France has joined Spain, Poland and the Netherlands in pulling out of the “controversial” energy charter treaty (ECT) that “protects fossil fuel investors from policy changes that might threaten their profits”, the Guardian reports. The paper quotes French president Emmanuel Macron saying the decision to withdraw was “coherent” with the Paris Agreement on climate change. The newspaper explains that the European Commission has proposed what it calls a “modernisation” of the treaty, which is due to be discussed at a meeting in Mongolia next month. The Financial Times reports: “Macron’s withdrawal reflects growing opposition as countries try to pursue more climate-friendly policies.” The paper says: “Climate campaigners say [the treaty] dissuades governments from phasing out fossil fuels for fear of legal action.” It adds: “Investors may sue states that are signatories of the pact, which covers more than 50 countries as well as the EU, if they believe their assets are under threat from legislative or policy changes. Three energy groups, including Germany’s RWE, are in the process of suing three European governments in relation to fossil fuel investments. Italy withdrew from the pact in 2016, but remains bound by a 20-year sunset clause. Germany is also considering plans to exit the treaty.” Regarding the modernisation plan, the paper explains: “The EU and UK have pushed for the treaty to be ‘modernised’, and an agreement in principle on a revised version of the text was agreed in June. However, the updated text, which is yet to be ratified, would continue to protect coal, oil and gas investments in the EU and UK for 10 years after it comes into force. It would also protect new fossil fuel investments made before August 2023.” Politico reports: “Earlier this week, France’s High Council on Climate said continued membership of the treaty posed a threat to the EU’s climate goals.” It adds: “The Commission told Politico this week that leaving the deal would expose countries to lawsuits from existing investments for 20 years, due to a sunset clause that binds them to their obligations.” The Associated Press reports the French move and adds: “Germany’s ministry for economic affairs and climate action told The Associated Press earlier this week that a decision regarding the ECT within the federal government has yet to be taken.” Reuters also has the story.

Trade body Energy UK has warned of “catastrophic consequences” for investment in green energy if the government goes ahead with what the paper calls a “de facto windfall tax on low carbon electricity companies”. The paper continues: “Energy companies have branded the policy an effective windfall tax and are concerned it is even more punitive than a separate levy on oil and gas producers, which was introduced by former chancellor Rishi Sunak in May.” The paper continues: “Energy UK has sent a briefing to all MPs ahead of chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s fiscal statement – expected on 31 October – warning that the cap, as it is currently designed, would ‘cement a tax regime heavily tipped in favour of oil and gas, and send a disastrous message [to global investors] about the UK’s climate commitment’.” The Times quotes an Energy UK briefing for MPs saying: “While the windfall tax for oil and gas producers contains generous exemptions through an investment allowance, no such provision exists with the revenue cap.” BusinessGreen also has the story.

Meanwhile, a Guardian article published on Friday asks “how green are the Tory leadership candidates” to become the next UK prime minister. It gives frontrunner Sunak two out of five: “While chancellor, Sunak stood in the way of policies that would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions but at an upfront cost to the Treasury – chief among them, a nationwide programme of insulation to replace the botched green homes grant…His windfall tax on oil and gas companies, reluctantly brought in, also contained large loopholes allowing companies to reinvest in fossil fuels.” A “big read” in the National looks at: “How the Tory Party have been shifted towards climate scepticism.” It begins: “Only 72 hours into Liz Truss becoming the prime minister she had lifted the ban on fracking.” Writing for the Daily Mirror, columnist Paul Routledge writes: “Let’s get controversial, for a change. Fracking for gas was the issue that indirectly brought down Liz Truss, as Labour tried to ban it for ever…I don’t agree with my party. When it comes to fracking, I am a Yimby – Yes, In My Back Yard!”

Elsewhere, the Guardian reports: “Landowners call for scrapping of plans to ban solar energy from England’s farmland.” BusinessGreen editor James Murray uses his blog to reflect on the “climate of chaos” surrounding the Conservative government. He concludes: “It looks increasingly likely that if the UK is to get the net-zero focused economic agenda it so desperately needs then we will need an election to deliver it, and there are no guarantees we will get one any time soon. The chaos is not over yet.” The Sunday Telegraph reports: “New green farming subsidies are failing to attract large numbers of farmers, who are instead focusing on food production…Farming groups say payments for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), intended to be the most accessible part of the scheme, are too low to encourage farmers to join up, particularly as global food shortages push prices up.” Finally, BusinessGreen reports: “The average food shop will cost UK households £407 more this year as a result of climate impacts and rising oil and gas prices, according to new research from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU).”

Hurricane Roslyn made landfall in Mexico on Sunday as a Category 3 storm, the New York Times reports, brining “damaging winds and a life-threatening storm surge”. The newspaper says: “The links between hurricanes and climate change have become clearer with each passing year. Data shows that hurricanes have become stronger worldwide during the past four decades. A warming planet can expect stronger hurricanes over time and a higher incidence of the most powerful storms, though the overall number of storms could drop because factors like stronger wind shear could keep weaker storms from forming.” The Washington Post reports: “Roslyn emerged after a group of thunderstorms off the west coast of Mexico congealed into a tropical depression and eventually a named storm on Thursday. It wasn’t until 11 pm Eastern time Friday that Rosslyn became a hurricane, but it rapidly intensified into a major hurricane, defined as Category 3 or higher, on Saturday morning, just six hours later.” It adds: “Rapid intensification, defined as a spike of 35 mph or more in a storm’s maximum sustained winds within 24 hours, is more likely in the presence of warmer waters and calm upper-level winds. There are emerging links between human-induced climate change and the frequency and severity of rapid intensification.” Le Monde says Hurricane Roslyn has killed at least two people.

Separately, Climate Home News reports that Hurricane Ian “could push insurers out of Florida”.

Flooding in Nigeria has destroyed crops in the country’s “food basket”, Associated Press reports, adding: “Some farmers have lost close to 75% of everything planted this year, said Kabir Ibrahim, national president of the local farmers association.” The newswire continues: “Above-average rainfall and devastating flooding have affected 5 million people this year in 19 countries across West and Central Africa, according to a new UN World Food Program situation report.”

The EU will support discussion of finance for climate change loss and damage, Reuters reports, citing a draft of the bloc’s negotiating position for the upcoming COP27 climate summit in Egypt. The newswire says the document “remained vague…on what these talks would deliver, and whether [it] should launch the climate compensation fund that dozens of developing countries have called for”. Another Reuters article says EU countries will meet today to finalise their draft negotiating position. It adds: “The ministers will also decide whether the EU should commit to upgrade its own climate change target to be more ambitious, according to the draft document.”

Elsewhere, BusinessGreen previews the COP27 “dividing lines”. It reports: “From loss and damage and adaptation finance to NDCs and wider geopolitical tensions, the stage is set for this year’s UN Climate Summit to be even more fractious than usual.” Inside Climate News reports: “President Joe Biden’s success in gaining passage of the Inflation Reduction Act,…is seeding cautious hope for greater global action after years of frustrating impasses at the talks. But the long-sought US legislative achievement is likely to be overshadowed at the conference…Instead, the unfulfilled promises of the US and other wealthy countries seem certain to dominate COP27.”

Separately, BBC News reports calls from US climate envoy John Kerry for King Charles to attend the COP27 talks. It explains: “As Prince of Wales he had planned to go to November’s COP27 conference. But after ascending the throne he decided not to attend on the advice of Prime Minister Liz Truss.”

Finally, openDemocracy reports: “PR firm accused of greenwashing big oil is helping organise COP27.” It says: “Hill+Knowlton Strategies, which has worked for ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and Saudi Aramco, is managing communications for Egypt’s presidency of the UN climate conference, which will take place next month in Sharm El Sheikh.”

South Africa’s investment plan for shifting from coal to renewable energy “will need $46.5bn, more than five times the $8.5bn Western nations have pledged to the project over the next three to five years”, Reuters reports in an “exclusive”, citing “three people familiar with the matter”. It says the provisional plan was submitted to donor countries this month and adds that private investors could “step in” to make up the difference, according to one source, while another points to “a mix of private, bilateral and multilateral funders”. The newswire continues: “Negotiators are racing to complete the deal before United Nations climate talks next month in Egypt, where it could serve as a model for other emerging economies seeking to wean themselves off coal with Western support. If successful, South Africa’s plan will see Africa’s most industrialised nation gradually shut down its polluting coal-fired power stations and mines, replacing them with wind turbines and solar panels at a significantly faster rate than it was planning to do before the partnership with the United States, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union.” Climate Home News says 97% of the $8.5bn in support would be in the form of loans, citing a leaked summary of financing provisions it says it has obtained. The outlet reports: “It shows that $4.6bn – 54% of the funding – is earmarked as concessional loans, with better borrowing terms than South Africa can access on the open market. Just under half of that money is provided by Germany and France. The remaining $3.7bn, or 43%, include a mix of commercial loans and investment guarantees to de-risk projects so they attract private investors. These will come from the EU, US and the UK, which is contributing the largest share. Only $230m will be delivered collectively by donor countries as grants – 2.7% of the total package.” The publication adds: “South Africa’s cabinet approved an investment plan for the money on Wednesday, but has yet to publish it. A launch is expected at the COP27 climate summit next month.”

Separately, BBC News has a news feature under the headline: “COP27: Uganda-Tanzania oil pipeline sparks climate row.”

In recent days, the world’s media has been sharply focused on the conclusion of the Chinese Communist party’s 20th National Congress, which saw Xi Jinping reinstated as leader for a third term yesterday alongside the naming of the politicians in the all-powerful Politburo and its inner “Standing Committee”. Bloomberg, which has carried a live blog of key developments, notes that “former ministers of environment Chen Jining and Li Ganjie are both joining the 25-member Politburo…This is potentially a strong message of ‘green development’ to party cadres nationwide.”

The South China Morning Post quotes “climate analysts” who say that, across the week-long Congress, there have been signs that China is taking a “cautious” approach to “balancing its carbon-neutral commitment against the need for energy security amid an energy crisis globally and at home”. The outlet quotes Kate Logan, associate director of climate at the Asia Society Policy Institute: “’[Xi’s mention at the Congress of China’s dual-carbon goals] is critical, indicating that they [the goals] now have high-level buy-in.” The article adds that the COP27 next month in Egypt and the gas “crisis” in Europe “due to the Russia-Ukraine war” have “both provided an opportunity for China to be more active in global climate negotiations, potentially steering the talks”, citing Qin Yan from Refinitiv, a global provider of financial market data.

Meanwhile, Chinese state media covers a Friday press briefing on the sideline of the Congress. The Global Times reports that Chinese “achievements in pollution control, ecological recovery and protection, and green development…made in the past decade were highlighted” at the briefing. According to Zhai Qing, vice minister of the ministry of ecology and environment, China has also “fulfilled more than it had pledged” to the international community on “carbon reduction”, citing data on the “use of clean energy and forestation”, the state-run newspaper notes. Zhai added that, “heading forward, China will work with all parties to actively participate in the global governance of climate change”. Xinhua, CGTN and China Daily also cover the story. The state-run industry newspaper China Energy News highlights the questions raised by journalists. In response to the question from Bloomberg, “Will China take more action to address the threats posed by climate change? What are the specific measures”, Zhai said: “Moving forward, we will continue to implement the national strategy of actively addressing climate change, implement the ‘1+N’ policy system for carbon peak and carbon neutrality, accelerate the green and low-carbon transformation of key areas.”

In other news, the Financial Times covers a new World Bank report which concludes that “China will need investment in power and transport estimated at $14tn to hit Beijing’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2060”. The article adds: “The Chinese decarbonisation plan would need to decouple economic growth and emissions at a faster pace and at a lower income level than in advanced economies, the bank warned, as it made the ‘significant investments in a massive green infrastructure and technology scale up’. But China could also leverage some advantages, said the World Bank, such as its position at the forefront of advancing low carbon technologies. China is already home to one-third of the world’s installed wind power and a quarter of its solar capacity.”

Separately, a Politico article focuses on a European Council meeting on Friday in Brussels where the “27” EU leaders met. Belgian prime minister Alexander De Croo told the reporter that, “on certain topics, China is a partner, such as climate change. On some domains, [China is] a fierce competitor”, the article adds. Citing a “senior diplomat“, the article writes that German chancellor Olaf Scholz – who is “planning a trip” to China next month and is “set to become the first Western leader to greet Xi as the newly reappointed leader” – also “warned” his fellow EU leaders about Beijing’s “economic future” at the meeting.

Finally, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman and the director of China’s top energy regulator the National Energy Administration (NEA) Zhang Jianhua on Friday said they would “strengthen their ties in the energy sector”, reports Reuters, citing a report by Saudi state news agency SPA.

Analysis from the Washington Post looks back at last week’s annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington, noting how the US and Germany have in recent days “led a push to modify World Bank policymaking to scale up climate finance”. It says: “Existing research suggests that policy changes in international institutions, including to address climate change, often result from top-down pressure from powerful member nations. Yet our new research attributes international organisations’ pivots to climate to a surprising and understudied phenomenon: an internal process of staff learning and rotation that shapes institutional policymaking from the bottom up.” A comment for the South China Morning Post is titled: “World is waking up to how multilateral development banks can fund social good.”

The G20 group of major economies “invested $64bn in subsidising the production of fossil fuels in 2021”, the Independent reports, citing an annual report from Climate Transparency. BusinessGreen reports: “G20 government support for producing and consuming fossil fuels reached a record high in 2021, despite public commitments to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and accelerate the clean energy transition.” It adds: “The study warned subsidies have continued to rise into 2022, in large part due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent hikes in energy prices that have prompted government’s to come forward with sweeping energy price support packages at the same time as profits for energy companies have been ‘supercharged’.”

The Australian government has joined the Global Methane Pledge that aims to cut emissions of the gas by 30% by 2030, Reuters reports, citing a statement from the country’s climate minister Chris Bowen. The newswire adds that Bowen pledged up to AUS$3bn ($1.9bn) to support his country’s efforts. It also quotes him emphasising that the pledge is not only about tackling agricultural methane emissions: “As a result of signing the Pledge, the Australian government will not legislate or introduce taxes or levies to reduce livestock emissions.” The Guardian also reports on Australia’s commitment to the methane pledge, explaining: “Signatories to the global pledge agree to undertake voluntary actions in their countries to reduce emissions of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Reducing methane emissions by 30% from 2020 levels is a global goal, not a national target.” The newspaper’s article adds that prime minister Anthony Albanese “warned climate change is increasing the frequency of Australia’s extreme weather events”. It quotes him saying: “We need to recognise that climate change is having an impact…We’re seeing more frequent events and they’re more intense when they occur.” (A Sunday report from Reuters is titled: “More severe weather forecast for Australia’s southeast amid flood crisis.”)

Meanwhile, a Guardian “exclusive” reports allegations that discussing climate change is “basically banned” at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, in an article quoting current and former staff at the agency. A second Guardian “exclusive” on the matter reports: “A former chief executive of the Bureau of Meteorology says the 67-year-old law that underpins Australia’s weather agency needs to be updated to bring it in line with the modern-day climate crisis.” Finally, in other news from Australia, the Guardian looks at recent pledges by the state of Victoria’s ruling Labor government, which has “promised to legislate a target that would mean shutting the remaining coal plants and replacing them with renewable energy and back-up generation by 2035” if it is reelected next month.

EU leaders have endorsed a plan to cap gas prices, the Financial Times reports, adding that the deal ends “months of deadlock”. The paper explains: “The proposed cap would ‘immediately limit episodes of excessive gas prices’ but will not be introduced until it has met conditions imposed by sceptical countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, which fear that producers could export gas to countries willing to pay higher prices…the price level or size of the market move that would trigger its intervention is still to be agreed.” The Financial Times “Europe Express” newsletter says it will “still take weeks to translate into concrete measures”. It reports: “The dust has only just settled after the leaders’ agreement on bringing energy prices down, but myriad questions remain. One of the most important is the shape of the proposed emergency price cap – and whether it will take another emergency EU summit to get it through.”

A US appeals court has upheld the Biden administration’s “social cost of carbon”, Reuters reports, noting that the metric “is used in rulemaking processes and permitting decisions to calculate the economic damages associated with a rise in greenhouse gas emissions”. The newswire says Biden had reinstated the $51 per tonne of carbon dioxide figure originally set by former president Barack Obama but subsequently reduced to around $10/tCO2 by president Donald Trump. (See Carbon Brief’s 2017 Q&A for more on the social cost of carbon.) The Hill reports: “The Biden administration has fended off another challenge to its effort to assign significant weight to climate impacts in the federal decision making process.” It explains: “Republican-led states, led by Missouri, have challenged the Biden administration’s…estimate the cost of climate damage. But the three-judge panel upheld a lower court ruling against these states.”

Climate change is a “significant and growing threat” to health in the UK, the Guardian reports, citing the country’s “most senior public health expert” Prof Dame Jenny Harries. The paper continues: “Viewed purely in terms of annual excess deaths, the climate crisis was likely to have an interim benefit in the UK due to warmer winters, Harries said. But other factors could soon reverse this trend. As temperatures rise, Europe is becoming vulnerable to infectious diseases historically seen in the tropics.” Separately, the i newspaper reports: “World leaders facing the threat of a global recession must not scrimp on support for poorer nations with hundreds of millions of people at increased risk of catastrophic ecological disasters, a leading thinktank has warned.” It quotes the Institute of Economics and Peace saying “existing ecological challenges will only be amplified by climate change”. Elsewhere, the Independent reports: “Human rights being violated as consequence of climate change, says UN official.”

A frontpage story in the Sunday Times reports that the Just Stop Oil campaign is being partly funded by Aileen Getty, “the granddaughter of the oil tycoon J Paul Getty”. The paper says Getty’s non-profit Climate Emergency Fund “distributes monty to environmental campaign groups that use civil resistance in an attempt to effect change”. It adds that the fund gave £1m to Just Stop Oil this year. The Sun also has the story. Writing in the Guardian, Getty says of the Just Stop Oil protestors “who threw soup on the protective glass covering of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting have captured the attention of the world”. She adds: “While some have ridiculed the activists, as a funder of climate activism, I am proud of the bigger conversation they have started.” Separately, the Guardian reports that Just Stop Oil protestors have stopped traffic in north London, while the Independent says the group has “block[ed] famous Beatles Abbey Road crossing”. The New York Times reports on two protestors from the group Last Generation throwing mashed potato at a glass-covered painting by Claude Monet in Potsdam, Germany.

An editorial in the Financial Times criticises the more than half a trillion euros pledged since last September to shield households and businesses from high energy costs. It says EU policymakers “need to target measures better and encourage efficiency”. It continues: “The longer the crisis goes on, the more those interventions will need to be fine-tuned to limit expenses and curb energy demand. Britain this week decided to slash and review its two-year energy-price guarantee, while Germany is assessing how to allocate a new €200bn package.” It concludes: “While energy supplies this winter may now seem less precarious, next winter is a concern. Securing new supplies and raising efficiency will remain crucial…[W]hat began as emergency measures to ease the pain will need to adapt if countries are to meet the broader financial and energy rationing demands of the crisis.” A separate Financial Times report is titled: “Romania offers cautionary tale on pitfalls of energy subsidies.”

In the Financial Times, US energy editor Derek Brower says that “pro-oil voices are suddenly much bolder again, swatting aside environmentalists for having the gall to worry about the climate during a global energy crisis”. He continues: “[W]ith energy soaring across the western world, oil executives believe the calamity has finally revealed the naivety of too hasty a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. Mostly they make these comments in private. But in a recent interview with the Financial Times, Chevron chief executive Mike Wirth spelt some of it out, saying western policy and discourse around energy had been ‘skewed’ too heavily towards climate.” Brower concludes: “Amid rampant inflation, war and a deepening energy crisis, it seems that the world’s climate problem is being overshadowed. But it isn’t going away – and nor are the young activists who care. The next protest might involve something stronger than tinned soup and a target less protected than a Van Gogh.”

“Ordinary ships” may be able to navigate the Northern Sea route – a key shipping passage in the Arctic – given global warming of 3C above pre-industrial temperatures, new research finds. The authors use the “Polar Operational Limit Assessment Risk Indexing System”, which considers the impacts of sea ice and ice resistance of ships, to measure how easily ships can navigate through key Arctic passages under 2C and 3C warming. They find that under 2C warming, “polar class six” icebreakers may be unimpeded travelling along two Arctic passages in November.

The impact of climate change on species extinction risk may be greater than previously thought, new research suggests. The authors combine Earth system models with mathematical models to determine the impact of thermal stress on 38 globally distributed ectotherms – species that dependent on external sources of body heat. They find that “regional differences in the statistical distribution of temperature will emerge over time”, giving rise to “shifts in the mean, variability and persistence of thermal stress”. They add that “complex regional changes in population stability [will be seen] over the 21st century, with temperate species facing higher risk”.