On Saturday, G20 leaders agreed to “triple renewable energy” capacity and “increase funds for climate change-related disasters, but maintained the status quo with regards to phasing out carbon-spewing coal”, the Associated Press reports. For possibly “the first time, the G20…agreed on the amounts required to shift to clean energy”, with the agreement stating that developing countries would need up to $5.9tn by 2030 to meet their climate targets, the newswire reported. The story quotes COP28 president Dr Sultan Al-Jaber saying: “These 20 countries account for 80% of global emissions, so this declaration sends a powerful signal for climate progress.” It also quotes Harjeet Singh of Climate Action Network (CAN) International saying the “commendable” commitment on renewables “sidesteps the root cause – our global dependency on fossil fuels”.

Members of the G20 “reiterated [their] commitment to achieving global net-zero emissions [or] carbon neutrality by or around mid-century”, the Hindustan Times reports, adding that “developed countries expect to meet the $100bn [climate finance] goal [which was due to be met by 2020] for the first time this year”. A delegate from a non-G20 country is quoted telling the newspaper that “references to emissions from fossil fuels” and missing a “clear intent on peaking [emissions] before 2025” were among “issues that could not be resolved during working group meetings and ministerials” and that India tried to balance a renewables tripling target with “a line on low or zero-carbon technologies”.

The “tripling” target – and a proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 60% by 2035 – were “opposed by Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and India during Sherpa-level meetings”, three officials told Reuters, with the newswire adding that the absence of fossil fuel language in the text “suggest[s] that countries like oil-rich Saudi Arabia prevailed during the negotiations”. The language around low-carbon technologies referenced in the declaration “covers controversial carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, favoured by oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE”, Climate Home News reports. This is further clarified in a Hindustan Times interview with India’s climate minister Bhupender Yadav, who is quoted saying another “area of disagreement” was on peaking GHG emissions, adding that the IPCC synthesis report projections on when global GHG emissions needed to peak to limit warming to 1.5C and 2C “are based on certain assumptions and it does not imply peaking in all countries within this timeframe”.

India’s prime minister Narendra Modi’s remarks “also seemed to cast doubt on his country’s commitment to the benefits of carbon-credit trading, though Indian officials later clarified that India remains committed to it”, the New York Times reports. It adds that “Modi, Biden and Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman announced the India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor”, which would “run oil, gas and other forms of energy from the Persian Gulf through countries with the exception of Iran” but “the project lacked key details, including a time frame”. The South China Morning Post says the G20 deal “comes as the Biden administration tries to counter [Chinese president] Xi [Jinping]’s massive signature Belt and Road Initiative by touting Washington as an alternative partner and investor for developing countries”. Modi also announced a global bio​​fuel alliance with the US and Brazil as its founding members to “help accelerate global efforts to meet net-zero emissions targets by facilitating trade in biofuels derived from sources including plant and animal waste”, Arab News reports.

Al Jazeera reports that France’s president Emmanuel Macron said he was “concerned by this rising state of mind”, referring to “demands that [w]estern nations should take more [climate] responsibility”. Ultimately, India was able to “move the needle” on climate because of New Delhi’s own renewable commitments, it added. Indonesian president Joko Widodo called climate-finance commitments towards a low-carbon transition “rhetoric” and asked for just energy transition partnerships (JETPs) to be “expanded and enlarged”, according to state-run news agency Antara, quoted in a G20 round-up of stories from the global south by NewsLaundry. Widodo also called for global standards to “prevent greenwashing”, it says. News outlets from Africa such as news24, meanwhile, focussed on the G20 “admit[ting] [the] African Union as permanent member”.

Meanwhile, in India, opposition leader and former environment minister Jairam Ramesh called Modi’s climate statements “sheer hypocrisy”, Indian Express reports. While the Hindu Businessline calls the G20 declaration “a coup” for Modi, the Economic Times says the new biofuel alliance “underscores [India’s] commitment to clean energy solutions”. In the Times of India, food policy analyst Devinder Sharma is quoted describing the biofuel alliance as “nothing short of historic blunder”, while Aditya Lolla at Ember is quoted saying the declaration “dramatically increases the odds that a global goal to triple renewables can be agreed at COP28”.

There has been widespread coverage of a United Nations summary report, published last Friday as part of the Paris Agreement’s global stocktake. Reuters says the report “distils thousands of submissions from experts, governments and campaigners and will lay the groundwork for the global stocktake discussion at COP28”. The newswire adds that the report is the “latest warning from the UN about environmental perils” and concludes that the “world is not on target to curb global warming and more action is needed on all fronts”. The New York Times says: “Eight years after world leaders approved a landmark agreement in Paris to fight climate change, countries have made only limited progress in staving off the most dangerous effects of global warming, according to the first official report card on the global climate treaty.” It adds: “Many of the worst-case climate change scenarios that were much feared in the early 2010s look far less likely today, the report said. The authors partly credit the 2015 Paris Agreement, under which, for the first time, almost every country agreed to submit a voluntary plan to curb its own planet-warming emissions. Since then, the rise in global greenhouse gases has notably slowed. Yet those efforts still aren’t enough to avoid calamity, according to the report, which was written by representatives from the US and South Africa.” Bloomberg says: “While emissions have already peaked in developed and some developing countries, they must stop rising globally before 2025 to achieve a warming limit of 1.5C, the report said. It also called for a scaling up [of] all renewable energy, phasing out all unabated fossil fuels and an end to deforestation and forest degradation, alongside an increase in tree planting. Transport and buildings also need to decarbonise.” The Times notes that “policies since the Paris deal have averted the worst-case scenarios of 4C or more warming, but the world remains on track for temperatures to rise by about 3C”.

BBC News explains that “no country is named and shamed in this report, which considers the collective approach to tackling the problem”. It continues: “Much progress has been made, the document acknowledges, but the global rise in temperatures predicted for this century is still well above what was promised in Paris. Keeping to those goals will now require a significant uptick in ambition according to the stocktake, which calls for widespread ‘system transformation’.” Politico quotes Simon Stiell, executive secretary of UN Climate Change: “I urge governments to carefully study the findings of the report and ultimately understand what it means for them and the ambitious action they must take next. It’s the same for businesses, communities and other key stakeholders.” Vox and Reuters have both published explainers about the global stocktake process.

Separately, the Observer reports that a “global push to commit to phasing out fossil fuels is gathering new momentum before a crucial UN climate conference this autumn, despite stiff opposition from oil-producing countries”. It adds: “Campaigners are ramping up efforts to put an undertaking to stop burning not just coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, but also oil and gas on the UN agenda ahead of the COP28 summit in Dubai in late November, the Observer has learned. Over the past two years attempts to persuade world leaders to make the commitment, which has strong scientific underpinning, have failed. But the campaign has had an unexpected boost in the fine print of a UN draft report. The global stocktake – an assessment of whether countries are meeting the emissions pledges made under the 2015 Paris Agreement – recommended ‘transformations across all sectors and contexts, including scaling up renewable energy while phasing out all unabated fossil fuels’. Experts said the inclusion of this call in a key UN document would have a galvanising effect on the talks.”

An editorial in the Hindu says the global stocktake “must not be dismissed as yet another technical document…but ​​must form the basis of [upcoming climate] negotiations to aid the discovery and adoption of genuine breakthroughs”.

There is continuing coverage of the fallout from the UK government’s latest renewables auction which failed to attract any bids for offshore wind “contracts for difference”. The Observer says “fears are growing that existing offshore wind projects could be shelved, after industry insiders warned that ‘disastrous’ handling by the government had created a big shortfall in future renewable energy”. It adds: “Ministers revealed last week that no additional offshore windfarms will go ahead in the UK after the latest government auction. No bids were made in the auction, after the government ignored warnings that offshore schemes were no longer economically viable under the current system. The Observer revealed the problems last month, as the price for energy offered to developers had not taken account of rampant inflation in their costs. However, industry insiders said that inflationary pressures may even jeopardise the viability of schemes approved in last year’s auction. One such project, the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, has already been paused.” It continues: “Industry figures had been making direct pleas to ministers since January, the Observer understands. Companies have been frustrated because increasing the price would still have left offshore wind as one of the cheapest energy sources and improved the UK’s energy security. The problems that have emerged around offshore wind are a blow to the UK’s carbon reduction pledges as the industry forms the backbone of those plans. The UK is committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2035 and achieving net-zero by 2050. It is banking on a near-quadrupling of offshore wind from about 14 gigawatts [GW] to 50GW by 2030. Industry figures said there was now a 24GW gap ‘between what we think we can procure in auctions for offshore vs 50GW target for offshore’.” The Financial Times describes the auction results as a “significant setback”, adding: “Amid mounting criticism, one government official hinted that next year’s round, which opens in March, could offer a more generous guaranteed maximum price for offshore wind. ‘We are reflecting carefully on today’s results to make appropriate adjustments,’ they said.” Reuters has published an explainer headlined: “Why the offshore wind power industry has hit turbulence.” Reuters also separately quotes Tom Glover, UK chair of energy firm RWE, saying: “We now believe that the UK’s ambitions for a five-fold offshore wind growth by 2030 and a net-zero power system by 2035 are unlikely to be met without decisive government action.” BusinessGreen carries reaction from the “green economy” and also has an article headlined: “Solar industry celebrates better than expected performance.” Bloomberg asks: “What’s next for Britain’s struggling offshore wind industry?” Carbon Brief has published analysis which shows that UK renewables are still “cheaper than gas, despite auction setback for offshore wind”.

Meanwhile, in other UK news, the Sunday Times reports that “the oil-rich state of Qatar is weeks away from announcing a £4bn investment to set up a university-style facility in the UK specialising in green energy research and development”. It adds: “Its not-for-profit Qatar Foundation is funding the plan, which will include a partnership with Rolls-Royce for technical expertise. Of the £4bn total, £1.5bn will go into a fund to seed the development of new UK green energy ideas, with the hope of starting ‘unicorn’ companies worth $1bn…Technologies earmarked for research include green aircraft fuel, carbon capture and storage, and long-term energy storage, as well as technologies to make construction less harmful for the environment and bring improvements to nuclear energy.” Politico says that prime minister Rishi Sunak has confirmed that “he will attend the COP28 summit later this year as he defended his record on net-zero”. It adds: “Sunak told reporters travelling with him to the G20 summit in India that achieving net-zero emissions ‘if done in the right way can be very beneficial for jobs’.” The i newspaper reports (in a story which is not yet online) that “moderate Conservative MPs have warned Rishi Sunak against watering down the party’s commitment to delivering net-zero ahead of the next general election”. It adds: “Members of the Tory Reform group, which represents the centre-right of the party and held a conference in London at the weekend, also urged Sunak to deliver policies that address the ‘intergenerational unfairness’ at the heart of the economy. Former cabinet minister Damian Green said: ‘The voices wanting us to renege on our commitment to net-zero by 2050 are wrong.’”

Separately, the Daily Telegraph – and its sister Sunday edition – continue to publish a barrage of articles attacking net-zero. The Saturday edition splashed on its frontpage an interview with former Bank of England governor Mervyn King in which the paper claimed that he said that “net-zero obsession ‘has fuelled inflation’”. A closer inspection of the interview reveals that he did not say this. Other news article published by the Telegraph newspaper include: “Net-zero and ageing populations risk higher taxes, warns City bank”; “Households face £2,300 bills under net-zero plans“; and “Windfarms ‘gaming system to inflate millions earned when asked to halt production’”.

The German Bundestag has passed a “heavily amended version of a contentious heating law, drawing a line under an episode that became a political debacle for [chancellor] Olaf Scholz’s ruling coalition and a symbol of the challenges of imposing radical environmental laws on homeowners”, reports the Financial Times. It adds: “The country’s parliament approved a watered-down version of a plan that originally would have amounted to an effective ban on all new gas and oil boilers, requiring new systems to be powered by a minimum of 65% renewable energy from January 2024. The plan, the brainchild of the Green economy minister and vice-chancellor Robert Habeck, was one of Germany’s most ambitious pieces of climate legislation. It was aimed at accelerating the shift to heat pumps, solar panels and hydrogen boilers as part of a broader drive to reach a national target of carbon neutrality by 2045. But a public and political backlash against the proposals damaged support for Scholz’s coalition government.” Reuters says: “Habeck said the new measures would cut around 40m tonnes of carbon emissions by 2030. But his ministry acknowledged that watering down the bill’s original draft from April, which would have imposed the green heating switch much earlier, would mean Germany won’t reach its emissions goal in the sector by 2030.”

US special climate envoy John Kerry says that China and other “large economies” need to play a “global role in helping poorer countries cope with the impacts of climate change”, reports Bloomberg. In an interview with the outlet, Kerry adds: “I have not heard that China is reluctant at this point to participate in the loss-and-damage fund.” Meanwhile, Chinese state newspaper China Daily quotes Li Baodong, secretary-general of the Boao Forum for Asia, saying that a report by the forum has been launched to “promote discussions” on China’s cooperation with Asia to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060 and to contribute policy recommendations for COP28.

In other China developments, energy news outlet BJX News reports that the government has plans to revise its energy law, renewable energy law and electricity law. Another state-run industry newspaper, China Electric Power News, reports that mandatory national norms will be released for coal, nuclear, solar and wind power. Euronews says that the world’s largest offshore wind turbine, a 16 megawatt device made by Chinese firm Goldwind and located near Fujian province, has created a new record for the most power produced by a single turbine in a day, reaching more than 384 megawatt hours (MWh) on 1 September. 

Separately, Reuters reports that car sales in China increased 2.2% year-on-year in August to more than 1.9m units. The newswire adds that this comes as increased discounts and tax breaks for electric vehicles (EVs) “boosted consumer sentiment even as economic growth remains weak”. The South China Morning Post says that several climate-related deals signed by the US state of California and counterparts in China are benefiting both sides by addressing air pollution and promoting the use of EVs.

Elsewhere, the Guardian writes that the “heaviest” rainfall ever recorded in Hong Kong’s 140-year history has resulted in two fatalities and over 100 injuries. It adds that this unusual and exceptionally wet weather has caused additional disruptions in southern China. Finally, Foreign Policy has an article headlined: “Climate change could drown China’s food security.”

UK prime minister Rishi Sunak has announced a “record UK contribution to an international climate change fund in answer to Indian president Narendra Modi’s call for more financing to support developing nations”, reports the Press Association. The newswire adds: “To mark the close of the G20 leaders’ summit in New Delhi on Sunday, Downing Street said the prime minister would announce that Britain will provide $2bn (£1.6bn) to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). No 10 officials said it marked the biggest single funding commitment the UK has made to help the world tackle climate change. The uplift will form a major part of the UK government’s pledge to spend £11.6bn on international climate finance.” Reuters also covers the announcement, adding: “In July, the Guardian reported the country was planning to drop its flagship climate funding pledge, but the British government said those claims were false. Government officials calculated it would have to spend 83% of the total aid budget on the international climate fund to meet the £11.6bn target by 2026.”

Separately, the Guardian reports that “Sunak was warned that he faced exclusion from key discussions on the climate among world leaders at the UN before he decided to snub a global summit later this month”. It continues: “It was announced last month that Sunak would be the first prime minister in a decade to avoid attending the annual UN general assembly gathering of world leaders. The reason given was his busy schedule, but the Guardian has learned that turning up risked severe embarrassment for the prime minister.”

Many UK publications have published comment pieces reacting to the results of the UK government renewables auction, which were announced on Friday. Most right-leaning newspapers use the results to publish wider attacks on net-zero policies. An editorial in the Daily Mail says: “Almost everyone piling into the government over its failure to find anyone to construct its planned new offshore wind farms has one thing in common – they don’t have to account for taxpayers’ money. It is said the price guaranteed to potential developers for the energy they would provide was set too low. If so, ministers must try again to come up with a mutually acceptable figure. But a cautious approach is surely better than flinging public money at the problem. As Labour’s disastrous private finance Initiatives proved, bad spending decisions can reverberate down the years – leaving future generations to pick up the tab.” [The “contracts for difference” scheme is funded by billpayers, not taxpayers. Even at significantly higher prices than those agreed in Friday’s auction, such projects would have generated net savings for consumers as they would have been cheaper than gas, which generally sets power prices.] An editorial in the Daily Telegraph argues that “wind power’s benefits have been overblown”, adding: “A debate over the virtues of the UK’s current energy strategy can no longer be avoided – and the failure of the government’s latest subsidy auction for new offshore wind should be the trigger.” An editorial in the Sun on Saturday says: “The response yesterday to no businesses signing up to a government scheme to build new offshore wind farms was bordering on hysterical. Labour’s chief eco-loon Ed Miliband said the Tories had ‘trashed the crown jewels of the British energy system’. In fact, the reason none of these multi-billion-pound companies signed up was the Treasury’s refusal to gift them giant subsidies at taxpayers’ expense to cover rising costs…Why does Miliband want ordinary folk to foot the bill for that? Renewables may be part of the future. But zealots like Red Ed need to give voters the full truth about their benefits – and the huge costs involved.” In contrast to the paper’s editorial line, Ben Marlow, the Daily Telegraph’s chief City commentator, argues that “the offshore wind fiasco takes government self-harm to new heights”. He says: “Once again, our political masters are guilty of being horribly shortsighted. Yes, there’s a quick cost saving – but the result, as experts rushed to point out, is higher energy bills in the long-term.” He adds: “According to estimates from RenewableUK, the offshore wind projects eligible for this year’s round could have ‘powered nearly 8 million homes a year and saved consumers £2bn a year compared to the cost of electricity from gas’. And although the cost of offshore wind has risen, it is still significantly cheaper than new gas plants.” Similarly, Alex Brummer, the Daily Mail’s City editor, says that “a great green opportunity for Britain has been lost”. In the Times, Ann Treneman argues that the “sight of a turbine is like a breath of fresh air”. Rowan Moore, the Observer’s architecture critic, says that “instead of tilting at turbines we should see them for what they are: beautiful”. And the Financial Times’ Lex column says: “All is not lost. German bureaucrats took a parsimonious view on their price cap in a December wind auction, producing a historically low subscription rate near 20%. Higher prices in the next two quarterly auctions earlier this year boosted that interest about seven times.”

Meanwhile, in other UK comment, an editorial in the climate-sceptic Sunday Telegraph argues: “Evidence continues to mount that British politicians have rushed into a monumentally significant policy agenda while having little detailed idea of what it will mean in practice, how much money it will entail spending, and whether the new technologies will be ready in time.” Jeremy Clarkson in the Sun, attempting humour, claims that “the government is trying to achieve net-zero by keeping us at home all the time. It would explain why airports are so terrible these days.” Camilla Tominey in the Daily Telegraph asks: “Why can’t the Conservatives bring themselves to scrap costly net-zero commitments?”

Finally, the Financial Times has published a “special report” on decarbonisation, which includes an article by Alexandra Howlett headlined: “‘Culture war’ threatens to undermine green energy transition.”

There is continuing reaction to comments made last week by Dr Patrick Brown, a climate scientist who claims that there is a “bias” in peer-viewed journals when it comes to publishing studies about climate change. Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer interviews him at length and concludes that “his full story is much more perplexing” than his claims. Meyer adds: “None of what he describes – least of all his own behaviour – amounts to an effort to ‘distort research’ or ‘mislead the public’ that he has seemingly alleged. His critique has found its audience anyway. Since we talked, Brown’s argument has been cited by Fox News, the New York Post, and the Telegraph.” Mark Gongloff in Bloomberg writes: “No, climate scientists aren’t being forced to exaggerate. A researcher’s claim that a prominent journal sensationalises findings on global warming doesn’t add up.” On Friday, Carbon Brief published a factcheck of Brown’s claims and also spoke exclusively to one of Brown’s co-authors who said his comments “took me by surprise” and that “I don’t think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased”.

In contrast, the Times on Saturday uncritically republished Brown’s original article for the Free Press as its “weekend essay”. It also published an accompanying editorial stating that “these [journal] tactics lead to work that is deceptive and neglects promising lines of inquiry for fear of challenging consensus”. Carbon Brief’s editor Leo Hickman criticised the Times’s position via a Twitter thread: “It is genuinely sad to see the rapid descent of the Times’s op-ed pages under its current editor Tony Gallagher. Back to the bad old days, I’m afraid, with wilfully misinformed and misleading ‘takes’ on climate science.” Today’s Times includes a letter from Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, in which he also scolds the Times: “It was deeply ironic you chose that day [when the UK recorded its hottest September day on record] to publish a leading article alleging that scientific journals were ‘unwilling to consider research which downplays the scale of climate change’, citing an article by Dr Patrick Brown in which he made several inaccurate claims about current publication practices.”

Climate models may underestimate warming in the Antarctic, according to new research. “Weather station records are too short and sparse to effectively detect the signature of climate change in Antarctica,” according to a research briefing on the new paper. The study authors use records from 78 ice cores to provide a high-resolution reconstruction of temperatures over the past 1,000 years for seven regions of Antarctica. They find that Antarctica is warming “faster than the global average temperature and expectations from climate models for the region”.

Population exposure to “flash droughts” rose 30% between 1981-2000 and 2001-20, according to a new study. Using in situ observations, observation-based global reanalysis data sets and Earth system models, the authors find that flash floods have become “more frequent, accelerated-onset, and longer duration” – driven mainly by an increase in hot and dry conditions. The authors find a “disproportionate increase” in risk in the Amazon Basin and eastern and southern Asia. The study warns that “state of the art” climate models “failed to identify the acceleration of the onset time of flash droughts and widely underestimated the occurrence of flash droughts that are driven only by precipitation deficits or by heat waves”.