There is extensive global media coverage of the IPCC’s latest report – entitled “Mitigation of Climate Change” – which was published yesterday. The report details “ways of reducing emissions” and marks “the third and final section of the IPCC’s latest comprehensive review of climate science, drawing on the work of thousands of scientists”, the Guardian reports on its frontpage. The paper quotes Prof Jim Skea – a co-chair of the working group behind the report – who said: “It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.” Outlets including the Independent, MailOnline, ITV News and BBC News also feature Skea’s quote. The Guardian, New Scientist, South China Morning Post and the Times highlight that, according to the report, global emissions must peak by 2025 to limit warming to 1.5C above preindustrial temperatures. The New York Times says that reaching this goal would require a 43% reduction in global emissions by 2030. Yale E360 adds: “By mid-century, countries must cut their use of natural gas by 45%, oil by 60%, and must stop burning coal entirely. They must also remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, for instance, by planting trees. The IPCC report said that such progress is not unrealistic thanks to rapidly falling prices for solar, wind, and batteries, which have dropped by as much as 85% since 2010. But countries must act swiftly to cut emissions.” Reuters notes that only two of the eight warming pathway categories in the report – C1 and C2 – would limit warming to 1.5C.“ Far more than in its previous reports, the “IPCC highlights inequalities in who produces the emissions driving climate change,” the Reuters reports separately. “The latest UN climate report suggests the world has to end new fossil fuel infrastructure to meet current goals,” Vox says.

António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations, unveiled the report at a virtual news conference yesterday. The Independent says that in his speech he accused some governments and businesses of “lying” and called the countries increasing production of fossil fuels – not climate activists – the “truly dangerous radicals. Guterres called the report “a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track toward an unlivable world,” Associated Press adds. The New York Times, Sky News and the Guardian have published videos of Guterres’ remarks. Meanwhile, Bloomberg quotes former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres: “I don’t have words to explain. ‘Concerning’ is not enough. This is frankly a terrifying report.”

In other coverage, the Washington Post outlines “six steps the world can take to halt climate change” – including a shift to renewables and increasing the energy efficiency of buildings. Similarly, the Guardian outlines key points from the report, including carbon dioxide removal and lifestyle change. Elsewhere, Politico says that, according to the report, “tackling climate change will mean rethinking how cities are designed and function”. Meanwhile, the Independent quotes Guterres’ comment that “we must triple the speed of the shift to renewable energy”. The Wall Street Journal also focuses on the need to transition to renewables. Elsewhere, AP says the report has brought Africa’s “vast clean energy potential into the spotlight”. Meanwhile, Bloomberg notes that “over half of the 150 biggest financial institutions have no restrictions on financing oil and gas”. And the Independent carries a piece on carbon capture and storage. The almost-3,000 page report “represents the IPCC’s first analysis of humanity’s remaining paths for climate action since the landmark Paris agreement,” the Washington Post says. CNN adds: “While the focus on solutions give the report an optimistic tone, it also serves as a reminder of how policies lag far behind science, technology and even economics.” Meanwhile, AP says that “scientist after scientist stresses that curbing global warming is not hopeless”. And ARF News says “the latest UN climate report is positive news”. Elsewhere, the Guardian outlines the difference between – and significance of – the three IPCC working group reports. And outlets including the Independent, Reuters, Climate Home News, the New York Times, the Independent and Politico have published lists of “key takeaways” from the report.

The new IPCC report was “watered down” during the approval session, Climate Home News reports. The outlet calls yesterday’s report “the most politically sensitive part of the IPCC’s three-part assessment”, adding that publication was delayed by six hours on Monday following “the longest approval plenary in the IPCC’s 34-year history”. The paper continues: “The document concludes ‘a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use’ is needed to tackle the climate crisis. But compared to earlier drafts, there is a much stronger emphasis on technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide underground (CCS) as a potential solution that extends the lifespan of coal, oil and gas infrastructure. Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest oil producers and exporters, successfully argued for the repeated inclusion of references to CCS, which remains unproven at commercial scale. Opposition from European nations wasn’t enough to prevent a weakening of language on the need to phase out coal, oil and gas.” It adds: “In the negotiations, Saudi Arabia was isolated on the issue. But its vocal position may have provided cover for others with similar views.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times says that “the US, China and other countries sparred over the definitions and relative responsibilities of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries”. And the Washington Post notes that “some scientists and observers have criticised the involvement of policymakers, saying it results in a watered-down document and undermines the IPCC’s credibility as an institution”. However, it also quotes Belgian climatologist Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who defended the IPCC process and its outcomes. Meanwhile, the Conversation asks what the invasion of Ukraine means for the IPCC report. The piece concludes: “Until we adopt the principle that anyone producing or selling fossil fuels is responsible for disposal of all the carbon dioxide generated by their activities and products, we aren’t going to stop climate change.”

Many outlets in the UK have previewed the governments’ energy strategy, which is due to be released on Thursday. “The plan will aim to boost UK energy production, including from renewable sources, in a bid to move away from Russian oil and gas,” reports BBC News, in a piece that previews the solar, oil and gas, wind and nuclear policies in the energy strategy. The Sun reports that ministers are giving £20m to firms in the US to “assess plans for a new UK nuclear power station”. Meanwhile, the i newspaper notes that the strategy has been delayed due to “wrangling” between No 10 and the Treasury over funding for nuclear energy.

However, the Guardian reports that the cabinet is split over onshore wind. It says: “Pro-green cabinet ministers are frustrated by Boris Johnson’s decision to back away from ambitious onshore windfarm plans for England, as it emerged more than 100 Tory MPs are lobbying against the policy behind the scenes.” Meanwhile, the Financial Times says that “developers of renewable projects have warned the new targets [on renewable energy] would be meaningless unless the strategy is coupled with a commitment to tackle the ‘inflexible’ regimes of the planning process and connecting to the power grid.” Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that planning hurdles will be lifted for homeowners looking to to install rooftop solar panels. Relatedly, EnergyMonitor says that “the key blockage to new wind[in the EU] is permitting”. It adds that “the EU has four times more wind capacity in permitting than under construction”. Meanwhile, the Times reports that ministers will today “ask government scientific advisers to reassess the safety of fracking”. The paper says: “The prime minister’s spokesman said the fracking moratorium, introduced in 2019 after the process triggered earthquakes, ‘still remains’ but cited the invasion of Ukraine requiring a need to ‘look at all possible options for improving domestic energy supply’.”

Elsewhere, Daily Mail has published an article quoting “Brexit opportunities” minster Jacob Rees-Moog, who says that the UK should extract “every last drop of oil” from the North Sea. In a smaller insert, the paper discusses the IPCC report under the subheading: “…but the UN says it’s ‘madness’”. Commenting on Rees-Mogg’s remark, Green MP Caroline Lucas tells the Independent: “The cat’s finally out of the bag. This government’s sorry excuse for new North Sea drilling – that we’d need it for ‘transition’ in the decades ahead – is clearly nothing but a facade to protect their fossil-fuel bedfellows.”

In other UK news, the Independent reports that MPS are “calling on the government to set up a ‘carbon border’ in a bid to prevent Britain’s commitment to achieve net zero emissions being hindered by cheap foreign imports”.

UK start-up First Light Fusion has made an “important step” towards generating energy through nuclear fusion, the Financial Times reports. “While other fusion experiments have generated more power for longer, either by using ‘tokamak’ machines or high-powered lasers, First Light says its approach, which involves firing a projectile at a target containing the fuel, could offer a faster route to commercial fusion power,” the paper says. According to the Times, the company has “provided proof of concept” that its “unusual” method is feasible. “If, and it remains a big if, it can be scaled up, then there is a chance it might offer a means of making almost limitless carbon-free electricity,” it adds. The Daily Telegraph calls fusion the “holy grail” of energy production, and says that First Light Fusion’s new approach is “simpler and more energy efficient than rival approaches, and it has reached this point at record rates of progress”.

In other UK news, the Independent reports that “climate activists have staged a protest at an oil facility in west London”. The paper says that, since Friday, members of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have staged a number of protests at oil terminals and refineries across the UK. The Daily Telegraph and i newspaper report that drivers in the south east of the UK are facing petrol shortages in the wake of the protests. And the Daily Mail reports that Insulate Britain campaigners “scrawled graffiti on a magistrates’ court building after they appeared in connection with a series of disruptive protests on the M25”. Elsewhere, the Independent reports that cars are stuck on a highway in Washington DC due to climate protests.

Chen Derong, the chairman of China Baowu Steel Group (commonly known as “Baowu”) – a state-owned steel producer – has stressed the importance of reducing emissions for the steel industry to China’s overall climate action, the Paper reports. According to the Shanghai-based news website, Chen highlighted “the electrification of the whole process of steel smelting”, describing it as “an important technical direction”. He said that Baowu is the world’s “largest steel producer” and “if we take the wrong path in achieving carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, it will lead to the failure of transformation of trillions of assets and cause huge losses”. He added: “Choosing the right carbon-reduction path is particularly important for Baowu…as well as China’s steel industry.”

In an “exclusive” interview, Ottmar Edenhofer – director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and former IPCC co-chair – has told China’s state news agency Xinhua that “due to its sheer size and vast potential for innovation, China’s involvement is crucial for the world to solve the climate problem”. According to the report, Edenhofer said that the EU and China should “work together to establish a minimum price for carbon emissions in order to create a level playing field”. He also called a minimum CO2 price one of the “instruments that we [the EU and China] could jointly implement,” Xinhua reports. Meanwhile, Michael Schumann – chairman of the Board of the German Federal Association for Economic Development and Foreign Trade (BWA) – has underscored the importance of climate change cooperation between Germany and China to China’s state newspaper People’s Daily. He tells the publication that Germany and China are “committed to developing renewable energy sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, setting a new benchmark for Europe-China cooperation in the field of renewable energy”.

Elsewhere, China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) and Ministry of Science and Technology recently issued the 14th five-year plan for science and technology innovation in the energy sector, Yicai reports. The plan states that “[the energy sector should] actively and orderly develop nuclear power under the premise of ensuring safety, and promote the integration of hydrogen and renewable energy development”, the financial outlet notes.

Additionally, according to Reuters, while ties between China and the EU “have been strained”, Wang Lutong – director-general of European affairs at China’s foreign ministry – said that “the two sides [China and the EU] will deepen cooperation on combating climate change”.

And the South China Morning Post covers the results of a survey, which finds that “less than half of industrial companies in China have taken action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite most saying the scale of their current emissions will affect business prospects”.

The EU is “working on a sweeping plan to block all imports of Russian oil”, amid reports of war crimes committed by Russian troops in Ukraine, Politico reports. The paper says: “The big question remains whether countries led by Germany will agree to a ban or seek to delay it, after holding out against an embargo on Russian energy imports in recent weeks. There are signs that Berlin may now be ready at least to consider cutting out Russian oil — even if it is not yet able to abandon imports of gas — in response to what EU officials have described as war crimes in Ukraine.” The outlet adds that officials hope to finalise the proposed package of sanctions by Wednesday, when it will be signed off at a meeting of EU ambassadors. However, it says that EU members are “still divided”. For example, yesterday, French president Emmanuel Macron called for more sanctions against Russian energy, while German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier “admitted that it was a mistake to cling to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany for so long”, Politico reports separately. The Financial Times adds that Joe Biden has also called for harsher sanctions against Moscow. However, Politico adds that Austria’s finance minister “ruled out any EU sanctions that target oil and gas coming from Russia”.

The paper also covers an announcement from German economy minister Robert Habeck that “the German subsidiary of Russian gas company Gazprom will be put under trusteeship with immediate effect”. The Guardian adds: “The German government is facing growing pressure at home and abroad to introduce an energy embargo against Russia.” Meanwhile, the Times has published a frontpage story reporting that UK foreign secretary Liz Truss has “promised to press the EU and G7 to stop money ‘flowing from the West into Putin’s war machine’, by cutting off Russia from the Swift banking system and banning its ships from western ports”. The i newspaper also covers this news.

Elsewhere, Politico says that “Kyiv is laying out a highly unorthodox gameplan for the Europeans — one that would require legalistic Brussels bureaucrats to be as cavalier toward contracts as Russia is toward international law”. The plan would involve the European Commission taking control of all EU gas purchases and negotiating a new, single, lower price for Russian gas exports, according to the paper. The suggestion caused oil prices to jump by 3%, Reuters says. Elsewhere, the newswire notes that “Russia maintained gas flows through key pipeline routes into Europe on Monday, despite uncertainty over payment terms”. The Financial Times adds that ExxonMobil’s quarterly profits “could be the highest in more than a decade”, due to the high oil and as prices. Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that coal prices in the US have topped $100 a tonne for the first time since 2008.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has published a piece under the subheading “Europe wants 50bn cubic meters of additional natural gas, but supplies are tight. Prices will rise, and other regions might have to do with less”. And the Wall Street Journal says that due to the war in Ukraine, “many nations are speeding up plans to transition to green energy, while leaning even more on oil, gas and coal in the near term”.

Der Spiegel reports that the German ministry for the environment and the ministry for economic affairs have agreed on key points for a “nature-friendly” expansion of wind energy. The article adds that “in the future there should be nationwide, legal standards for testing and evaluating the extent to which a wind turbine significantly increases the ‘risk of collision’ for endangered bird species. Approval procedures are to be simplified and accelerated. Operators of wind turbines should participate in species-support programs.” EurActiv also covers the story.

Meanwhile, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says that “the federal government temporarily appointed Germany’s regulator as trustee for Gazprom Germania, the german subsidiary of the Russian energy company, to ensure energy security”.Reuters adds that, according to Robert Habeck, “all voting rights in the company will be moved to the regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur”. Radio Free Europe also has the story.

Daily Telegraph columnist Ben Wright has penned a comment piece, arguing that “though the moral imperative to cut Russia off from the global economy has become unarguable, the practical logistics remain daunting”. He continues: “Politicians are clearly worried about a public backlash and maybe even civil unrest if energy prices rise further. But the necessary measures – turning the thermostat down a few degrees, reducing speed limits, curbing air travel, making our homes more energy efficient – are surely tolerable…Last week the question being debated in the parliaments and chancelleries across Europe was: how can we cut ourselves off from Russian oil and gas? Today it must be: how can we not?”.

Elsewhere, in an article for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Johannes Pennekamp and Werner Mussler talk about alternatives to the Russian gas embargo sanctions that Germany is mulling: “The EU and the federal government are working on a fifth sanctions package, which is expected to be presented on Wednesday.” The authors describe these alternatives as being an oil embargo, an escrow account and a tax on Russian gas. Talking about the first one, Pennekamp and Mussler refer to statistics: “The German economy obtains 40% of its ‘natural gas’ requirements from Russia, but only 25 % of its oil requirements.” By the end of the year, Germany could be “almost independent” of oil imports even without an embargo, says minister Robert Habeck. The authors provide an alternative: “Experts suggest transferring part or all of the oil and gas payments to an escrow account. The money will only be paid out if the Kremlin keeps promises made in negotiations or withdraws soldiers from Ukraine.”

Meanwhile, university teacher Meg Kacobs has published a comment piece in the Guardian arguing that Joe Biden should use the war in Ukraine to “rally the country” by implementing price controls on oil and gas, and “fight[ing] for his clean energy agenda”.

Meanwhile, in UK comment, the Daily Mail has published an editorial entitled: “End the energy mess”. It calls the soon-to-be-published energy strategy a “chance to put us firmly on a sensible path to self-sufficiency”, arguing that “whatever they decide, ministers must stick to their guns”. In the Daily Telegraph, the climate-sceptic commentator Charles Moore says: “Favouring expensive and unreliable energy over pragmatic alternatives is impoverishment in the name of idealism”. Elsewhere, Jude Wilkinson – a sustainable transport campaigner and an undergraduate at Warwick University – has published a comment piece in the Independent rebuking Grant Shapps’ comment that wind turbines are an “eyesore”.

UN secretary general António Guterres has penned an opinion piece in the Washington Post, calling the latest IPCC report a “litany of broken climate promises” that “reveals the yawning gap between climate pledges and reality”. Guterres says that “we are speeding toward disastrous global warming of more than double the limit of 1.5C by 2100”. He continues: “So far, high-emitting governments and corporations are not just turning a blind eye; they are adding fuel to the flames by continuing to invest in climate-choking industries…All of us have a role to play in the shift to green energy. Young people, civil society and Indigenous communities are among those who have already stepped up, sounding the alarm and holding leaders accountable. We now need to build on their work to create a worldwide grass-roots movement that no one can ignore. I hereby appeal directly to everyone with an interest in our planet and our future: Make your voice heard, wherever decisions are taken – in political debates, local authorities, boardrooms and at the ballot box.”

Meanwhile, Guardian has published an editorial under the subheading: “Governments have hitherto been far too hesitant to take on vested interests and are all too ready to protect historic investments in fossil fuels.” The piece says Guterres was right to assert that the world is “on a fast track to climate disaster”. It notes the emissions cuts needed to limit warming to 1.5C, but highlights the inequality in global emissions. The piece concludes: “The pandemic was an opportunity to make the rapid shift required away from fossil fuels and was missed by most governments. Russia’s immoral war in Ukraine offers another chance for nations concerned about overreliance on hydrocarbons to do the right thing.”

Meanwhile, a Times editorial says the 1.5C warming target is “receding”. It continues: “The good news is that the 1.5C target is not yet entirely out of reach, even if the window is fast closing…Nonetheless, one of the biggest obstacles remains financial. The IPCC notes that financial flows are three to six times lower than the levels needed to limit warming…It is not enough for developed countries such as Britain to cut their own emissions. If the 1.5C target is to be met, governments, international development banks and commercial lenders must work together to drive global action.” And the Independent has published an editorial entitled: “War and the cost of living crisis must not distract Britain from meeting its climate targets.”

Elsewhere, Frank Jotzo – a lead author on the latest IPCC report from Australia – has penned an opinion piece in the Guardian entitled: “We urgently need to cut emissions – the good news is we can do it quickly and relatively cheaply.” Jotzo outlines key ways of reducing emissions – including changing diets, implementing renewable energy and avoiding deforestation – and says that “Australia is in pole position on all of these”. And IPCC co-author Navroz Dubash has published a piece in the Hindustani Times arguing that “we aren’t on track for [the] 1.5C target”.

New research explores how climate-smart conservation of marine species could include the “high seas” – the 64% of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions. Considering different ocean depths, almost 13,000 marine species and three climate scenarios, the researchers present an approach “that conserves biodiversity, minimises exposure to climate change, retains species within reserve boundaries and reduces conflict with fishing”. The resulting climate-smart conservation areas “cover 6% of the high seas and represent a low-regret option that provides a nucleus for developing a full network of high-seas marine reserves”, the authors conclude.

The share of European Union (EU) forest area for which soil carbon is being accurately reported is “at most 33%, and more likely close to 24%”, a new perspective paper says, while “accuracy is even worse for grasslands and croplands”. The authors reviewed the data and methods behind European national greenhouse-gas (GHG) inventories of soil carbon. They find that unreported losses could be around 70m tonnes of CO2 per year ( MtCO2/yr) in croplands, and unreported gains could be around 15MtCO2/yr in grasslands and 45MtCO2/yr in forests.