The world has a 66% chance of limiting warming to 2.9C above pre-industrial temperatures if countries stick to the pledges they made under the 2015 Paris agreement, the Financial Times says, reporting on the findings of the latest “emissions gap” report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). According to the report, annual greenhouse gas emissions reached a new peak of 57.4bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2022 – a 1.2% rise compared to 2021 – the paper says. It continues: “Emissions cuts of 14bn tonnes or 28% are needed by 2030 to keep within 2C of warming, and a more ambitious reduction of more than 40% or 22bn tonnes is needed for the 1.5C threshold to be realistic…The world now only has a 14% chance of limiting warming to the 1.5C goal, according to UN analysis, even if countries honour all pledges, including weaker conditional promises by developing countries, as well as the non-binding net-zero goals.” It adds that including measures that are conditional on receiving financial and technical support would result in a 66% chance of limiting warming to 2.5C. The Times notes that limiting warming to 1.5C would require global emissions reduction of 8.7% per year, according to UNEP. It adds: “That would require a herculean effort. Even with Covid lockdowns limiting car use, flights and economies during 2020, emissions dropped by only 4.7%.” According to the Guardian, the report says that many countries’ current net-zero pledges “are not currently considered credible” by UNEP, pointing out that no G20 countries are reducing emissions at a pace consistent with their net-zero targets. Politico adds: “The lifetime emissions of current and planned oil and gas fields and coal mines is three and a half times greater that [sic] the carbon budget needed to hold temperature increase to 1.5C. It would exhaust almost all the budget needed for 2C, the UN said.” The New York Times adds: “At least 149 countries have updated their pledges under the 2015 Paris climate agreement to curb their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, the report found. Nine countries did so this year, including Egypt, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.” The Associated Press quotes UN secretary general António Guterres, who said “the emissions gap is more like an emissions canyon — a canyon littered with broken promises, broken lives and broken records”. Reuters, the Hill, the Washington Post, BusinessGreen, the Energy Mix, the Indian Express and Axios also cover the research.  

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage that the planet briefly exceeded 2C warming, according to a model-based measure. New Scientist reports that on 17 November, the daily global average surface temperature reached 2.06C above 1850-1900 levels. The outlet notes that the finding is provisional. It adds: “While exceeding this milestone on one day shows how rapidly the planet is warming as a result of rising greenhouse gas levels, it doesn’t mean that the 2C warming limit has been breached.” The Independent, Forbes, the Times of India and the Press Association also cover the news. 

Finally, the South China Morning Post covers a study which finds a “hole” in the representation of methane emissions in climate change models. The paper says: “Under current emissions forecasts, methane emissions from solid waste will exceed global targets by the middle of the century, said the researchers in a paper published on Friday by the journal Science. Reducing the amount of waste going into landfill is vital if a cut in methane emissions is to be achieved, and about 90% of the solid waste industry’s contribution could be eliminated by 2050 with existing technology, the researchers said.”

France, backed by the US, will try to stop private financing for coal-based power plants at COP28, Reuters reports, citing “sources familiar with the deliberations”. According to the newswire, the plan will “deepen divisions” at COP28, as India and China are opposed to any attempt to block construction of coal-fired power stations. It continues: “France’s minister of state for development Chrysoula Zacharopoulou told the Indian government about the plan, called the ‘New Coal Exclusion Policy’, for private financial institutions and insurance companies, two Indian officials said. The plan to stop private financing for coal-fired power plants has not been previously reported.”

Separately, Reuters reports that the US “will lay out the first international strategy to commercialise nuclear fusion power” at COP28. In other pre-COP news, Reuters reports that UN general secretary António Guterres “will travel to Antarctica this week with Chilean president Gabriel Boric to observe the impact of rising temperatures caused by climate change on the continent”. Separately, Reuters covers new research which finds that “wealthy nations could provide 100 of the world’s most vulnerable countries a combined $25bn in annual protection against climate disasters for as little as $10m per nation”. 

On the second day of its special series, “the great carbon divide”, the Guardian reports that the collective carbon emissions of the richest 10% are up to 40 times higher than those of the poorest 10%. It continues: “In the US, UK, EU and Japan, the richest 10% have carbon footprints about 15 times greater than the poorest 10%. In China, South Africa, Brazil and India, the top 10% cause 30-40 times more emissions than the bottom 10%. In all cases, the emissions of the top 10% are as high as those of at least the bottom 50%. In the US and China the situation is even less equal: the emissions of the top 10% are higher than the bottom 70% combined. South Africa is the most extreme example, with the footprint of the top 10% as large as that of the remaining 90%. Transport, especially car use, is a major factor in the sky-high emissions of the richest 10%, with these emissions 20-40 times higher than the transport emissions of the poorest 10% in the countries analysed…Another major factor is the emissions embodied in the goods that people buy, such as furniture and electronics. These are 20-50 times higher for the richest 10%, and make up about a third of emissions in most countries.” Another Guardian article in the series focuses on the UK, listing restaurants, pets and holidays abroad some of the main reasons for the “carbon divide”. It continues: “The biggest carbon divide is in aviation, with the richest 10% in the UK – the 6.7 million people paid more than £59,000 a year – causing more than six times more climate-heating emissions from flights than the poorest 10%. Spending on electrical items, homeware and furniture also contributes to the outsize impact of the wealthy, who splash out four times more on these goods.”

Outlets including the Washington Post, Sky News and the Hill continue to cover yesterday’s news, first reported by the Guardian, which finds that the world’s richest 1% pollute more than the poorest two-thirds. Commenting on the analysis, the Guardian’s US columnist, Rebeccan Solnit, writes that “billionaires are out of touch and much too powerful”, arguing that “the 1% aren’t just the biggest climate wreckers, they also greatly influence how the world responds to the crisis”. Separately, the Guardian reports that 19 “leading” charities and campaigners have written an open letter to Jeremy Hunt arguing that “combating the climate emergency will require higher taxes on wealth and big corporate polluters at the autumn statement rather than a package of giveaways for the rich”.

A Chinese company plans to build a renewable energy project with “more generating capacity than New Zealand” in the inland province of Gansu, reports Bloomberg. The project will add another 11 gigawatts (GW) of clean energy to China’s energy mix, along with “backup energy storage and fossil fuel power plants”, the outlet says, adding that the project has yet to be approved by the government. Meanwhile, China Electric Power News reports that, as of the end of October, China’s installed power generation capacity nationwide is approximately 2,810GW, a year-on-year growth of 12.6%. The state-run industry newspaper adds that of this, installed solar capacity reached about 540GW, a year-on-year increase of 47% and wind power capacity grew 16% to 400GW. Thermal power capacity – mostly coal – grew 4.2% to 1,373GW, it notes. China Energy News covers comments by industry experts saying that the recently-announced coal power capacity pricing mechanism does not constitute a “pension” for coal-fired power plants and that they “will ultimately have to contend with market-oriented competition”. 

Meanwhile, Inside Climate News says that, according to the World Meteorological Association, data from an island off China’s east coast reveals “elevated concentrations of hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23), a greenhouse gas 14,700 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a pound-for-pound basis”. Elsewhere, China Energy News carries a commentary by Lu Jianzhong, deputy director at a thinktank owned by oil and gas company PetroChina, who proposes that China and the US could prioritise the “clean use of fossil fuels”, such as “coal-fired power units with carbon capture and storage (CCS), enhanced oil recovery through carbon dioxide injection, carbon dioxide utilisation and methane measurement and emission reduction”. Separately, state news agency Xinhua reports that Chinese president Xi Jinping said on Monday during a call with French president Emmanuel Macron that China “stands ready to work with France in sending a strong signal of jointly addressing the issue of climate change, and in promoting the success of [COP28]”. Politico reports that the UK’s reliance on solar imports from China has raised concerns among Conservative MPs who “fear this reliance puts Britain’s clean energy goals in jeopardy”.

The German tabloid Bild, which has a history of attacking climate action, reports that the country’s €200bn “economic stabilisation fund”, known as WSF, which was initiated by the German economy minister Robert Habeck and is intended to relieve citizens and businesses from the “drastically increased costs” of electricity and gas due to Russia’s war on Ukraine, is under threat as it has been declared “unconstitutional” by the highest German court. The newspaper explains that, as with the nation’s €60bn climate fund, the WSF was also funded via loans originally approved for tackling the Covid-19 pandemic. The Financial Times quotes Habeck saying on German radio yesterday: “According to the grounds [provided by the court], the judgement basically applies to all the long-term funds we set up – because its wording is so sweeping,” adding that, if the fund is cancelled, “[Germans] will have higher gas, electricity and district heating prices”. WirtschaftsWoche adds that by the end of October, €31.2bn had already been allocated from the WSF: €11.1bn for the gas price “brake”, €11.6bn for the electricity price “brake”, along with €4.8bn for the immediate gas assistance, plus €3.7bn in subsidies for grid fees. The outlet adds that the opposition Christian Democrats blamed the ruling coalition for not “having control over its finances” and “throwing money around for two years as if there’s no tomorrow”. Bloomberg quotes Saskia Esken, a co-leader of German chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats, telling the Funke media group that the government will likely have to suspend the “debt brake” in both 2023 and 2024 due to the court ruling.

Elsewhere, the Guardian says: “A Jersey-based oil-refining company is suing the EU, Germany and Denmark for at least €95m over a windfall tax introduced during the Ukraine war that it sees as a ‘pretext’ for undermining fossil fuel firms, leaked documents show.” Meanwhile, Politico reports that Germany has asked the UK to consider the construction of a 400-mile hydrogen pipeline under the North Sea to provide it with hydrogen as Germany seeks to reach its net-zero goals. Clean Energy Wire reports that chancellor Olaf Scholz announced at the Compact with Africa summit in Berlin that Germany will invest €4bn in sustainable energy projects in Africa until 2030 “to help improve the continent’s role in renewable power, green hydrogen and critical raw material extraction”. Finally, EurActiv has published an article under the headline: “As COP28 approaches, Germany’s climate policy is at a standstill.”

Parliament’s business committee has warned that “the UK faces the prospect of a battery ‘gigafactory gap’ that will undermine the electric car industry unless the government offers the growing sector more help”, the Guardian reports. According to the paper, the MPs have released a report which “calls for a particular focus on government investment to support producers of crucial parts and materials to go into batteries to keep car production in the UK and prevent reliance on imports from China, which dominates the global battery supply chain”. The Times also covers the report, noting that “up to 160,000 motor industry jobs and more in the supply chain are at risk unless the government resets its priorities in the production of batteries”.

In other UK news, the Times reports that decommissioning “obsolete” offshore oil and gas infrastructure in UK waters could be “worth more than £20bn over the next decade”, describing this as a “£20bn opportunity”. According to the newspaper, lobby group Offshore Energies UK estimates that annual spending on decommissioning will reach £2.2bn this year, up from £1.6bn in 2022. It adds: “Another £18.4bn is forecast to be needed between 2024 and 2031 as huge amounts of structures and pipelines need to be removed along with the plugging and abandonment of wells.” Bloomberg adds that more than 1,000 wells need to be sealed up in the North Sea between now and 2027. The Daily Telegraph covers a warning from regulator the North Sea Transition Authority, which says that the UK’s offshore oil and gas producers “have left more than 740 disused wells without decommissioning them properly”. Elsewhere, Bloomberg reports that oil and gas company Shell “paid net corporate taxes in the UK in 2022 for the first time in at least four years after the government introduced an oil and gas windfall levy”. [It has previously enjoyed tax relief on decommissioning costs, meaning it received net payments from the government.]

Elsewhere, Bloomberg reports that “bank of England governor Andrew Bailey warned the central bank may have to raise interest rates again and that food and energy costs remain an upside risk to the inflation outlook”.

Ian Fry, the UN’s rapporteur for climate change and human rights, has said in a “strongly worded intervention” that long prison sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil protesters for scaling the M25 bridge over the Thames are a potential breach of international law and risk silencing public concerns about the environment, the Guardian reports. According to the newspaper, Fry said: “I am gravely concerned about the potential flow-on effect that the severity of the sentences could have on civil society and the work of activists, expressing concerns about the triple planetary crisis and, in particular, the impacts of climate change on human rights and on future generations.” BBC News adds: “In response to the UN, the government said that the right to protest is a fundamental part of the UK’s democracy but that the ‘law-abiding majority’ must be able to go about their daily lives.”

Elsewhere, the Independent reports that climate protestors “shut down” New York’s Guggenheim. The Guardian says that in Australia, “a group of climate activists will fight conspiracy charges stemming from a protest outside the Woodside Energy boss’s family home”. Separately, the Guardian reports that a climate activist in Australia “will appeal against her conviction and fine for failing to allow police to access her mobile phone and laptop”.

The chair of the Energy Transitions Commission, Adair Turner, has penned a comment piece in the Financial Times discussing the balance between cutting fossil fuels and abating their emissions using carbon capture and storage (CCS). He writes: “Technological progress means we can reduce the use of fossil fuels far faster than was once thought possible…Overall, the latest report from the Energy Transitions Commission projects that gas use could – and needs to – fall 55-70% by 2050, oil use 75 -95% and coal by 80-85%. The lower end of these ranges would be compatible with limiting global warming to around 1.7C: the higher with a 1.5C limit. However, even such reductions would not be sufficient to limit global warming to those temperatures without some CCS…The commission therefore sees a vital role for CCS as applied to industrial processes – but also a limited one, with about 4Gt [billion tonnes] a year of CO₂ captured and stored by 2050. Since fossil-fuel combustion currently produces about 32Gt of CO₂ emissions a year, that means more than 85% of these emission reductions must come from cutting fossil-fuel use and less than 15% from applying carbon capture.” However, Turner calls progress in deploying carbon capture “disappointing”, adding that “the volume of removal credits being purchased by governments, companies or financial institutions remains trivial”. He concludes: “Two implications follow: first, we must speed up the deployment of carbon capture and removal technologies. Second, given this slow progress, it would be imprudent to assume that there will be higher future levels of carbon capture and removals than projected in our report, and to use that to justify sustained large-scale use of fossil fuels…At COP28, nations should commit to rapidly phasing down the use of all fossil fuels and reject the delusion that unlimited use of carbon capture can make continued high fossil-fuel production compatible with limiting global warming to a safe level.”

Separately, the Economist has published a series of “special reports” on carbon capture. These pieces outline the options for carbon dioxide removal, discuss its drawbacks, say the technology “needs more attention”, unpack how trees could be effective at drawing down emissions with good markets and monitoring and finally discuss the carbon economy.

In other comment, Gary Smith, general secretary of the GMB [and frequent critic of efforts to address climate change] writes in the Times that “if the transition to net-zero is going to succeed then workers’ voices must be at the heart of the industrial planning needed to meet the UK’s decarbonisation goals and net-zero obligations”. He continues: “GMB has called for plans and not bans concerning the development of industrial policy. We want to move on from industrial decline while mitigating the impact of increasing geopolitical volatility to create better energy independence and prosperity in the UK. If we are going to achieve this, we need better cooperation between workers, industry and policymakers. It is also why GMB has now signed a memorandum of understanding with Brindex, the representative body for the UK’s independent oil and gas exploration and production companies.” In other comment, Graham Readfearn – an environment reporter for Guardian Australia – has published a piece about Australian researcher Graeme Pearman, who “travelled the world with six flasks of air to help prove CO2 in the atmosphere was rising”. And in the Daily Mail, climate-sceptic columnist Richard Littlejohn writes that “our green-and-pleasant is being destroyed by these monstrous [wind] turbines”. 

A new study finds that around one-third of marine heatwaves occur only in the subsurface ocean – meaning that they will not be identified by satellite observations of surface temperatures. Researchers use three large-scale ocean temperature datasets to identify marine heatwave events across the upper 200 metres of the ocean surface since the early 1990s. They find that “only about half” of such events are continuously at the surface across their lifetimes, and the number of marine heatwaves that remain fully below the surface has been increasing over time. They write: “Our findings reveal the limitation of identifying marine heatwaves solely based on the sea surface temperature and underscore the necessity of subsurface observations for monitoring marine heatwaves.”