The Times reports that “global demand for coal will hit a record high this year but then decline next year, driven by China, the International Energy Agency has forecast”. The newspaper adds: “The IEA predicts that demand will then fall from next year thanks to reductions in China, where it expects to see a recovery in hydropower output as well as significant increases in solar and wind generation.” BusinessGreen says: “The report stresses that while falling coal demand would represent an ‘historic turning point’ the projected rate of decline is still far too slow to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and the newly approved UAE Consensus, which [last] week called for ‘accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power’.” [In November, Carbon Brief reported figures in the IEA’s World Energy Outlook suggesting global coal use had already peaked in 2022. The difference is largely due to the use of different units, measuring coal by weight versus energy content.] The Times of India says this is the first time the IEA’s annual coal market report has predicted a drop in global coal consumption over its forecast period. It adds that within the record total due to be reached this year, demand is expected to drop by around 20% in Europe and the US, while consumption rises by 8% in India and 5% in China “due to rising electricity demand and weak hydropower output”. The paper adds: “However, the report anticipates global coal demand to fall by 2.3% by 2026 compared with 2023 levels, even in the absence of governments announcing and implementing stronger clean energy and climate policies. This decline is expected to be driven by the major expansion of renewable energy capacity.” It continues: “More than half of this global renewable capacity expansion is set to occur in China.” The Hindu says the decline out to 2026 is expected due to a shift to renewables in China, while India “would remain the ‘driving force’” for coal demand. CNN reports: “Global coal demand is likely to have peaked this year, and could drop by about 2% over the next three years as China brings more renewable energy sources online, the International Energy Agency said Friday. It’s the first time the Paris-based agency has predicted a drop in appetite for the dirty fuel over a three-year period.” Reuters notes: “Half of the world’s coal use comes from China, so the outlook for coal will be significantly affected in the coming years by the pace of clean energy deployment, weather conditions, and structural shifts in the Chinese economy, the report said.” Agence France-Presse runs the story with the headline: “Coal use hits record in 2023, Earth’s hottest year.” Forbes, Al Jazeera and Yale E360 also have the story. The Daily Telegraph headlines its coverage: “Coal use to hit a record high in 2023 despite net-zero push.” It quotes the report saying: “This year, China, India and South East Asia are set to account for three-quarters of global consumption, up from only about one-quarter in 1990.” Meanwhile, a Politico feature is titled: “In Poland, coal is no longer king – but its mark remains.”

Separately, Reuters reports: “Energy investments should be informed by the COP28 agreement to accelerate the move away from fossil fuels this decade, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Friday.” It quotes IEA chief Dr Fatih Birol saying: “After COP28, governments, companies, investors, need to tell the people around the world what actions they are taking to move the world away from fossil fuels…This is the main challenge for Baku, COP29, which will be the top priority for the International Energy Agency to discuss with the global leaders and the presidency of COP29.”

The amount of new solar capacity installed in China in the first 10 months of 2023 “surged almost two-and-a-half-fold” from a year earlier, the most rapid rate in the past decade, says the Chinese financial outlet Yicai. It quotes Wang Bohua, the honorary chair of the China photovoltaic industry association, saying that this is due to the “significant decrease in raw material prices”, resulting in “increased orders”. Chinese outlet Jiemian quotes Wang as saying that global solar investments will “reach $382bn in 2023, exceeding those in petroleum for the first time in history”. Chinese outlet Caixin’s “Energy Insider” reports that Chinese solar power capacity has “soar[ed] 405% over six years”. Chinese industry outlet BJX News reports that, in November, the production of major energy products continued to grow “year-on-year”, with the production of raw coal reaching “410m tonnes, a year-on-year growth of 4.6%”. Compared to October, the growth rates of raw coal, crude oil, gas and electricity production have “all accelerated”, the outlet adds. Bloomberg says that China’s steel output is set to achieve its first yearly increase in three years as “as economic concerns are prioritised over the need to cut emissions from the highly pollutive sector”. 

Meanwhile, Bloomberg says that the US treasury secretary Janet Yellen has announced her plan to visit China “again in 2024”. The Chinese Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily says that the US inflation reduction act, which bars electric cars from qualifying for full tax breaks if battery components were manufactured or assembled by countries including China, has severely “disrupted global industrial and supply chains and heightened the risk of a fragmented global economy”. The Financial Times writes that “decades of inaction in policymaking to ensure access to critical minerals has left the UK vulnerable to China’s dominance of raw materials”, according to a cross-party group of MPs. 

In other news, Reuters reports that China’s president Xi Jinping called last Friday for “all-out” emergency response efforts as a cold wave tightened its hold on China, with temperatures “falling below freezing across most of the country and snowfall affecting transport in many places”. The Chinese industry outlet China Energy News quotes local staff in Shangxi province at the Chinese state-owned electric utility corporation the State Grid, involved in emergency power restoration during a blizzard, as saying that “the situation of ice covering the power lines is too severe. Many lines are installed on mountains, and due to icy roads, repair vehicles find it challenging to access.” Agence France-Presse reports on the freezing conditions and adds: “The freezing temperatures follow a summer of record heat and devastating flooding in northern China, as climate experts warn of an increased risk of extreme weather caused by global warming.”

Finally, BJX News cites an interview by UN News with Wang Yi, an expert at the China delegation at the COP28 and deputy director of the national committee of experts on climate change (note that this is a different person from the director of the office of the foreign affairs commission of the communist party of China, also called Wang Yi). The outlet quotes Wang saying that China, “in order to enhance the response capabilities to climate change, especially in dealing with major disasters in large cities nationwide, has received approval from the standing committee of the national people’s congress to allocate 1tn yuan ($140bn) over a two-year period”.

Two NGOs, Uplift and Greenpeace, have launched separate legal action against the UK government’s approval for the Rosebank oil field in the North Sea, the Guardian reports. It explains: “Greenpeace and the campaign group Uplift argue that the decision to press ahead with the Rosebank development – the UK’s biggest untapped oilfield – is incompatible with the UK’s legally binding climate commitments, and say ministers’ original analysis ignored the devastating impact of burning oil from the site.” The paper quotes the government saying: “The UK is a world leader in reaching net-zero – cutting emissions faster than any other major economy – and, as the independent Climate Change Committee [CCC] recognises, we will still need oil and gas as part of our energy mix.” It goes on to quote the CCC saying: “The UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches net-zero, but this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields.” The Financial Times says the two NGOs “will apply separately to Edinburgh’s Court of Session, Scotland’s highest civil court, for a judicial review of the North Sea Transition Authority’s decision” to approve the Rosebank development. The paper says: “In their application to Scotland’s top civil court, the groups said that approving the development of Rosebank was unlawful because it ignored the impact of emissions from burning its oil and was not compatible with the UK’s plans to cut greenhouse emissions. They added that UK taxpayers would carry almost all the risk from the project while the companies receive around £3bn in tax relief.” Bloomberg notes that the development is not due to start pumping oil until “at least 2026”. It adds: “Intended daily production of 70,000 barrels of oil and 21m cubic feet of gas, planned for 2027, would make it one of the largest fields in the UK – but a minnow in a world where daily demand exceeds 100m barrels.” The Times and the Daily Telegraph also have the story.

In other news from the UK, Reuters reports that the Treasury “said on Monday it would implement a new import carbon pricing mechanism by 2027, with goods imported from countries with a lower or no carbon price having to pay a levy as part of decarbonisation efforts”. It continues: “The government said the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) would apply to carbon intensive products in the iron, steel, aluminium, fertiliser, hydrogen, ceramics, glass and cement sectors.” [This mirrors the sectors covered by the EU CBAM.] Separately, the Press Association reports: “Action on climate change could become a ‘wedge issue’ at the next election – despite four in 10 saying they back stronger action on net-zero, a new poll has suggested.” It continues: “The poll comes three months after Rishi Sunak watered down a number of net-zero policies, claiming they were unaffordable and risked alienating public opinion. The KCL poll found the public divided on whether the prime minister [Rishi Sunak] had made the right decision, with 46% saying he had and 35% saying he had not. Although 2019 Conservative voters were much more likely to say Sunak had made the right decision, those who had since stopped supporting the party were twice as likely to see he had got it wrong as those who still backed the Tories.” Elsewhere, the Financial Times reports: “British households have built up record debts of £3bn with electricity and gas suppliers, according to figures released on Friday, highlighting the impact of the ongoing cost of living crisis with energy bills still relatively high.” It continues: “The cost of electricity and gas has fallen since last winter when record wholesale energy prices triggered by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine pushed the price cap as high as £4,059, prompting the government to step in to support households. But the ending of those subsidies has left many households still struggling to pay their energy bills. Although wholesale gas and electricity prices have fallen they remain above pre-crisis levels.” The Press Association says energy regulator Ofgem “has unveiled plans to lift the energy price cap from April next year in order to help suppliers recover nearly £3bn in debts from customers who cannot pay their bills”. Separately, the Financial Times reports: “National Grid has started removing components supplied by a Chinese state-backed company from Britain’s electricity transmission network over cyber security fears, according to two people familiar with the matter.” Finally, the Daily Mail reports: “Labour today denied claims it will introduce a new windfall tax to fund its green spending plans if it wins the next election. Reports suggested that the party was looking at another punitive strike on business as it seeks ways to fund its £28bn-per year plan to make Britain more green.” The paper quotes a Conservative government minister claiming the opposition Labour Party will raise taxes – and Labour leader Keir Starmer saying higher growth would fund the spending. A related Daily Mail editorial repeats the government minister’s claim as part of an article attacking Starmer.

Construction at the Hinkley Point C new nuclear plant in Somerset in the southwest of the UK has “reached a big milestone”, the Press Association reports, with the domed roof of the first reactor building being lifted into place. The newswire says this will allow the first of two reactors to be installed from next year. BBC News says the first reactor will be “ready to switch on in June 2027”. It adds that ground was first broken at the site in March 2017, noting: “[Developers EDF, the French state-backed utility firm] have faced delays from Covid restrictions and the budget has doubled to £33bn, so getting the roof on the first of the two reactor buildings is a big deal.” The Daily Telegraph says the crane used to lift the roof into place is the “world’s largest”, is named “Big Carl” and is “three-quarters the height of the Shard”, the tallest building in western Europe.

Barclays bank “is in danger of losing its prestigious position as the bank of Cambridge University after more than 200 years, as students and staff lobby for a greener lender”, the Financial Times reports. Citing “a document seen by the FT” it says the university “has notified banks and asset managers that it is looking for an institution with robust climate policies to manage ‘several hundred million pounds’ in cash and money market funds”. The paper continues: “Unlike many of its peers, Barclays has refused to stop financing new oil and gas projects and the bank remained the top European funder of fossil fuels between 2016 and 2022, according to a report by the Rainforest Action Network.” The Guardian picks up the FT story.

Heatwave conditions in several Australian states “prompted the nation’s weather forecaster to issue bushfire warnings”, Reuters reports. It says “more than 50 fires were burning on Saturday”. The newswire adds: “The hot weather lifts the risk of bushfires in an already high-risk fire season amid an El Niño weather event, which is typically associated with extreme events such as wildfires, cyclones and droughts…Meanwhile in Queensland, ex-Tropical Cyclone Jasper, which tore through the state’s northeast this week, was forecast to bring more heavy rain and possible flooding in areas near the tourist town of Cairns.” The Guardian says all of the fires in the Australian state of New South Wales “were under control or being controlled”. Axios says “hundreds” of people have been rescued in northern Australia “as heavy rains from ex-Tropical Cyclone Jasper lashed the region”. It notes: “Climate change is causing extreme precipitation events to be more intense and frequent.” It quotes Prof Steve Turton writing in the Conversation that the current flooding is happening during El Niño conditions “when tropical cyclones are much less likely to occur in the Australian region”. It quotes Turton adding: “The atmosphere and oceans are warming due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, largely caused by burning fossil fuels…this has led to a greater risk of extreme rainfall and flooding, such as the events we’re seeing now in Far North Queensland.” (Turton’s article is titled: “North Queensland’s record-breaking floods are a frightening portent of what’s to come under climate change.”) Separately, RealClimate says: “This year’s (2023) tropical cyclone season in the North Atlantic and Caribbean witnessed a relatively high number of named tropical cyclones: 20. In spite of the current El Niño, which tends to give lower numbers. But it appears to follow a historical trend for named tropical cyclones with an increasing number over time.” Meanwhile, Reuters reports: “The Panama Canal on Friday said it will increase the number of booking slots available in its Panamax and Neopanamax locks, after a severe drought caused one of the world’s main maritime trade routes to reduce ship crossings.”

New rules entering force in 2024 are set to limit the number of electric vehicle (EV) models that qualify for US tax credits, the New York Times reports. It says the rules are “intended to encourage automakers to manufacture vehicles and parts in North America, while bypassing China”. It adds: “Most automakers are still years away from breaking their dependence on China for batteries and essential materials like refined lithium.” The paper says: “The rules are complex and could still be modified by administration officials, leading to confusion among industry executives. In the worst case, only a handful of vehicles will qualify…The list of eligible vehicles could grow over the course of 2024 as carmakers ramp up US production to qualify for the credits and other subsidies.” The Financial Times reports: “Washington has raised concerns with Mexico over an imminent wave of Chinese investment into the country, as three of China’s largest electric-vehicle makers prepare to build factories south of the US border…The investment push, which could give producers in China a valuable foothold in the region, puts Latin America’s second-largest economy in the middle of the US-China trade war.” Separately, Reuters reports: “A group representing major automakers urged the Biden administration to make significant changes to three proposed vehicle rules, warning they could force car companies to hastily stop building some gas[oline]-powered vehicles.” It adds: “The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, in a previously unreported letter to three cabinet agencies and the White House dated Wednesday and seen by Reuters, warned the proposed rules ‘could prematurely force abandonment of many internal combustion engine vehicles and their associated revenue, reducing the availability of capital necessary for automakers to fund the EV transition.’” In other US news, Inside Climate News reports: “The Biden administration’s latest lease offering for offshore wind projects doesn’t allocate adequate acreage for Maryland and other mid-Atlantic states to achieve their legally binding emissions reduction and clean energy targets, industry groups and environmental advocates say.” Meanwhile, the Hill reports: “Canada is expected to announce new regulations this week that will require all vehicles sold in the country to be zero-emissions by 2035, according to news reports.” 

Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, has voted for an increase in the CO2 price for gasoline, “natural” gas and heating oil, from €30 to €45 per tonne, reports Die Zeit. The revenue from the CO2 price will go into the “climate and transformation fund” (KTF), which was left with “a €60bn hole” after a recent ruling by the country’s constitutional court, reports EurActiv. It adds that the German coalition government has, says economy minister Robert Habeck, resolved its internal disagreements on how to close a gap of €17bn in the 2024 budget by reducing planned subsidies for the solar industry, as well as phasing out earlier than planned a bonus for consumers who buy an electric car. The cuts will also affect a €5.5bn support package aimed at cutting consumer grid fees for electricity, notes the outlet. Voice of America reports that, according to the Handelsblatt business daily, scrapping an electric car subsidy scheme risks jeopardising Germany’s plans to get 15m electric cars on the road by 2030. “The competitiveness of [auto] manufacturers will now be severely damaged,” car expert Ferdinand Dudenhöffer tells the Rheinische Post newspaper. 

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Habeck says he aims to replace a subsidy for solar panel manufacturers that “fell victim” to a court ruling last month scrapping swathes of the budget, arguing that support is needed “to compete with Chinese manufacturers”. RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND) quotes Habeck emphasising that German solar products often meet higher standards, “avoiding toxic substances and demonstrating high efficiency”. While industry representatives and the EU are also considering incentives for solar panel manufacturers, Habeck is urging immediate action at the national level, notes RND. Finally, Politico reports: “German finance minister Christian Lindner announced plans to reform the country’s debt rules to allow more spending in times of economic downturn…Yet Lindner, who is from the fiscally conservative Free Democratic Party (FDP), stressed that he does not endorse broader changes to the debt rule, such as exempting investments in climate protection from the spending restrictions. The FDP’s coalition partners, chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats and the Greens’ economy minister Robert Habeck, have called for such broader reforms.”

Voters will elect new governments in countries representing more than 40% of the world’s population in 2024, writes Bloomberg columnist David Fickling. He continues: “In places, that offers the prospect to break gridlocks on climate and energy policies. In others, it may offer an opportunity for a climate-denying backlash. Far too few places show a decent chance of accelerating the transition to clean energy in the way advocated by the COP28 agreement.” Fickling goes on to review the situation in key countries. In India and Indonesia, he says efforts to promote a switch to low-carbon energy have been “stymied” by “coal’s deep political, economic and social roots”, adding: “Elections aren’t likely to change that dynamic.” He continues: “Prospects are moderately better in two other leading emerging markets equally wedded to fossil fuels: Mexico and South Africa…In Bangladesh and Pakistan, incumbent governments have favoured energy policies wedded to imported natural gas.” In Taiwan, Fickling notes: “It’s an open question whether either side will succeed in implementing their green energy policies.” He adds: “South Korea also has legislative ballots in April, but they’re unlikely to break the gridlock that has pitted the unpopular centre-right president Yoon Suk Yeol against a more climate-focused assembly for the past two years.” Looking elsewhere, Fickling writes: “The core developed countries of North America and Europe may be the place where major change is most likely, but in most cases the mood music isn’t positive for climate action. Right-wing, climate-denialist parties in Europe such as the Alternative for Germany and Dutch PVV have seen strong performances in recent opinion surveys and votes. Even so, it’s likely the left-right coalition in the European Parliament will remain in control even if such factions make a strong showing in elections due 9 June.” He concludes: “The UK probably offers the best prospect of major positive change, with opposition leader Keir Starmer well ahead in the polls. He’s promised to turn the country into a ‘clean energy superpower’, in stark contrast to prime minister Rishi Sunak, who has torn up his predecessors’ green-tinged policies…Set against that, however, is the most substantive climate poll of the year, the US presidential election due 5 November.”

The New York Times interviews US climate envoy John Kerry, who says the deal agreed at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels is “the most important decision since the Paris Agreement”. It quotes him telling the paper: “I think ‘transitioning away’ offered certain parties a way to feel like they were being somewhat listened to and that their concerns were being addressed, because there was a drop-dead refusal from several quarters not to accept a phase-out.” The paper says: “Many island nations criticised the final deal, saying it doesn’t go far enough. But Kerry said the willingness of countries – even those that are major exporters of oil – to acknowledge that the era of fossil fuels must eventually come to an end underscored the ‘urgency’ of the deal.” It says Kerry rejected the idea that post-COP28 comments from oil producers reflect “loopholes” in the outcome, quoting his response: “Can they sell their crude today, tomorrow, next week, next year? Sure…[But t]hey’re going to, like everybody else, have to transition away from fossil fuels.” It quotes him continuing: “You can speak with bravado and say, Yeah, we’ll continue to make some investments…But if people do what they’ve pledged to do, this will be a diminishing effort over time. And there’ll be more and more investments going toward renewable, clean energy.”

For the New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert asks what COP28 “really accomplish[ed]”. She concludes: “what matters is not what language countries agree to but what they actually do”. Teresa Anderson, Action Aid’s global lead on climate justice, writes for Climate Home News: “Countries on the front lines of the climate crisis fear that they are still being left to carry the costs, and sink beneath the waves. This global deal has to work for everyone, or it won’t work for any of us.” The Hill has a piece titled: “Petrol states are hosting climate summits. Maybe that’s not a bad thing?” For Politico, Daniel Litvin, founder of Critical Resource and visiting senior fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at LSE writes: “Future negotiations should focus more on reshaping incentives for oil and gas producing countries, and less on fulminating at their villainy.” In the Independent, former BBC News environment and energy analyst Roger Harrabin writes: “The UK and US are climate hypocrites – why do we expect oil states to be any better?” For the Guardian, the paper’s climate and environment editor for Australia Adam Morton writes under the headline: “COP28 has finally named fossil fuels as the climate problem. But do leaders have the will to act?” Also in the Independent, Conservative peer Lord Zac Goldsmith and chief executive of Conservation International M Sanjayan writes about: “why nature must be at the heart of climate decision-making”.

A Financial Times “big read” looks at “the new climate commitments that really count” from COP28. It says these are pledges to triple renewable energy capacity and double the rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, as well as the pledge from oil and gas companies to “cut emissions from their own operations”, which the paper says is “noteworthy”. The paper says: “Even if all three commitments are met, the IEA [International Energy Agency] has made the dismal calculation that this would only amount to about 30% of the emissions cuts needed to put the world on track for the Paris agreement goal to limit warming to 1.5C. In other words, as with so much else in global climate policy, COP28 has taken an important step forward, but it is still not close to the giant strides the world needs.” In the New York Times, columnist David Wallace-Wells writes: “The question isn’t about whether there will be a transition, but how fast, global and thorough it will be. The answer is: not fast or global or thorough enough yet, at least on the current trajectories, which COP28 effectively affirmed.” He says that COP28 “may well be remembered as the moment the climate world finally gave up on the goal of limiting warming to 1.5C”. Reuters reports the response of climate activist Greta Thunberg, telling the newswire: “This text is toothless and it is nowhere even close to being sufficient to keep us within the 1.5C limit…It is a stab in the back for those most vulnerable.” Ice Blog runs a piece titled: “Why Dubai’s COP28 was bad news for the world’s ice and all those whose future depends on it.”

In the Boston Globe, Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development and adjunct professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, writes a comment with Paul Bledsoe, professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy. The pair say: “The fastest, safest, and least expensive way to limit warming over the next two decades is to cut methane, a super climate pollutant 80 times more powerful in warming than carbon dioxide.” Analysis for Reuters asks: “What are the loopholes in the COP28 climate deal?” It points to carbon capture and storage, “transitional fuels” – taken to mean gas – and the scope of “energy systems” where countries agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels, which does not cover the whole economy. Climate Home News reports on the “transitional fuel” text in the COP28 outcome under the headline: “How Russia won a ‘dangerous loophole’ for fossil gas at COP28.” Bloomberg carries a behind-the-scenes take titled: “How the world’s first deal to ditch fossil fuels was forged at COP28.” In the New York Times, columnist Peter Coy discusses the “majlis” held at the summit and whether, as COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber claimed, it had “made the difference”. He concludes: “I don’t want to overstate the accomplishments of COP28. It leaves a lot of wiggle room. Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the Saudi energy minister, is claiming that the agreement ‘left space for countries to choose their own way’ on fossil fuels. I also don’t want to make too much of the role of the majlis in reaching the deal. The majlis should not be a replacement for democracy but a complement to it. In that role, I think it could be quite useful.” Inside Climate News interviews veteran climate advocate Alden Meyer on the summit. Reuters runs a podcast where its climate reporters discuss “what we learned from the UN climate summit”.

The Financial Times carries a new analysis of the number of people that actually attended COP28, which it puts at “65,000-plus”. It explains: “Early registrations closed at the end of October and initial figures of more than 100,000 were recorded, but about one-third of those indicating their interest did not ultimately attend.” For the Conversation, Alex Dietzel and Katharina Richter argue that the annual COP is “too big and key voices are being crowded out”. They write: “Practically speaking, huge numbers cause problems – this year for example there were delayed meetings, long queues, and several negotiation rooms were beyond capacity with observers and even party delegates asked to limit their numbers and leave.” They suggest virtual participation as an option, though they note this “also has downsides”. The continue: “Another option is to limit access to COPs – for example, limiting the in-person negotiations only to the most vital participants. Party tickets could be limited, with lobbyists from fossil fuel industries tightly controlled and priority given to climate victims, indigenous communities and underrepresented countries.” Also in the Conversation, Alana Malinde SN Lancaster writes under the headline: “How COP28 failed the world’s small islands.” Energy Monitor carries analysis on “how COP28 accelerated the conversation on coal phase-out”. For BusinessGreen, Betrand Piccard of the Solar Impulse Foundation says now the COP is over, business leaders, citizens and governments must work together to cut fossil fuel use. For the South China Morning Post, Chris Pereira, founder and CEO of the North American Ecosystem Institute, writes under the headline: “Face it, China’s clean energy firms are key to COP28 climate goals.”

With the world “almost certain to reach and then exceed” global warming of 1.5C, a new review article looks at the prospects of “ensur[ing] this exceedance is both limited and temporary”. The authors unpack “the origins of temporary overshoot as a concept in the scientific literature as well as its emerging role in international climate policy, the need for a typology of risks that a future decline in temperature would reduce or avoid, and the emission pathways that could achieve a return of global warming levels to below 1.5C, along with their feasibility and implications for climate policy”. Also published in the same issue of the journal are two Q&A articles with scientists Dr Joeri Rogelj and Dr Diana Liverman on a “research agenda for overshoot” and the “human impacts of climate overshoot”, respectively.

The rise in average global sea levels explains at least 84% of long-term increases in days with high-tide flooding along US coastlines, a new study says. The researchers note that US coastlines have experienced “rapid increases” in occurrences of high-tide flooding during recent decades, but there had previously been no formal attribution of the specific causes. Using local sea-level budgets, the researchers find that “spatial patterns in high-tide flooding changes also depend on differences in flooding thresholds and water level characteristics”. 

“Transcontinental power pools”, which enable electricity to be traded between countries, could allow renewable energy to meet 100% of future electricity demand while also reducing costs by up to 23% by 2050, according to new research. The authors combine an electricity planning model and renewable resource maps, and find that without power pools, renewables may be unable to meet 12% of global demand. “Our results highlight the benefits of expanding regional transmission networks in highly decarbonised but land-constrained future electricity systems,” the authors conclude.