Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions released from forest fires have increased by 60% around the world since 2001, as “more and bigger blazes tore through fast-warming regions outside the tropics”, according to a new study covered by Bloomberg. Emissions from fires in the northern boreal forest, which stretches across Russia and North America, have seen a particularly significant uptick – tripling over the past 20 years, the article adds. Warmer weather and faster-growing forests, which provide more material to burn, are the two main contributors, and both are attributable to global warming, which is happening at a faster rate in northern regions, the article continues. In the previous century, deforestation in tropical forests such as the Amazon and Congo rainforests was the largest contributor to emissions from forests, according to the New York Times. However, the newspaper says that the new study explains how “so much of the boreal forests burned…that they offset the tropics’ slightly declining emissions during the same time period“. In its coverage, the Irish Times points out that these forests “play a crucial role” in meeting international climate targets, with reforestation and afforestation schemes being used to remove emissions from the atmosphere, often in an attempt to “offset” hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation and certain industries. “The success of these schemes relies on carbon being stored in forests permanently, and wildfires threaten that,” it adds. The authors of the study have an article in the Conversation, in which they conclude that “limiting the burning of fossil fuels is central to minimising future fire risk. Without drastic cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, more severe and widespread forest fires are likely”.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press covers a new report by the Foundation for Conservation and Sustainable Development, which warns that armed groups, notably Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) dissidents, are stalling efforts by the Colombian government to tackle deforestation in the Amazon.

New York state prosecutors could press criminal charges against big oil companies for their role in contributing to the strength of hurricanes and other climate-related disasters, the Guardian reports. It cites a new prosecution memorandum, written by lawyers at consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and the progressive prosecutors network Fair and Just Prosecution, which has been endorsed by elected officials across the state. The document details the impact of hurricanes and extreme heat in New York and across the US, and point to what the newspaper calls “a growing body of evidence shows that big oil knew about the climate dangers of its products but promoted them to the public anyway”. The outlet adds that the memo suggests this proposal could open the door for New York prosecutors to bring charges against individual oil executives. Specifically, Politico says the groups in question have suggested using the state’s “reckless endangerment” law against fossil fuel producers, which applies to someone engaging in reckless conduct that risks injuring or killing another person without specifically intending to do so. It quotes the memorandum, which states that “victims of climate disasters deserve justice no less than the victims of street-level crimes”.

Meanwhile, in Canada, CBC News reports that Ontario’s top court has ordered a new hearing for a constitutional challenge of the provincial government’s emissions target, led by a group of young people. The article explains that this is the first Canadian case to consider whether a government’s climate change policies have the potential to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects people’s rights to life, liberty and security. Experts tell Reuters that the case “could reverberate in Canada, where it could open the door to fresh litigation, and globally, where it could be cited in other cases”.

Finally, Mongabay reports that a group of 28 NGOs has written to 34 banks, insurance companies and the Chinese government, urging them to reject financing and other support for oil and gas projects in Uganda. The groups, which include 27 from across Africa and one US organisation, cite human rights violations and environmental harms at oil projects in the country.

Shanghai’s local government has issued an action plan allowing some “renewable energy power [electricity] generation companies” – mainly “centralised wind, solar and biomass power generation companies” – to participate in local “green electricity trade”, Chinese industry news outlet BJX News reports. Registered “distributed (or decentralised) wind and solar power generation companies” can also participate if they have “met the basic condition”, the outlet says. The plan also laid out a pricing mechanism that is determined by “market-based electricity prices and the price of Green Electricity Certificates (GECs)”, it adds. (China has allowed “all types of renewable energy projects” to participate in GECs since August 2023. Read more in a Carbon Brief China Briefing from August.) 

Meanwhile, China has invited the EU’s negotiation team to the country “to continue the next phase of consultations” over the tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), according to the Global Times. It accuses the EU of “not [demonstrating] sufficient sincerity and [resorting] to tactics that may have undermined the talks”, citing sources close to the matter. China is also mulling “higher tariffs on car imports”, Wall Street Journal reports. British foreign secretary David Lammy is expected to visit China this week and discuss issues including “trade and climate change”, Bloomberg reports. A China Daily commentary by John Quelch, executive vice-chancellor of Duke Kunshan University, and David Gosset, founder of the China-Europe-America Global Initiative, calls Lammy’s visit “a new start for China-UK ties”.

Elsewhere, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment has issued a notice soliciting views on “strengthening the ecological and environmental protection” in the construction of land-based wind and solar projects in the country, BJX News says in a separate report. In an explainer, financial news outlet Caixin cites “long-distance transmission”, “limited capacity of the distribution networks,” and “demand outstripping supply” challenges to integrate renewable energy into China’s power grid. It adds that the construction of ultra-high-voltage transmission lines “has been slow and not enough of them have been planned”.

In other news, state-run newspaper China Daily says an agri-food conference in Beijing has called for “technological innovations…to curb carbon emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change on food production”. The surge in China’s steel exports, which hit an “eight-year high last month”, has sparked concerns that “it could intensify trade tensions”, Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reports. Canada’s National Observer posts a commentary by ​​investigative journalist Sandra Bartlett, who argues that while Chinese investment made “green technological advancements affordable for the rest of the world”, it did so through “artificially lowering prices such that the solar industry in the US and [EU] was wiped out”. And Richard Cullen, adjunct professor at the law faculty of the University of Hong Kong, warns in a comment article for China Daily that “fevered trepidations about the so-called China Threat theory have…pushed aside concerns [about climate change]”.

Germany is planning €16bn in state guarantees to boost its wind industry “amid concerns from European governments and companies over Chinese firms gaining momentum in the sector”, Reuters reports. The outlet quotes the German economy minister Robert Habeck as saying: “We must continue improving conditions to keep this industry competitive and ensure future value creation within Germany and Europe.” Bloomberg also covers the story, noting that, earlier this year, a German offshore wind developer chose a Chinese manufacturer to supply turbines for a North Sea project, which triggered government “scrutiny” and “backlash” from European Union industry representatives. The outlet notes that the region’s solar industry has already been “damaged” by competition with cheap Chinese solar panels. 

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel reports that the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) has calculated that a “scrappage scheme” targeting the decommissioning of 8m combustion-engine cars could help Germany meet its climate goals. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) adds that car traffic accounts for 60% of transport emissions, with Germany’s fleet of 49m vehicles being the largest in Europe. The ICCT model proposes scrapping diesel cars more than 15 years old and gasoline cars more than 25 years old, reducing traffic-related CO2 emissions to 64m tonnes by 2030. However, FAZ notes that this measure would cost an estimated €35bn.

In addition, Börsen-Zeitung reports growing “discontent” in the German automotive sector over new 2027 battery production rules under the EU Battery Regulation. The article explains that the carbon footprint will be calculated using the national electricity mix instead of the electricity used on site, and renewable energy certificates will no longer count. Meanwhile, Merkur adds that the expansion of renewables in Germany is “progressing slowly” and by phasing out nuclear power, Germany “is limiting its access to nuclear energy”, which has recently been classified as “green”.

The UK press features various previews of the Labour government’s upcoming autumn budget, with the Daily Mail reporting that chancellor Rachel Reeves will not renew a “temporary” 5p cut in fuel duty, which is due to end in March next year. She is also thinking about restoring the annual fuel duty rise, ending a freeze that has lasted for 14 years under the Conservatives, the newspaper adds. This would mean a 7p rise in fuel duty per litre, which the newspaper says would add £3.85 to the cost of filling up an average family car. (Carbon Brief has covered the continuous freeze on fuel duty and its impact on emissions, estimating in 2023 that cuts and freezes in fuel duty since 2010 means the UK’s CO2 emissions are as much as 7% higher than they would have been otherwise.)

Reeves is also considering scrapping “unfair” tax breaks for workers who buy electric cars, following claims that they disproportionately benefit wealthy people who can afford to buy new cars, according to the Daily Telegraph. However, the newspaper adds that “car industry bosses warned that removing salary sacrifice tax relief would deal a hammer blow to the shift to electric vehicles at a time when ministers are trying to encourage uptake”.

The Guardian has an explainer about Great British Energy, the new public-owned company that is at the heart of the Labour government’s pitch to decarbonise the UK’s power sector by 2030. It says that “with £8.3bn in new government investment, GB Energy is one of the few new spending commitments Labour is planning, amid consternation among ministers over swingeing cuts elsewhere”.

Claire Coutinho, the Conservative secretary for energy security and net-zero under the previous government, has penned an article for the Times in which she publicly reverses her party’s previous position on the controversial Drax biomass power plant. She points to the high emissions associated with burning wood pellets imported from the US, and also the high costs of energy from the plant, due in part to government subsidies. More broadly, Coutinho lays the blame for her own support for Drax while in government at the feet of the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets, which she states were “kickstarted by [Labour net-zero secretary] Ed Miliband in 2008 and, admittedly, continued by successive Conservative governments”. Government support for Drax has “persisted” because Drax is meant to become a “first-of-a-kind” bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plant, she writes, which could help the UK meet its sixth carbon budget by theoretically removing emissions from the atmosphere. “Without Drax we cannot meet that target, which would then legally require us to set out unacceptable alternatives that come with hefty price tags or force behavioural change on an unwilling public,” Coutinho says. She argues that these carbon budget targets are “having increasingly perverse effects, as centrally planned systems inevitably do”. Coutinho concludes by implying that climate policies could raise bills and lead to companies relocating to countries with slacker environmental laws, stating that “the BECCS conundrum is a perfect example of why the system needs a rethink”. The Times also has a news article based on Coutinho’s comments. It includes comments from Duncan Brack, a biomass expert at the Chatham House thinktank, who says the new Conservative stance was surprising but welcome, adding: “When they were in government, they gave no indication of any doubts about the value of BECCS…I don’t understand what’s caused them to change their views so radically.” He says BECCS likely has a “small role” to play in meeting the UK’s climate targets, but that the Drax project is not sustainable and forest expansion and peatland protection would be better options for removing emissions.

Elsewhere in UK comment pages, Daily Telegraph columnist Andrew Lilico casts doubt on the Labour government’s aspirations to build data centres in the UK, citing the country’s slow progress building nuclear reactors. “Perhaps in due course a mix of wind, solar and wave power, supplemented by peak demand gas production (with carbon capture and storage technologies) and battery storage will be able to supply enough energy with enough certainty for energy-hungry data centres,” he writes. But for now, he says tech companies clearly prefer nuclear power. Finally, climate sceptic columnist Allison Pearson has written a fear-mongering article for the Daily Telegraph about “mad Ed Miliband and his destructive net-zero obsession”, in which she warns of the threat of blackouts over winter. Pearsons says that “I am seriously thinking of buying a generator and I’m not the only one.”

A new study finds that emissions from wildland fires increased by 60% globally between 2001 and 2023, primarily due to climate change. Researchers use machine learning to analyse burned area and fire emissions, along with various predictors of wildfire, such as soil moisture, human population and “fire weather”. They find that emissions from fires in tropical regions declined over the study period, while emissions from fires in the boreal forests of northern Eurasia and North America “increased substantially”. They note: “The increase in extratropical fire activity highlights the strong influence of climatic factors compared with human activities, which play a more dominant role in tropical regions.”