The Times reports that “11 people and more than 250,000 livestock have died in extreme heat in South Korea as record temperatures continue across Asia”. It adds: “Soaring temperatures in July followed the hottest June on record in South Korea, with four times the number of heatwave days than average. China and Japan have both logged record average highs for July. Temperatures in Japan were 2.16C higher than average, the hottest since records began in 1898. More than 36,000 people in the country were taken to hospital with heatstroke and at least 123 people died from the heat in Tokyo alone.” The Korea Times says: “An intense heatwave has been gripping the nation since late last month following the end of the rainy monsoon season, and the current heat wave is forecast to continue for at least another 10 days, the [national] weather agency said.” Singapore’s Straits Times reports: “To prevent more heat-related illnesses and deaths, South Korean prime minister Han Duck-soo has directed the interior ministry to take charge of inter-ministry heatwave efforts [announcing] a 15bn won ($11m) budget for heatwave countermeasures, such as the distribution of umbrellas, electric fans and salt supplements.” The newspaper adds: “Large numbers of pigs, which are vulnerable to heat, have [died]. In Jeju, where more than 800 pigs have died in the past month, livestock authorities in charge of the prized black pig species native to Jeju have been checking the animals’ temperature twice daily and cooling them down with fans and air-conditioners.”

Meanwhile, cities in eastern China are experiencing “unseasonably high temperatures” which are likely to “linger” for “up to 10 more days”, Reuters reports. Bloomberg says Shanghai and its neighbouring cities are “closely tracking the heat to ensure power supplies” this summer, while authorities have “warned rice farmers in Jiangxi and tropical fruit growers in Fujian to protect crops from the blistering conditions”. The outlet adds that extreme weather events are “more frequent and intense” now in China due to climate change. On Sunday, China’s Ministry of Emergency Management (MEM) “called authorities to stay on guard against floods as significant rainfall is forecast to continue in certain areas in the coming days”, state news agency Xinhua reports. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reports that China is now “being put to a new test by more sudden and violent episodes of extreme weather” that are intensified by climate change.

There is continuing widespread media coverage in the US of Tropical Storm Debby as it made landfall on the Big Bend coast of Florida yesterday. The Associated Press says it was quickly downgraded from a Category 1 hurricane, but the “storm still poses serious threats as it slogs on toward Georgia and South Carolina”. The newswire adds: “Winds won’t be the biggest danger, making the storm’s category far less important than the potential for catastrophic flooding.” A separate AP article quotes Charleston county interim emergency director Ben Webster who described Debby as a “historic and potentially unprecedented event” three times, with the fear that the storm could “stall” and dump huge amounts of rain. The AP article continues: “Few places in South Carolina are as susceptible to flooding as Charleston. Much of the city and surrounding areas founded in 1670 were built on land created by using fill dirt and other debris. Rising sea levels cause a number of minor flooding events even without a storm and like many coastal cities, Charleston can’t drain well. The city doesn’t expect a massive amount of flooding from the ocean, but the storm is still dangerous. Heavy rain can back up into the city, also causing flooding.” The Times says “at least four people have died after Hurricane Debby brought storm surges and severe flooding to the southeast of the US” and it was “forecast to unleash ‘potentially historic’ rainfall of up to 30 inches (76cm) in parts of northeastern Florida, southern Georgia and coastal South Carolina over the next few days”.

Meanwhile, on the US west coast, the Los Angeles Times reports that “several more days of dangerous heat are forecast across much of California, continuing to spur wildfire concerns”. The newspaper says several local temperature records have been broken, adding: “Las Vegas shot up to 112F (44.4C) Sunday – its 31st day over 110F (43.3C), the most days in any year on record.” CBS News says “city officials in Los Angeles [have been] offering dedicated cooling centres for three days beginning Sunday”. 

The Guardian covers the findings of new analysis by the Center for American Progress which shows that “US politics is an outlier bastion of climate denial with nearly one in four members of Congress dismissing the reality of climate change, even as alarm has grown among the American public over dangerous global heating”. The newspaper continues: “A total of 123 elected federal representatives – 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US senators – deny the existence of human-caused climate change, all of them Republicans, according to a recent study of statements made by current members…The report defined climate deniers as those who say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial…The research shows that the American public, perhaps uniquely among people in developed countries, is represented disproportionately by climate deniers. Although 23% of the entire US Congress is composed of those who dismiss the climate crisis, polls show the proportion of Americans who share this view is significantly smaller, by as much as half.”

A new study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences “indicates that deforestation alone accounts for only a fraction of climate damage involving the Amazon”, reports Reuters. The newswire adds: “Logging, forest burning and other forms of human-caused degradation, along with natural disturbances to the Amazon ecosystem, are releasing more climate-warming carbon dioxide than clear-cut deforestation…The study, which used data obtained from airborne laser scanning of the Amazon region for a more precise accounting of the changes in the rainforest than satellite imagery provides, found that human-caused degradation and natural disturbances accounted for 83% of the carbon emissions, with 17% loss from deforestation. Forests have a natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide, but some atmospheric measurements in recent years indicate that the Amazon has been releasing more carbon than it has been absorbing because of deforestation and degradation, the researchers said…The research underscores the damage being done to the forest by fires after a drought that has made the region a tinderbox.”

The UK car industry has “downgraded its forecast for electric vehicle sales this year in the latest sign of pessimism in the industry over its ability to meet government targets for shifting away from fossil fuels”, reports the Guardian. It adds: “The number of battery EVs sold in the UK in July rose by 18.8% on the figure a year ago, according to data published on Monday by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. However, the lobby group said sales would grow more slowly than expected for the rest of the year. In April, it forecast that battery cars would account for 19.8% of sales during 2024, while it now puts that figure at 18.5%. Some manufacturers are worried they will miss EV targets set by the UK government. Under the zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, 22% of each carmaker’s sales must be pure battery cars in 2024, rising to 80% by 2030.” The Times says: “New electric car sales will miss a government target as the push to decarbonise the vehicle market continues to stall…The [ZEV] mandate, which has been strongly criticised by companies such as Vauxhall and Ford, envisages penalties of £15,000 per car for carmakers that come in under the target. However, it is thought that in the first year carmakers will be able to avoid fines by derogations or rolling over sales targets into future years.” [According to thinktank New Automotive “manufacturers only need to sell 1,400 EVs more a month” to meet the 2024 ZEV target, down from 1,800 last month.] Reuters, BusinessGreen and the Daily Telegraph are among other outlets covering the news. Relatedly, the Guardian reports that Donald Trump has reversed his opposition to EVs by telling a rally of supporters in Georgia: “I’m for electric cars, I have to be because Elon [Musk] endorsed me very strongly.”

Meanwhile, in other UK news, the Daily Telegraph continues to publish articles attacking Ed Miliband’s net-zero policies by platforming the views of the fossil-fuel sector: “Ed Miliband’s North Sea tax crackdown risks destroying the UK’s oil and gas industry and making Britain even more dependent on imports, a leading operator has warned. EnQuest, which operates some of the UK’s most strategically important offshore assets, hit out at a decision to add three percentage points to the taxes imposed on oil and gas profits and strip the industry of key tax breaks. It comes as Miliband, the energy secretary, seeks to accelerate the shift to net-zero.” (The article is written by the former national media adviser of Offshore Energies UK, a trade association formerly known as Oil and Gas UK.)

Die Welt reports that Robert Habeck, Germany’s economic and climate minister, has “presented a paper with proposals to reform Germany’s electricity system via a central component, the so-called ‘capacity mechanism’, to be introduced by 2028”. The plan aims to see most of Germany’s power supply met with renewables, using “flexible” gas power plants and storage systems as backup during periods “without wind or sunshine”, the outlet explains. These backup systems, which “may only operate a few hours each year”, will be “compensated through tenders for maintaining capacity, even if not generating electricity”, adds the newspaper. Merkur says that the ministry’s paper describes Germany’s electricity system as undergoing a “comprehensive modernisation”.

Meanwhile, Die Zeit reports that the liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal on Rügen, Germany’s largest island, which was built “despite local opposition and environmental concerns”, is now facing criticism for being “an unnecessary investment” due to a lack of demand. The terminal was constructed in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in order to reduce the nation’s dependence on Russian gas, but gas storage facilities in Germany are “now full”, notes the newspaper, highlighting that the terminal cost €200m to build.

Finally, Der Spiegel reports that one in four people in Germany have experienced health problems due to extreme heat this year, including fatigue, circulatory problems and sleep disturbances, according to the health insurance company DAK-Gesundheit.

Industry news outlet China Power reports that China’s top economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and the National Energy Administration (NEA), have issued a notice that “clarifies” the “renewable energy power integration responsibility weights (可再生能源电力消纳责任权重)” for 2024-2025, setting new provincial targets for the share of renewables in total power consumption under China’s “renewable portfolio standards” (RPS). The outlet adds that this is the first time China has established a target for the aluminium sector, in order to help the nation meet its “carbon peak” goal. It explains that the “green electricity consumption ratio of enterprises in the electrolytic aluminium industry will be calculated based on ‘green electricity certificates’ (GECs)” – a trading scheme for electricity generated by non-fossil fuels in China. (Carbon Brief’s China Briefing has more on China’s GECs.) The Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily quotes Dong Wancheng, a deputy director of the NEA, saying that, in the first half of 2024, “China’s energy consumption continued to grow, supply capacity steadily increased and the balance between energy supply and demand was maintained”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, says that the 27 EU member states are “set to” support imposing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). Reuters reports that the Biden administration in the US is looking to “issue a proposed rule that would bar Chinese software in vehicles in the US with Level 3 automation and above”, meaning that Chinese EV could be banned from being tested on roads. Economic news outlet Yicai reports that Chinese EV manufacturers are expanding their “footprint” in Thailand. 

Finally, a comment article for Nikkei Asia by Tristan Kenderdine, research director at Future Risk, argues that “overcapacity only hurts China’s domestic economy”. Another article from the Financial Times reports that Kent Masters, chief executive of the world’s largest lithium producer, the US-based Albemarle, has called for “state help to compete with China”.

The Financial Times has published a “big read” on how oil companies are accusing the International Energy Agency (IEA) of “playing climate politics” by publishing “forecasts that the world will reach peak oil in 2029”. The article says: “The 66-year-old head of the International Energy Agency [Fatih Birol] has spent the past three years being increasingly blunt about the world’s need to switch from fossil fuels to clean energy, as carbon emissions continue to grow and global temperatures hit new monthly records…Big Oil has responded with the wounded anger of a jilted partner…The IEA and Opec were once closely aligned on their energy forecasts, but now have vastly different views on the future of oil. The IEA believes the world will reach peak oil in 2029, consuming 105.6m barrels a day. Opec, a cartel of oil-producing countries led by Saudi Arabia, sees no peak, with oil use rising to at least 116m barrels a day in 2045…The IEA has also become a political target in the US, which is producing record amounts of oil and gas. Republican senators have called for America to stop funding the IEA and former officials in Donald Trump’s administration say Trump will try to oust Birol if he is reelected.” The article continues: “But now, after two years of high oil prices, Big Oil is flush with cash and refocusing its efforts on pumping more oil and increasing returns to shareholders. In order to meet their net-zero targets, some oil companies have pinned all their hopes on carbon capture, rather than cutting back production, a policy that Birol described as an ‘illusion’ ahead of last year’s COP28 UN climate negotiations. The industry is pushing back harder against the IEA’s forecasts, saying the agency is playing a ‘dangerous’ game that may lead to spikes in energy prices if companies really do scale back their activities.”

As part of the FT’s “Economists Exchange” series of conversations between FT commentators and leading economists, the FT’s Martin Wolf interviews Adair Turner, the first chair of the UK’s Climate Change Committee who currently chairs the Energy Transitions Commission. The conversation ranges across a lot of topics, but ends with Wolf asking Turner whether he is optimistic or pessimistic about the future. Turner responds: “I think that the politics, the politics of nations, the distributional politics, the politics of international policy coordination, mean that we will get there [net-zero emissions] far later than is ideal. If you had me guess, I still think we have a chance of limiting global warming to well-below 2C. If you want to have a bet, I think it’ll be 1.8C, 1.9C. But I try to devote a lot of my energy to making it 1.6C rather than 1.9C. And between 1.6C and 1.9C, there are quite a lot of people who will die of extreme heat in the North Indian Plain. And there are tens of millions who will leave Africa and attempt to migrate north, away from desertification. I think that, despite the politics, we will avoid the absolutely catastrophic 2.5C or 3C rise, but we will end up in a significantly warmer world than it would have been if we could solve these political problems. But we need to try and solve them as best we can.”

The Financial Times has also published a comment article by Alissa Kleinnijenhuis, a visiting assistant professor at Cornell University’s SC Johnson College of Business and Imperial College London’s Imperial Business School, under the headline: “Paying polluters to stop polluting is sound economic logic.”

Completing a wave of climate-focused comment pieces in today’s FT, Brooke Masters, the newspaper’s US financial editor, examines the case for carbon “insets”: “The certificates sound a lot like carbon offsets, the controversial voluntary credits that companies buy to prove that they have helped cut emissions somewhere else, often by planting trees or distributing cleaner cooking stoves. But there is a crucial difference that avoids some of the problems that led the world’s leading arbiter of corporate climate targets to declare carbon offsets were mostly ‘ineffective’. The certificates are ‘carbon insets’ – they reduce carbon in a traceable way from the relevant supply chain, rather than through some unconnected activity…The approach encourages investment into green production because a multiyear corporate contract essentially locks in demand. It seems to be catching on. JPMorgan Chase, Netflix and other corporate buyers committed in April to purchase nearly 50m gallons worth of certificates, which would channel close to $200m into the sector. That kind of certainty is badly needed at a time when some big companies are paring back or reconsidering their decarbonisation plans.” Relatedly, Reuters has published a comment piece by Maria Eugenia Filmanovic, co-founder of Abatable, a “leading provider of end-to-end carbon market solutions”, headlined: “If we get it right, insetting could unlock a flood of finance for nature.”

“Many scientists already engage [with climate change] in individual lifestyle changes, but fewer engage in advocacy or activism”, a new study finds. The authors conducted surveys with more than 9,000 scientists across 115 countries, across a wide range of fields and career stages. Based on their findings, they provide “concrete recommendations” for increasing scientists’ engagement with climate change. They find that to improve engagement, scientists need to “first overcome intellectual and practical barriers to be willing to engage and then overcome additional barriers to actually engage”.