by installing more renewable power generation and electric heat pumps, [the IEA and the European Commission] said, while gas supplies must be bolstered by jointly procuring more gas from elsewhere.” The Daily Telegraph reports: “The EU has already set out a number of proposals to help improve energy security and reduce reliance on Russian fossil fuels amid what it describes as ‘blackmail’ by President Vladimir Putin.” It continues: “Birol said that without measures already taken, the EU would be facing a shortfall of 60bcm [billion cubic metres] in 2023. However, he said the predicted 30bcm shortfall was still a ‘big number’.” BusinessGreen and the Hill also have the story.

Politico focuses on the comments of commission president Ursula von der Leyen and adds that EU countries “are deeply divided over a gas price cap aimed at reining in soaring gas import prices”, which it says will be discussed again at today’s EU Energy Council. Bloomberg says of the gas price cap talks: “Countries led by Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark are calling for a cautious approach, while a group including Belgium, Italy, Greece and Poland is pushing for a more aggressive tool to contain gas prices. Energy ministers will try to bridge the differences at an emergency meeting Tuesday in Brussels.” Separately, the Guardian reports: “Germany at risk of gas shortages as consumption cutting target missed.” The Financial Times reports: “Energy crisis threatens reversal of French market reforms.” Reuters says: “France on Monday avoided a strain on its power grids in the face of rising demand as Paris recorded sub-zero temperature, thanks to a ramp-up in supply in nuclear as well as hydro power and strong imports from neighbouring countries.” Another Financial Times article says Europe “must boost grid to cope with renewable power surge, warns Eon chief”.

The South China Morning Post cites analysts who argue that the “imposition of climate-based tariffs” on Chinese steel and aluminium – which is “reportedly being considered” by the US and EU – would set a “concerning precedent” for China, but “the overall impact on those sectors should be limited”. The analysts add that such a “concerted” effort by the US and EU also serves as a “warning” to the world’s second-largest economy, as it reflects “how climate change could become another battleground between China and the west”, the article notes. Lu Xiang, a US-China relations expert with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, is quoted saying: “The US has no sincerity in cooperating with China on climate change.” He adds that “products related to climate change, such as solar panels and lithium batteries, could be hit by such punitive measures that are commonly imposed in trade disputes”.

Meanwhile, S&P Global Commodity Insights reports that China’s president Xi Jinping mentioned on his trip to Riyadh last week that the Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas Exchange would be “fully utilised in [Chinese currency] RMB settlement in oil and gas trade”. Xi said that “China will continue to import large quantities of crude oil on a long-term basis from GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries and purchase more LNG”, the outlet adds, according to a transcript of his remarks published in China Daily. Forbes also has an article focusing on Xi’s visit to Saudi Arabia: “China’s hope: if the industry cannot be made more efficient, consumer spending encouraged, or currency made fully convertible internationally, then cheap energy and lower input prices can help prop up the Chinese economy.”

Finally, the state-run newspaper Global Times carries an editorial, which says: “Recently, China and the US held dialogues at different levels in the fields of the economy and trade, climate and military affairs. The interaction between the two sides based on the consensus of the heads of state is increasing. For the already freezing bilateral relations, this does convey some warm signals.”

Solar power installations in the US are on track to fall by 23% this year due to a ban on imports from China’s Xinjiang region, Reuters reports, citing a forecast from the Solar Energy Industries Association. It says supply constraints “are expected to last until the second half of next year and delay the effects of the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act], the report said…[It] expects the market to return to growth next year, with annual increases of 21%, on average, between 2023 and 2027.” Bloomberg also has the story. In other US news, the Hill reports: “Biden announces $2.5bn loan for electric vehicle battery hubs in three states.”

A target to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030 “is dominating at the [COP15] biodiversity summit, but the problem of finding a balance between Indigenous peoples’ rights and conservation remains unsolved”, the Guardian reports. It continues: “Everyone at the summit has an opinion about the most high-profile target and what it should mean: for some it is not ambitious enough, for others it is impossible to enforce, but the main criticism is that area-based conservation violates human rights.” Climate Home News reports: “With one week left to strike a ‘once-in-a-generation’ deal to protect nature in Montreal, Canada, governments are split over how to stop subsidising harmful activities like unsustainable fisheries and agriculture.”

In a comment for the Times, former Conservative leader William Hague writes under the headline: “Mass extinction must not be our great legacy.” He says: “A good outcome would include a credible commitment to protect 30% of the Earth’s surface for nature by 2030 with regular reviews. Multilateral negotiations should also seek to add wildlife trafficking to the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, agree a new High Seas Treaty to stop destruction of the seabeds, and reform of world trade rules to support and protect nature.” Hague adds: “British ministers are pressing for ambitious agreements. But our country is also an example of the global problem – binding targets required under the recent Environment Act are being published late and watered down, our commitment to increase the abundance of wildlife by 10% by 2042 is modest and our actual record in Britain is catastrophic.” In the Guardian, author Guy Standing writes: “Another United Nations circus is taking place Montreal this week, known as COP15, which seeks to protect biodiversity. The danger is that ministers and diplomats will again be diverted from the economic causes of the crisis and let capital and finance continue to plunder nature.”

Two coal-fired power stations put on standby yesterday in case of electricity supply shortages were later stood down, the Guardian reports. It continues: “National Grid ESO [Electricity System Operator] sought to emphasise that asking the coal-fired power stations to heat up did not mean it had any concern over blackouts on Monday.” The Press Association also reports the news, adding: “The UK faces its biggest energy test yet with the current cold snap – which has seen the country suffer freezing temperatures and snow in many areas – ramping up demand for power at a time when supplies are tight.” The Times reports: “National Grid, the company responsible for keeping the lights on in Britain, has two emergency schemes that it can draw on to avert blackouts this winter: firing up old coal plants, and paying households to cut their usage. Yesterday was the first time it has come close to using the coal plants.” Bloomberg says British households buying their electricity from energy firm Octopus have earned more than £1m to cut their consumption during recent periods of peak demand. It adds: “The UK’s National Grid is enabling programs like the Octopus one to help the country manage a winter that may be the most expensive in history for energy bills.” The Guardian has an explainer on why the UK is so cold right now. One question asks: “Does the cold weather suggest global heating may not be as serious as thought?” It answers: “Of course not. It is just winter. The evidence that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are resulting in a dangerous heating of the atmosphere is unequivocal.”

Three campaign groups have written “letters before action” to the UK government, setting out why they believe the recent round of new oil and gas licenses to ben unlawful, the Guardian reports, marking what it calls “the latest attempt to stop ministers’ proposed expansion of the country’s fossil fuel production”. It continues: “The three letters before action, seen by the Guardian, were sent separately by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Uplift, a campaign against North Sea oil and gas, on Monday. Greenpeace is also seeking a judicial review of the government’s licensing round.” It adds: “The letters, the first step to a legal challenge, are separate to challenges already under way against the Horse Hill oil project in Surrey, the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea, and the government’s promise of $1bn (£820m) in finance for a gas megaproject in Mozambique.” BusinessGreen also has the story.

The UK’s renewable energy energy industry is creating jobs four times faster than the national employment market overall, the Guardian reports, citing data from consultancy PwC. It adds that 2.2% of all new UK jobs are classified as ‘green’, according to the report. The total number of green jobs in the UK has almost trebled in the last year, says BusinessGreen, citing the same report.

Demand for electric cars “is falling for the first time since the pandemic as soaring electricity costs make the vehicles increasingly costly to run”, claims the Daily Telegraph, citing “data from AutoTrader” on “consumer appetite for electric vehicles”. It reports: “Fewer than one in five car buyers were hunting for an electric vehicle in November, according to data from AutoTrader, down from 27% in June.” [Sales of electric vehicles grew 35% year-on-year in November and are up 38% in 2022 to date, according to the latest figures from industry body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, while sales overall have fallen by more than 3%.] The Financial Times reported over the weekend: “Rising fuel prices this year mean that the cost of owning and running an electric car is now lower than petrol or diesel in almost every country in Europe, according to data from automotive lease provider LeasePlan.” It continues: “LeasePlan, which has 1.9mn vehicles used by corporate fleets, collated running costs and lease prices for its vehicles, comparing them by segment and across 22 countries. ‘EVs in nearly every segment and European country are now the same price or cheaper on a TCO [total cost of ownership] basis than petrol or diesel cars,’ said the report.”

There is widespread continuing coverage of the “breakthrough” in nuclear fusion, which, reports the Daily Telegraph’s science editor Sarah Knapton, “could bring limitless clean energy and help the fight against climate change, experts have predicted”. The paper says scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California are “expected to announce” today that they have got “more energy out of a fusion reaction than it took to trigger it”. It adds: “However, scientists warned that it would still take several years or decades before the breakthrough could be scaled up to provide a useful power source.” Reuters reports the story and notes: “If fusion is commercialised, which backers say could happen in a decade or more, it would have additional benefits including the generation of virtually carbon-free electricity which could help in the fight against climate change without the amounts of radioactive nuclear waste produced by today’s fission reactors.” It adds: “[US] energy secretary Jennifer Granholm is slated to hold a media briefing on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. EST (1500 GMT) on a ‘major scientific breakthrough’.” Politico says of today’s news: “Turning that discovery into a source of power for everyday life would probably take decades and cost several hundred billion dollars, said Dale Meade, a retired fusion expert who worked at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey, one of the Energy Department’s national labs. But such a massive effort would be worthwhile, he said.” The Guardian, MailOnline, the Times, the Hill, New Scientist and Axios all have the story.

The Independent asks what the “breakthrough” means for climate change, with environment correspondent Harry Cockburn writing: “It might sound sexy, but it’s coming too late to solve our current set of crises.” Bloomberg columnist David Fickling writes under the headline: “Don’t wait up for nuclear fusion.” He adds: “Scientists have achieved a net energy gain in a fusion reaction for the first time, but are still a long way off from creating a commercial technology.” An editorial in the Times says: “A nuclear fusion breakthrough raises hopes for future energy security.” It continues: “Of course, fusion won’t solve Britain’s energy security challenges or clean energy ambitions for decades. The prospect of generating commercial electricity from fusion is still far off…At the same time, the fusion breakthrough is a reminder that in the medium and long term, technology will provide the answer to Britain’s energy security challenges.”

The UK is “facing the dreaded ‘Cold Dunkelflaute’”, writes Lex writer Camilla Palladino in the Financial Times, referring to the “cold snaps that are both dark and windless put[ting] strain on the UK’s increasingly wind-reliant power system”. She says this is “prompting inevitable angst about what the energy transition and the stampede towards renewable power means for future winters”, adding: “If anything, it just highlights the need to press ahead with overhauling the energy system more quickly.” Palladino continues: “Concern is justified. But the answer is not to slow wind power down. It is to speed everything else up.” She points to the need for nuclear, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and demand response. She concludes: “If the Dunkelflaute serves to highlight the market opportunity for clean, flexible technologies, and spurs the government to turn its attention to them, it will deliver much more value than it has cost.”

In the Daily Telegraph, Conservative MP John Redwood writes under the headline: “When we need it, renewable energy is nowhere to be found.” He says: “In due course we may find that investment in battery storage on a huge scale allows us to keep electricity from windy days to manage windless ones. We may find there is a commercial roll out for the widespread use of green hydrogen , generating more lasting power from wind electricity. Until that happens we need to rely on power stations that do work when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.” Also in the Daily Telegraph, chief city commentator Ben Marlow writes: “Critics of green energy have wasted little time in pointing the finger at wind power. The still ‘Dunkelflaute’ weather conditions of the weekend have left Britain’s wind farms virtually motionless. Solar and wind has slumped to just 4% of our electricity with gas, coal and wood producing nearly three quarters. Yet, it’s not wind energy that’s the problem – that’s a giant red herring. What opponents of renewables neglect to mention is that wind has provided 28.5% of our total [electricity] output over the past year. Yes, it is an unreliable energy but the answer isn’t coal. The grid needs to adapt to a modern digital economy, in which the world is rapidly electrifying…We need massive investment in energy infrastructure to ensure it is fit for purpose.”

Siberian forests had a close-to-neutral above-ground carbon balance over 2010-19, according to new research. The authors analyse annual changes in Siberian forests’ above-ground carbon balance over 2010-19 using “low-frequency passive microwave observations”. They find that Siberian forests acted as a small carbon sink during the study period, taking in 0.02bn tonnes of carbon each year. Carbon storage in dead wood increased over this time, but was largely offset by a decrease in live biomass, the paper finds. The authors add that fire and drought caused “substantial losses of live above-ground carbon”.