The G7 group of rich nations has committed to working towards phasing out unabated coal power, but has not fixed a date for doing so, Reuters reports. In a ministerial-level joint communiqué issued on Friday, the countries also pledged to largely decarbonise their power sectors by 2035, the newswire says. The Washington Post says the commitments “will particularly affect Japan, which relies heavily on coal-fired power plants”. It adds that the group agreed to end public finance for overseas fossil-fuel projects, pledged to shift sales of road vehicles to “predominantly” zero-emissions vehicles by 2030 and to accelerate shifts away from Russian gas towards clean energy. CNN says the 40-page communiqué came “against the backdrop of Russia’s war in Ukraine, which has given a renewed sense of urgency – in Europe, in particular – to expedite the transition to cleaner energy sources”. It adds: “The communiqué urged countries against locking in fossil fuel subsidies designed to weather the impact of the conflict.” Deutsche Welle uses its headline to quote the “concrete steps” promised by the G7 nations on phasing out coal power. It says the communiqué also recognised, for the first time, the need for G7 financial support for vulnerable countries dealing with the effects of climate change. It adds that ministers called on development banks to submit plans for aligning their finance with the goals of the Paris Agreement by COP27 in November. Associated Press says the 2035 target to decarbonise G7 electricity systems makes it “highly unlikely that those countries will burn coal for electricity beyond that date”. It adds: “[I]n a move aimed at ending the recurring conflict between rich and poor nations during international climate talks, the G7 recognised for the first time the need to provide developing countries with additional financial aid to cope with the loss and damage caused by global warming.”

The Financial Times picks out the call for Opec countries to increase their output, quoting the communiqué saying: “We call on oil- and gas-producing countries to act in a responsible manner and to respond to tightening international markets, noting that Opec has a key role to play.” It says a 2030 coal phaseout date “had been pushed by Berlin”, but was “removed because of opposition from the US and Japan, according to people familiar with the discussions”. Another Reuters article also leads on the call to Opec and describes the coal phaseout pledge a “breakthrough commitment”. It reports: “Ministers from the G7 group stressed that they would not let the energy crisis derail efforts to fight climate change.” The newswire adds that the G7 countries pledged to start reporting on their progress against a commitment to phase out “inefficient” fossil-fuel subsidies by 2025. Climate Home News says Japan had “agreed to stop financing fossil-fuel projects internationally by the end of 2022 and clean up its power system by 2035, under pressure from the rest of the G7”, joining joint pledges in the communiqué that it had previously resisted. The publication says: “An annotated draft seen by Climate Home News showed that Japan had tried to remove both commitments from the communiqué, but European countries and Canada defended them.” It says Japan “is one of the world’s top financiers of fossil fuels and had been the only G7 nation not to sign a pledge at last year’s COP26 summit to halt that flow”. Politico says in its coverage of the outcome: “Rich countries sent mixed messages on everything from investing in fossil fuels to ending coal and beefing up climate finance.”

Clean Energy Wire notes that attention now turns to the leaders’ summit in June, adding that climate change is top of Germany’s G7 programme. It notes: “Germany wants to push an open and cooperative international ‘climate club’ – an alliance of the countries with the highest ambitions for climate policy worldwide – as well as partnerships to support emerging and developing nations in their just transition away from fossil fuels.”Channel 4 News interviews Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans as part of its coverage of the G7 communiqué. Argus Media, BusinessGreen, EurActiv, S&P Global and Agence France Presse all cover the G7 statement. An International Energy Agency statement says the G7 communiqué “recognised multiple aspects of the IEA’s work on the clean energy transition and energy security, including a recent major report on how to put carbon dioxide emissions from heavy industries such as steel and cement on a path towards net-zero”. It adds that the target to predominantly decarbonise electricity sectors by 2035 had been “mapped out in an IEA report on the topic last October”.

The UK’s business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has asked the country’s electricity system operator National Grid “to work with the industry to make sure extra generating capacity not fuelled by gas is available” this winter, in case of disruption to Russia’s supplies to Europe, the Daily Telegraph reports. It says Kwarteng wrote to the owners of the UK’s remaining coal-fired power stations last month to ask them to stay open longer than planned. On the frontpage of the Times, political editor Steven Swinford reports: “Six million households could face blackouts this winter because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ministers have been warned.” His article continues: “The Times has been told that the government’s ‘reasonable’ worst-case scenario, which has been drawn up by officials from across Whitehall, says that there could be widespread gas shortages if Russia goes further in cutting off supplies to the EU.” The paper adds: “The government is in talks with Centrica about reopening a natural gas storage facility off the east coast of England, with more than £1bn of subsidies.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that National Grid is “holding emergency talks with energy companies to ramp up gas pipeline capacity after it was forced to turn away crucial shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG)”.

Separately, the Daily Telegraph reports: “Boris Johnson’s plans for a nuclear energy revolution are facing a fresh hurdle after the Austrian government officially raised concerns about the safety of a new reactor design.”

The US and Germany have signed an agreement “to deepen cooperation on shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy in an effort to rein in climate change”, Al Jazeera reports. It details that the deal on Friday “will see the two countries work together to develop and deploy technologies that will speed up that clean energy transition, particularly in the areas of offshore wind power, zero-emissions vehicles and hydrogen”. The article quotes US climate envoy John Kerry saying “both countries aim to reap the benefits of shifting to clean energy early through the creation of new jobs and opportunities for businesses in the growing market for renewables”.

Elsewhere, Deutsche Welle reports that Germany’s development minister Svenja Schulze, during her visit to Ukraine, pledged increased civilian support for reconstruction efforts and called out Vladimir Putin for blocking the delivery of tens of thousands of tons of Ukrainian grain.

Meanwhile, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that German labour minister Hubertus Heil has proposed a new benefit for low earners, described as “social climate money”. Tagesspiegel Background quotes a representative of the Green party supporting the suggestion and saying that “climate money agreed in the coalition agreement is a key instrument for making climate protection social by paying the income from the CO2 price directly back to the people”.

In addition, Reuters reports that German economy minister Robert Habeck has expressed fears that the European Union’s unity is “starting to crumble” ahead of a summit to discuss an oil embargo against Russia and plans to cut dependence on Russian energy. The outlet explains that “EU leaders will meet on Monday and Tuesday to discuss a new sanctions package against Russia, which could also include an oil embargo, and a programme aiming to speed up ending dependence on fossil fuels, including Russian gas”.

Finally, the Guardian carries news about judges from Germany who have visited Peru to determine the level of damage to a Lake Palcacocha caused by “Europe’s largest emitter” – Germany’s largest electricity provider, RWE, in a case that it says could set a precedent for legal claims over human-caused global heating. (See Carbon Brief’s guest post from 2021 about the case.)

The effects of climate change could knock at least 7.4% off UK GDP by 2100, the Times reports, citing findings from the London School of Economics. It reports: “The study says that if countries do not strengthen their climate policies, the climate will warm by 3.9C by 2100…The paper’s authors also found that if Britain were to reach net-zero by 2050, and the world by 2075, then warming could be limited to 2.1C and the cost of climate change to the country could be limited to 2.4% of GDP by 2100.” BusinessGreen also covers the report, saying “climate action could boost UK GDP by 9.1%”.

Seven London-listed energy groups have lost a combined £4bn over the past week as details emerged of the government’s windfall tax plans, the Times reports. It adds that this includes electricity generators. The paper says companies “can only claim relief [from the tax] for investment in oil and gas, even though Shell and BP have said that they intend to focus the majority of their combined £43bn UK investment plans this decade on low-carbon energy”. It also quotes the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying the tax relief for North Sea investment could encourage “economically unviable projects”. The Washington Post also covers the windfall tax plans, while the Guardian reports: “Shell says windfall tax threatens North Sea oil and gas investment”. It adds: “Firm says [chancellor Rishi] Sunak’s levy creates uncertainty and asks for tax relief that covers investment in renewables”. The Independent reports: “Rishi Sunak’s new tax relief on investment in oil and gas extraction in the UK will cost the taxpayer around £1.9bn a year, it has been claimed.” It adds: “The tax relief that has been widely criticised by green groups, opposition politicians and even oil executives also risks shortchanging the public further down the road, according to the New Economics Foundation (NEF) thinktank.”

The Daily Telegraph carries an interview with Louise Kingham, UK head of country for BP, in which she says of the windfall tax “we don’t think that’s helpful”. The article says: “Despite its overall plans to cut oil and gas production, BP has still been developing projects in the North Sea, submitting plans in April to the environmental regulator to develop its Murlach field 126 miles north-east of Aberdeen. Regulators are bringing in a new climate compatibility checklist for new oil and gas projects in line with the push to cut emissions, although ministers are considering relaxing the rules to take into account energy security as markets are disrupted by Russia’s war on Ukraine.”

A comment for the Times by Mark Littlewood, director-general of free-market thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs, says the windfall tax is “anything but simple, or sensible”. A Daily Telegraph comment by columnist Juliet Samuel says the windfall tax “sends a message to investors that the UK is not a place capable of making difficult trade-offs to fix our energy mess”.

An editorial in the Observer reflects on the 50-year anniversary this week of the UN environment conference held in Stockholm, saying it was “the first world forum to focus on the issues involved in caring for Earth’s oceans, land and forests and led directly to the creation of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)”. The paper says this week will also mark the 30-year anniversary of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, adding that these “hallmark events marked a transition in political thinking”. It goes on to argue that, on multiple environmental measures, the world has “fared badly…despite the clear warnings expressed at these summits”. Yet it says it would be “unfair” to judge the summits as “failures” because things “could have been worse”. It concludes: “Rio and Stockholm raised the alarm about the incremental crisis that we face. By remembering that warning, we can, even at this late stage, avert the worst impacts of the global catastrophe that looms in front of us.”

An article for the Guardian by veteran environment correspondent Geoffrey Lean recalls the events that led to the Stockholm summit being called and the “glacial” progress made since it happened. In the Daily Telegraph, columnist Janet Daley bemoans the “ideological movement, strong among the greens, that regards prosperity as bad and progress as an end-of-the-world threat”.

An editorial in the Washington Post says the coming hurricane season is forecast to include 14 to 21 named storms and three to six in Category 3 or above, adding: “This would be yet another in a series of abnormal seasons.” It continues: “Predicting climate change’s effects on hurricanes has long been controversial…But there is increasingly little doubt that human-caused warming is heating ocean-surface temperatures, which fuel big storms. The result appears to be stronger hurricanes.” The editorial goes on to argue that Congress “must act on major climate legislation” and governments “must prepare for the impacts that are already in the pipeline”. It concludes: “Humanity cannot afford to dawdle.”

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal says “green energy policies are making the nation’s electric-power grid increasingly unstable”. It says: “Progressives blame the grid problems on climate change. There’s no doubt that drought in the western US is a contributing factor…But the US has experienced bad droughts in the past. The problem now is the loss of baseload generators that can provide reliable power 24/7.” The piece continues: “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman Richard Glick last week brushed aside NERC’s warnings: ‘I think the argument about going back to the way it used to be 30 years ago – that’s not going to happen,’ he said. ‘We’re moving forward’ with the green energy transition. Believe it or not, FERC is the agency in charge of ensuring the grid is reliable.”

In other comment from the US, the Los Angeles Times carries an article under the headline: “My family sees climate change in the Arctic. Here’s how we’ve learned to take action.”

A comment for the Financial Times by columnist Martin Sandbu looks at the £15bn policy package launched last week by the UK government to address high energy prices. He writes: “Addressing the cost of living crisis is [European governments’] most acute political imperative. It is tempting to do so with short-term solutions. But this risks aggravating even greater medium-term challenges: the carbon transition and the need to resist Russian president Vladimir Putin’s designs on the balance of power in Europe. Both require fundamental reform of our energy systems, not financial sticking plasters.” Sandbu criticises caps on energy prices, such as the UK’s, and says that “trying to blunt fundamental relative price signals…is bound to store up problems”. He adds that it “increase demand for fossil energy – and by extension for energy sold by Russia – and reduces the incentive to invest in renewables”. Instead, he calls for direct financial support for the vulnerable and structural reform of energy markets. He says the “sticking plaster” UK plan announced last week has “far too little in the way of investment in a smarter energy system” and “fails badly as a sustainable solution to our problems”.

A Bloomberg feature on the UK’s energy policy interventions over the past year is titled: “Why Britain is spending £37bn to make energy-supply crisis worse.” Separately, the Press Association reports: “The energy crisis has increased the number of people who are thinking about upgrading their homes to ensure that less heat leaks out, new data show.”

A Financial Times “Big Read” says “rightwing populists and industry sceptics are mounting a backlash against a vision for business that looks beyond profits”. It points to scepticism of “ESG” indices and “sustainable investing”, quoting critics describing them as “greenwashing” or a “dangerous placebo”. It also notes how prominent Republican politicians in the US have attacked ESG and “stakeholder capitalism” as “woke capitalism”. Yet it concludes: “Most Davos delegates are still persuaded by the commercial opportunity represented by at least the ‘E’ in ESG. The need to finance the transition to low-emissions technologies heralds what McKinsey consultants have dubbed ‘the largest reallocation of capital in human history’. Several also believe their new social positioning helps attract and retain talent.”

In related news, the Daily Telegraph reports: “The head of one of HSBC’s biggest shareholders has said that employees should be encouraged to voice dissenting views after the bank suspended an executive who railed against climate ‘nut jobs’.”

Separately, the Observer carries an interview with Lord Browne, the former head of BP who is now “championing green energy as an investor – and also backing a windfall tax on his old industry”. The Guardian carries an interview with Caroline Dennett, a “consultant who ditched Shell”. It says: “She believes Shell is failing to wind down its polluting fossil fuels business and urged its employees to ‘walk away while there’s still time’.”

Stranded fossil fuel assets are worth more than US$1tn globally, according to new research. The authors calculate the present value of future lost profits in the upstream oil and gas sector, assuming that governments will fulfil their net-zero emissions pledges, by “trac[ing] the equity risk ownership from 43,439 oil and gas production assets through a global equity network of 1.8m companies to their ultimate owners”. The study finds that “most of the market risk falls on private investors”, adding that more than 15% of global stranded asset risk sits with OECD-based investors. A research briefing has been published on this study.

The likelihood of seeing 6-day temperatures more than 2C above the regional average in the Antarctic Peninsula has increased tenfold since 1950–1984, new research finds. In February 2020, an “unprecedented” six-day heatwave was recorded over the Antarctic Peninsula. The authors quantify the role of climate change in the heatwave by using ERA5 reanalysis data to compare the 1950-84 and 1985-2019 periods. They find that “2020-like heatwaves” in the region are now at least 0.4C warmer than in 1950-84. “The aggravated severity of the event can be largely ascribed to long-term summer warming of the Antarctic Peninsula rather than recent atmospheric circulation trends”, the study adds.