A frontpage “exclusive” for Monday’s i newspaper says prime minister Rishi Sunak’s climate U-turns, announced last week, “will raise the cost of living and put Britain behind other countries in the race to build a green economy, more than 100 economists have warned”. The newspaper continues: “In a letter to the prime minister, the experts from top universities across the UK and abroad claimed that accelerating net-zero would create jobs and attract business investment. They said that Sunak’s policy U-turn was ‘an example of the very kind of short-termism that has led to the UK’s current economic malaise’.” It adds: “Downing Street rejected the claims.” An article for BBC News reports: “Supporters [of Sunak] say the planned green policies, including a 2030 ban on new petrol cars, would have hit people too hard financially, especially in such inflationary times. Critics, however, say taking longer to reach net-zero will damage the UK’s economic prospects, undermine business confidence and leave us behind in the global race for investment, they say. Even some of Sunak’s own MPs have warned that backtracking could cost jobs and push up energy bills in the future.” The Independent says: “Sunak’s net-zero bonfire will leave renters colder and poorer.” The Observer reports that Conservative MP and COP26 president Alok Sharma “has warned Rishi Sunak that he will now have to find other ways to cut emissions if the UK is to meet its international climate obligations, following last week’s dramatic U-turns on green policy”. The paper adds: “Sharma said he welcomed ‘the prime minister’s re-confirming unequivocally that the UK will meet our international agreements’, but added more needed to be done: ‘Ministers must urgently show how they plan for this to be achieved,’ he said.” The Financial Times has analysis asking what Sunak’s U-turns mean for UK emissions, which says that delaying the ban of new petrol and diesel cars “could be costly in the long run”. It adds: “Sunak justified his measures by saying he did not want to pass on additional costs to consumers. However, the [Climate Change Committee] CCC has estimated that phasing out new petrol and diesel car sales by about 2030 would be the best option financially for society, with delays reducing the cost benefits of the switch.” It also quotes Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans saying “we are off track and these rollbacks will take us further off track”. Another BBC News story is titled: “Net-zero: Rishi Sunak ‘destroying’ UK green credibility, says Yanis Varoufakis.” The Observer reports: “Rishi Sunak’s decision to drive a ‘green wedge’ between the Conservatives and Labour will take the UK into dangerous new political territory and ‘the worst kind of culture wars’, not seen for more than 30 years, senior Tory figures and political observers have warned.” An “exclusive” frontpage story in the Monday edition of Scotland’s the National says former US president Donald Trump “has praised Rishi Sunak’s U-turn on a raft of net-zero measures as ‘smart’ as he insisted the climate crisis is a ‘green new hoax’.” The Guardian reports: “Labour to stand firm on net-zero policies and attack cost of Tory retreat.” Another Guardian article says: “Keir Starmer to call for UK clean energy action in New York City address.” The Daily Telegraph reports: “National Trust accuses Rishi Sunak of kicking net-zero ‘down the road’.” The Guardian says: “Scientists have written to Rishi Sunak asking him to stop ‘politicising’ and attacking the [CCC], an independent body that exists to advise the government on five-year ‘carbon budgets’ necessary to meet its 2050 target.” BusinessGreen reports: “’Catastrophe’ or ‘nothingburger’: How will Sunak’s weakening of UK climate policy effect the green economy?”

A Sunday Times feature asks: “What the net-zero U-turn really means for the electric car industry.” It says: “Sunak’s delay to the petrol and diesel ban is dividing carmakers. Meanwhile, Chinese brands are poised to race ahead.” Analysis from Reuters says the UK delay on EVs is “unlikely to affect [the] global pace of EV shift”, but adds: “Industry analysts, however, said Sunak above all had undermined investment certainty when British companies are fighting to attract investors to a relatively small market cut loose from the European Union following Brexit.” The Daily Express reports fears that the delay “creates uncertainty – this could slow the pace at which new EV chargers are rolled out”. An article in today’s Times is titled: “Why you may never need to buy an electric car.” It notes that most people don’t buy new cars and that there was never government policy on the sale of used petrol and diesels. An article in Friday’s Times reports that second-hand electric cars are getting cheaper. A Sunday Times feature reports that Sunak’s climate policy rollbacks were “codenamed” as “Cedar”. Among other things, the article falsely reports: “Officials have, for example, banked on a carbon reduction of one million tonnes a year throughout the 2030s by making people pool cars.” The Sunday Telegraph covers a report prepared for the CCC under the headline: “Cap vegan food prices to cut meat consumption, say climate advisers.” [This headline is inaccurate: the report does not advocate policy and was prepared for the committee, not by the committee.] Meanwhile, DeSmog reports: “A number of oil and gas firms have been announced as the hosts of stands and events at this year’s Conservative Party conference.” The Sun reports: “Ed Miliband is Labour’s Dennis the ‘Menace’, whose eco fanaticism could cost them the election, party insiders fear.” The article does not name any sources. (See further below for more news and comment relating to Sunak’s announcements.)

BBC News reports the comments of former UK prime minister Gordon Brown, calling for the world’s richest oil and gas states to pay a windfall tax to help poorer countries tackle climate change. The broadcaster reports: “He said countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Norway benefited from a ‘lottery-style bonanza’ last year, as the price of oil soared. Brown argues a $25bn (£20.4bn) levy would boost prospects of a deal on a climate fund for poorer countries.” The Guardian also has the story. Brown sets out his proposal in an article for the Guardian: “As political leaders issue toothless and easily forgettable communiques, a potential breakthrough is staring the world in the face. It could finally end the cycle of broken promises to the global south and rescue the next summit, COP28 in November and December. Last year, the oil and gas industry across the world banked about $4tn, according to the head of the International Energy Agency. This represents one of the biggest redistributions of wealth from the world’s poor to the richest petrostates.” He continues: “A $25bn global windfall levy on oil and gas profits, paid by the richest petrostates, would amount to less than 1% of global oil and gas revenues and only 3% of the export earnings of these major producers. Each of the richest petrostates can easily afford to pay. The UAE has seen its export earnings rise from $76bn to $119bn; it can afford to contribute $3bn without any impact on the energy prices paid by its domestic consumers.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports: “Deep divisions over how to combat global warming at the next climate summit [COP28, hosted by the UAE] were on display this week, as efforts to green the world’s energy system were challenged by oil and gas executives, and petrostates. As world leaders and top officials gathered in New York ahead of the UN COP28 climate summit in 10 weeks, a deep rift was on show between countries that support the expansion of fossil fuels, and those that insist stopping all new development is critical to stabilising the earth’s temperatures.” Separately, Reuters reports: “Island nations bearing the brunt of climate change this week confronted rich countries at the United Nations General Assembly, saying the failure by developed countries to act with urgency had put the islands’ survival at risk.”

UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s personal popularity has fallen to its lowest level on record, Sky News reports, according to “polling carried out following his decision to row back on net-zero policies”. It continues: “The prime minister’s net favourability rating has slumped to -45, according to a YouGov survey carried out days after his speech rowing back on net-zero pledges.” It adds: “[H]is popularity has particularly taken a hit among Lib Dems voters, with just 12% saying they have a favourable view – a drop of more than half since late August, when the figure was 25%.” BusinessGreen reports: “Three new polls suggest the government’s watering down of climate policies could backfire with voters.” The Financial Times runs a piece titled: “Why Rishi Sunak thinks his net-zero gamble will revive Tory prospects.” It says: “Sunak’s announcement…was a gamble that Uxbridge’s local politics could revive Tory prospects nationally.” Two-thirds of voters do not trust the Conservatives to make the right decisions on the environment, the Press Association reports. It says: “The public is divided on whether Rishi Sunak was right to water down the UK’s net-zero commitments – but most do not trust the Conservatives to protect the environment, a new poll has found.”  The Guardian reports: “Only 22% of Britons trust Sunak on climate, finds Guardian poll.” Another Press Association article reports: “Voters in Conservative heartlands overwhelmingly back climate and nature policies, with most people wanting the government to support people in decarbonising homes and transport, according to a new survey.” The Times reports under the headline: “Voters sceptical about climate pledges and cost, poll reveals.” It continues: “Voters are largely pessimistic about Britain’s hopes of reaching net-zero and do not believe politicians have admitted the true costs of getting there. Many of Rishi Sunak’s relaxations of key climate policies this week are popular, but voters are sceptical about his reasons for doing so.” The newspaper reports YouGov polling showing just 36% of voters overall – and 76% of Conservative voters – support Sunak’s U-turns. A chart in the piece shows that 50% of voters support delaying the ban on petrol and diesel cars but only 27% agreed with ending rules on the energy efficiency of rental properties. It does not say how many were opposed to these measures. Analysis for the Guardian says: “Watering down the UK’s net zero strategy may backfire for Rishi Sunak.”An Observer article is titled: “‘This can only end badly’: Tories fear Sunak policy blitz is bound to fail.” A frontpage story for the Sunday Express reports separate polling from WeThink, in an article that claims “public backs freeze of net-zero targets”. [The article does not mention several findings from the poll, including 56% of respondents saying the government should stick to its net-zero goal against 15% disagreeing and 46% saying the government doesn’t take its net-zero commitments seriously.] Finally, Politico reports: “A majority of voters in constituencies where the MP is a member of the [climate-sceptic] Net Zero Scrutiny Group say their local candidates should prioritise tackling the climate crisis in the run-up to the next election, according to polling by Survation for Greenpeace.”

After weakening a number of key climate policies in the name of saving families from “unacceptable costs”, Sunak has “disbanded” a taskforce designed to speed up cost-cutting home insulation and boiler upgrades, BBC News reports. The broadcaster says: “The group – which included the chair of the National Infrastructure Commission Sir John Armitt and other leading experts – was only launched in March. Members were informed in a letter, seen by the BBC, that it was being wound up.” It continues: “[F]ormer Conservative MP Laura Sandys, who sat on the taskforce, said she was ‘disappointed’ by the decision to disband it and ‘confused’ about the government’s intentions on the cost of living. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, she said energy efficiency must be the ‘first priority to reduce citizens’ costs’ and ‘improve energy security’.” The broadcaster adds: “A source close to the energy taskforce told the BBC: ‘The cheapest energy you can have is the stuff you don’t use. ‘This taskforce was meant to help that – if government is shelving it because recommendations are too challenging for them, then it runs contrary to what the PM said about helping ordinary people and being honest about difficult choices.’” Shadow net-zero secretary Ed Miliband criticised the disbanding of the taskforce, says the Press Association.

Sunak’s pledge last week to stick to binding climate goals at the same time as weakening key climate policies is reliant on “cashing in on Britain’s projected ‘over performance’ over the next decade”, the Sunday Telegraph reports. The paper says: “The prime minister and Claire Coutinho, the net-zero secretary, are believed to have concluded that the government will be able to capitalise on an expected surplus in emissions [savings] in order to push back deadlines such as the 2030 ban on selling petrol cars, without breaching strict carbon budgets.” It continues: “It is understood that internal estimates showed that the changes, including pushing back the 2030 ban by five years and weakening the phase-out of gas boilers, were projected to increase emissions by only 5%. [As Carbon Brief has reported, the UK was already set to miss its international 2030 pledge under the Paris Agreement and its legally binding sixth carbon budget, prior to Sunak’s weakening of key policies.] However, the government is likely to face opposition from environmental groups and the [CCC], the statutory watchdog, which opposed a similar move during Theresa May’s final weeks in office, in June 2019. May and Lord Hammond, the then chancellor, were accused of attempting to ‘fiddle’ climate change targets.”

The UK is one of 32 countries being taken to the European Court of Human Rights on Wednesday by a group of six young Portuguese, the Guardian reports. It says: “[The group] will argue in the grand chamber of the Strasbourg court that the nations’ policies to tackle global heating are inadequate and in breach of their human rights obligations. In its defence to the legal action, which is the biggest climate case yet taken across the globe, the UK government argues it is taking world-beating action to tackle climate change.” The paper says that the UK government has submitted documents to the court defending its record and pointing to its plans to cut emissions further, but adds: “key policies in the plan…have now been scrapped by [prime minister Rishi] Sunak”. The Sunday Times also has the story and says: “Judges [in the case] have taken the unprecedented step of saying they will consider whether the children’s rights to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment may be being violated too. If the young people, aged from 11 to 24, win, it will be the first time the court has found a violation of this right in a case concerning harm resulting from pollution. Governments could be legally bound to commit to stronger action, such as reducing emissions and phasing out fossil fuels.”

Lachlan Murdoch has nominated former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott for a position on the board of Fox Corporation, the Guardian reports, saying that this shows he is “‘doubling down’ on the company’s ‘right-wing crusading’, critics say”. The move was one of Murdoch’s first since becoming sole chair of Fox and News Corp after his father Rupert retired at the age of 92, the paper adds. It continues: “Abbott notoriously once said that the ‘so-called settled science of climate change’ was ‘absolute crap’. He has also previously said that climate change is ‘probably doing good’. Under his leadership, Australia’s carbon price was repealed. Earlier this year he joined the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK thinktank that is critical of climate change science.” A second Guardian article reports: “Scientists have described the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch as a ‘climate villain’ who has used his television and newspaper empire to promote climate science denial and delay action. Murdoch’s outlets, including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and The Australian, have long been known to promote doubts about the cause and consequences of the climate crisis.”

The number of heat-related deaths has risen over recent years and reached a record high in 2022, the Guardian reports, covering new figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The paper continues: “Between 1988 and 2022, almost 52,000 deaths associated with the hottest days were recorded in England, with a third of them occurring since 2016, data from the Office for National Statistics shows. During the same 35-year period analysed, more than 2,000 people died in Wales due to the warm temperatures.” The paper quotes Prof Antonio Gasparrini, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and who worked on the ONS report saying: “This is a stark warning that this will become the norm due to climate change…Finally, it is quite telling that this report comes out just days after the UK government has decided to dilute their commitment on net-zero and generally on policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The Press Association also covers the ONS figures, quoting Holly Holder, deputy director for homes at the Centre for Ageing Better saying: “These new stats showing the growing health threat from rising temperatures confirm that it would be a grave mistake to slow down or roll back net-zero policies.” BBC News and Reuters also have the story. The Daily Telegraph reports the ONS figures under the headline: “Weather kills fewer people than 30 years ago, new data show.” It says: “Weather is killing fewer people now than 30 years ago because of a decrease in deaths from the cold, despite a rise in mortality during extreme heat, new data show.”

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is set to unveil a “climate action plan” this week that will “become its top priority and spur a sharp increase in financing”, reports the Financial Times. The outlet adds that the plan proposes to triple by 2030 annual lending for projects to fight climate change, making climate finance account for more than half of the funds it disbursed. Meanwhile, state-run news outlet CGTN writes that Xie Zhenhua, China’s climate envoy, has cautioned against “trade protectionism” that could raise the costs of renewable energy technologies. Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post runs a story questioning whether the Global Biofuels Alliance announced at the G20 summit in India earlier this month will “cause food supply issues” and aggravate climate change. Communist Party-backed newspaper People’s Daily publishes comments from a UN official saying that China’s efforts to combat desertification and protect ecosystems “offer inspiration for developing countries”.

Separately, about 13.4m tonnes of carbon emissions allowances (CEAs) were traded in China in August, more than four times July’s level, reports the Chinese business outlet Caixin. Trading volumes increased following the distribution of the final 2021 and 2022 “vintage” CEAs in July, which triggered a wave of selling surpluses and buying to cover compliance shortfalls, it adds. Jiemian writes that, as a result, there is “renewed industry attention” on whether the environmental attributes of renewable energy project generation will ultimately belong to green certificates or the CCER. The Chinese energy website BJX News writes that a state-level economic and technological development zone in Beijing “encourages businesses to participate in Beijing’s green electricity trading”.

In an interview with Jiemian, Xu Huaqing, director of the National Climate Strategy Center, states that China’s energy transition should be calibrated according to the country’s available energy resources and have “energy security as a prerequisite”. Finally, a comment piece in the South China Morning Post examines Guangdong province’s renewed investment in fossil fuels as an example of the “loss aversion attitude” hampering China’s energy transition.

An editorial in the Observer reacts to last week’s climate policy rollbacks by UK prime minister Rishi Sunak. It begins by saying of Sunak’s Conservative predecessors, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson, “at least [they] had an unwavering commitment to the headline political commitment [on climate change]”. It adds: “Sunak now appears willing to trash the political consensus in favour of net-zero in order to make a desperate pitch for votes ahead of the next election.” The editorial continues: “In a speech last week, he insisted he remained committed to the 2050 [net-zero] legal commitment. But everything else he said indicated he regards the stability and certainty of UK climate policy as fair game in his attempts to try to open a new political dividing line, by framing a false trade-off protecting the environment and boosting growth in the long term, and the cost of living in the here and now.” The paper concludes: “[Sunak] is wrong. The overwhelming majority of voters support the net-zero target and environmental policies, and rightly do not blame environmental policies for the high cost of living. This strategy is unlikely to save the Conservatives from potential electoral defeat. But what it does risk doing in the wake of Brexit – from which no promised bounties have materialised – is deepening cynicism among voters that politicians can’t be trusted, and further undermining support for policies to address climate change among the minority of voters already disinclined to back them.” In the Sunday Mirror, an editorial says: “The PM assures us that despite abandoning these key pledges, he will still meet our 2050 legal commitments. But he fails to explain how. No wonder his approval rating dipped to its lowest ever following his announcement. Hopes of cheap clean energy are being dashed. Business plans are in shreds over the loss of certainty. If Sunak really wanted to lift the burden on low-income families, costs could be paid out of general taxation. But that would mean no election sweeteners next year. June was the hottest ever globally and July saw the hottest day on record.” The Mail on Sunday takes a different tack, in an editorial headlined: “Keep this up, prime minister and you might just see off [opposition leader] Sir Keir [Starmer, who is currently 20 points ahead in the polls].” The paper adds: “Sunak has encouraged millions with his decision to relax several of the more irksome net-zero targets. It is a rare sign that someone in power is beginning to grasp just how widespread and costly many of these provisions are. Indeed, he could go much further and do the country and his party plenty of good while continuing to show a reasonable and proper concern for the planet.”

Elsewhere, many more column inches have been devoted to Sunak’s climate U-turns, with a letter to the Times, from the heads of the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Materials, Minerals & Mining and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, saying: “The cost of living crisis and the extreme heat waves in the US, China and Europe have highlighted the acute risks if the government does not implement a strategic approach to net-zero. Future crises will surely follow if the Climate Change Act objectives are not met. Fully implementing the net-zero strategy, which until this week included the end dates of 2030 for the sale of petrol and diesel cars and 2035 for gas boilers without exemptions, could create another 440,000 well-paying jobs and unlock £90bn in private investment by 2030.” The trio add: “Professional bodies such as ours need a stable policy framework to align our sectors with net-zero and reap the opportunities granted by the global transition.” For the Guardian, co-founder and co-director of Green New Deal Rising Fatima Ibrahim writes under the headline: “Sunak’s net-zero U-turn will hurt those he says he wants to help – Labour must stand up for them.” For the New Statesman, freelance journalist John Elledge has a piece titled: “Right-wing papers are preparing the Tories’ downfall over net-zero.” He says the papers, including the Daily Telegraph, Sun and Daily Mail give “the impression that Rishi Sunak’s decision to row back a bunch of environmental targets laid out in the 2019 Conservative manifesto was a universally popular and generally clever thing to do”. But, says Elledge, they are in fact “out of touch with public opinion”.

For the Sunday Times, John Caudwell, billionaire and the Conservatives’ largest donor before the last election, writes: “The government’s decision to push back net-zero deadlines is bad not only for the planet but also for this country’s economic wellbeing.” An accompanying Sunday Times news piece reporting Caudwell saying there is “‘no chance whatsoever’ of him backing Rishi Sunak after the prime minister’s green policy U-turn”. It adds: “The billionaire John Caudwell said he is now considering whether to switch allegiance to Labour after being left ‘beyond shocked’ at the ‘madness’ of Sunak’s reversal on reforms brought in by Boris Johnson.” Also in the Sunday Times, columnist and director of the free-market Centre for Policy Studies Robert Colville says “when we talk about net0-zero, we are actually talking about electrification”, going on to argue the UK will need a lot more electricity to reach its climate targets. He concludes: “What will make or break Britain’s net-zero ambitions, in other words, is not how many bins we have to put out, or whether we’ll be taxed for eating meat. It’s whether we can rise to the enormous policy challenge of rewiring our entire energy economy to be greener, more efficient, more secure and more abundant, and somehow keep it all affordable. The detail may be less than electrifying to the average punter. But it will be all-important for their bills.” A final Sunday Times comment, by columnist Matthew Parris, is titled: “We’re no nearer the truth of net-zero’s costs.” Monday’s edition of the Times carries the views of Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, reflecting on Sunak’s speech in light of his time on the Climate Change Committee. He writes: “The easy consensus, the lack of serious parliamentary scrutiny has been damaging; as, actually, have those who have argued that we can stop emissions almost immediately. We, literally, cannot.” Johnson adds: “They’ve been damaging because they have hidden the scale of what needs to be done. To get to net-zero by 2050 will require investment not in the billions but in the trillions and nothing short of an economic and technological revolution which will affect us all. That won’t happen by pretending it’s just business as usual. So, paradoxically perhaps, I almost welcomed the prime minister’s intervention last week. Not because I agree with him, not because I am naive as to some of the political calculation that probably lay behind it, and certainly not because he was tackling anything like the most important issues. Rather, because the apparent consensus really does need prodding. We need some light shone on what needs doing and on how far away we are from doing it.” He concludes: “Getting serious about tackling climate change will require the kind of careful, long-term, honest planning, decision-making and delivery that has not exactly been the hallmark of British governments in recent years. Last week’s announcements look depressingly like the antithesis of what is needed, but just might be the start of something better.”Also in the Times, columnist Libby Purves writes: “It’s time government laid out what infrastructure is needed where, or we will rush into destroying our countryside.” For CityAM, Nicholas Earl writes under the headline: “Sunak’s net-zero pragmatism must include plan to beat nimbys after Sizewell C fiasco.” In the Sunday Times, columnist Alex Massie says: “Green energy transition needs a dose of reality.” He adds: “Change is happening at pace, but we will rely on fossil fuels for a while yet.”

Writing for the Sun on Sunday, meanwhile, chairman of the Conservative Party Greg Hands writes under the heading: “Rishi Sunak has shown he is not afraid to make big calls with net-zero decision.” In the Sunday Telegraph, the climate-sceptic former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore writes under the headline: “Rishi Sunak’s green policy shift is the beginning of the end for net-zero.” In his piece, he says that Conservative MP and recent secretary of state for energy security and net-zero Jacob Rees Mogg was the “main speaker” at a “private lunch given by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the climate-sceptic think tank on whose board I sat until quite recently”. For the Mail on Sunday, a full-page comment by columnist Dan Hodges begins: “Rishi Sunak thinks the British people are idiots. That’s the only rational explanation for last week’s shambolic, short-sighted, self-serving, fraudulent grandstanding on net-zero.” Hodges points out that many of the policies and proposals being weakened or “scrapped” by Sunak were introduced under Sunak’s watch, either as prime minister or as chancellor, before concluding: “Rishi Sunak doesn’t want honesty. He wants to continue to peddle the fiction that net-zero can be delivered cost-free.” The Mail on Sunday also gives a comment slot to climate-sceptic Conservative MP Craig MacKinlay who complains that electric vehicle charging infrastructure will have to be built using “diesel diggers”. The Sunday Telegraph has climate-sceptic columnist Janet Daley writing: “On net-zero, Britain can’t afford to be the moral model to the world.” And a comment for the Sun on Sunday by Tony Parsons says Sunak “has dared to challenge the orthodoxy of the new green religion”. In the Sun, former political editor Trevor Kavanagh writes: “Rishi has struck a nerve with his declaration of war against the Green cult dash to net-zero.”

In the Financial Times, chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman reflects on last week’s climate U-turns in the UK, writing that the “pressures [prime minister Rishi Sunak] has bowed to are weighing down on leaders across the western world”. He adds: “The underlying problem is that most mainstream politicians have embraced a convenient half-truth about climate change. This holds that the journey to net-zero is not only essential for the environment, but will also be good for the economy. The jobs of the future, we are told, will be green jobs. This is true, as far as it goes. But it glosses over the transitional costs.” Rachman also highlights the “fraught” geopolitics of the shift to net-zero, which “will make democracies less reliant on Russia and Saudi Arabia” but also “more reliant on China, the world’s most important producer of solar panels, batteries and rare-earth minerals”. He concludes: “So where is the good news? Perhaps it lies in the fact that none of the world’s major economies are yet led by ‘climate deniers’. Even as he announced the slowdown in green policies this week, Sunak repeatedly emphasised that his government remains committed to net-zero. But when it comes to actual climate action Sunak, like other western leaders, seems increasingly drawn to a version of St Augustine’s prayer: ‘Lord give me chastity and continence. But not yet.’”

A Washington Post interactive feature reports from Kolkata, India, documenting the inequality of climate impacts: “A poor community in India lost power during a heat wave, unlike the luxury mall next door. What happened next exposed extreme heat’s unequal toll.” The paper says: “India already faces dire heat risks and is likely to be the most-threatened country in the world by 2030, according to an analysis of climate data by The Washington Post and the nonprofit modelling group CarbonPlan, with more than 770 million people living in highly dangerous conditions at least two weeks per year. Because of its growing wealth and increasingly prosperous middle class, India will have the resources to protect many of its residents from the worst effects of rising temperatures, unlike many poorer nations. But Kolkata, a city of more than 4.5 million in eastern India, is a microcosm of who will benefit from that protection and who won’t. A vast population will face risks of heat-related sickness and death, according to a Post examination that included interviews with residents and experts, as well as data analysis, the use of advanced sensor technology to measure neighbourhood exposures, drone footage and public records research.”

A Financial Times “big read” says coal accounts for three-quarters of electricity generation in India “and demand is expected to grow, despite an enormous renewables plan”. It continues: “Prime minister Narendra Modi has laid out an ambitious target to build 500 gigawatts of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030. India has also announced billions in subsidies to manufacture clean-energy technology and wants to become a leading green hydrogen exporter.” The piece adds: “Yet India’s energy transition is complicated by intractable problems, from the difficulty of acquiring land for solar and wind farms to deep financial distress in its power system, which slows new investment. While demand is surging, millions still lack access to reliable electricity. Authorities see the expansion of polluting industries like steel and cement as essential to creating jobs and economic growth. This means that, even as they invest in renewables, coal-belt states such as Odisha are opening more mines and power stations that will leave India dependent on coal for decades to come.”

The Arctic atmosphere has become warmer and wetter over the past 20 years due to the loss of sea ice, according to new research. A device onboard a NASA satellite has been collecting global data of the Earth’s temperature and humidity twice daily since May 2002. Using this data, the authors assess Arctic weather conditions over 2003-22. “This warming and moistening was largest in the first decade (2003-12) compared to the most recent decade (2013-22) and is driven by faster ice loss in the first decade,” the paper finds. It adds that the warming and moistening trend is most pronounced in autumn.