The world’s coal power capacity outside China fell again last year, the Guardian reports, but at a slower rate, according to new figures from Global Energy Monitor (GEM). Citing the GEM report, it says closures need to happen “at almost five times the present rate”,  with new plants no longer being built, “in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement”. Reuters reports: “Overall, worldwide coal-fired power capacity grew by 19.5GW [gigawatts] last year, with 45.5GW of newly constructed capacity – mostly from China – offset by plant retirements totalling 26GW.” It adds that the amount of coal capacity planned or under construction grew to 537GW last year, according to GEM’s figures, up from a record low of 479GW a year earlier and with China accounting for more than two-thirds of the total. The Times of India focuses on the GEM figures for India, noting that the 3.5GW of new coal commissioned in 2022 was the lowest on record excluding the pandemic year of 2020. It adds: “The report further found that from 2015 to 2022, the country’s pre-construction coal power capacity also decreased by nearly 88%. However, according to the research, India continues to send mixed signals about its future coal use.” The Associated Press also reports the findings. (The GEM report is about coal power capacity. The AP headline and opening incorrectly refers to “coal use”.) 

In other coal power news, Reuters reports that India’s power output “grew at the fastest pace in over three decades in the just-ended fiscal year…fueling a sharp surge in emissions as output from both coal-fired and renewable plants hit records”.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed tighter pollution rules for coal-fired power stations, the Associated Press reports, noting that the changes would update standards “imposed more than a decade ago”. The proposed rule is expected to become final next year, the newswire says. It adds: “The mercury rule is among several EPA regulations aimed at coal plants…[US president Joe] Biden has pledged to make the US electricity sector carbon neutral by 2035, and stricter pollution standards have pushed electric plants to replace coal and oil with natural gas, wind and solar power.” The outlet continues: “The EPA said the mercury rule would result in the likely retirement of 500 megawatts of power by 2028 – an amount produced by a single large plant – but a spokesman for the National Mining Association called that number ‘grossly underestimated.’” Reuters reports: “The agency is also expected to issue carbon dioxide standards in the coming weeks that will reflect last year’s Supreme Court decision limiting that agency’s ability to issue sweeping greenhouse gas regulations for the power sector.” The New York Times says the proposed rule “would require coal- and oil-fired power plants to reduce emissions of several hazardous air pollutants, including mercury”. It adds: “The proposal sets up a likely legal battle with the coal industry and several Republican-led states, which fought to block a previous effort to regulate mercury under the Obama administration.” The Washington Post reports: “The move is aimed at protecting people downwind, but it could also hasten the phase-out of coal power. At least one GOP [Republican] senator has called it ‘job killing’.” Bloomberg and the Hill also have the story. Elsewhere, ReCharge reports that the US is “on track to close half its coal generation capacity by 2026”, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

The US nominee to lead the World Bank, Ajay Banga, has given his support to his predecessor’s proposals for an extra $5bn a year in lending for climate “and other global challenges”, Reuters reports.  It adds: “But he said that to raise the trillions of dollars needed annually to reach 2030 and 2050 global emissions reduction goals, the World Bank needs to help catalyse private capital.” Climate Home News says the World Bank’s private sector arm the International Finance Corporation is to “stop supporting new coal…closing a loophole that allowed its financial clients to continue funding new coal projects ”. Separately, Reuters reports the findings of a new study from Boston University: “Up to half a trillion dollars in debt needs to be written off to help developing nations at greatest risk of default return to sounder fiscal footing and meet climate and development goals.”

Japan plans to use its position as chair of the G7 group of major economies to push for agreement on accelerating decarbonisation, Reuters reports, citing comments from the country’s industry minister. The newswire explains: “As the chair of the G7 this year, Japan will hold the [climate, energy and environment] ministerial meeting in Sapporo on 15-16 April, ahead of the G7 summit in Hiroshima on 19-21 May, to promote what it calls realistic energy transition.”

Evidence from the last ice age shows that ice sheets “can collapse into the ocean in spurts of up to 600 metres (2,000 feet) a day, a study has found, far faster than recorded before”, the Guardian reports. It quotes the lead scientist Dr Christine Batchelor of Newcastle University saying: “Our research provides a warning from the past about the speeds that ice sheets are physically capable of retreating at.” BBC News reports: “Antarctica’s melting ice sheet could retreat much faster than previously thought, new research suggests. The evidence comes from markings on the seafloor off Norway that record the pull-back of a melting European ice sheet thousands of years ago.” It adds that the fastest withdrawing glaciers in the world today are retreating at up to 30m per day. The Times says the retreat of ice sheets at the end of the last ice age was “10 times that recorded anywhere in the present day”, according to the researchers. It quotes Batchelor saying: “This was a time of rapid temperature rise and rapid sea level rise…It is broadly analogous to today, even more so when we think of where we might be in a few decades’ time.” The Washington Post headline says the findings “raise[] concerns about future sea levels”. New Scientist and Inside Climate News also cover the findings.

A local court has blocked moves to limit flight numbers at Amsterdam’s Schipol airport, the Financial Times reports. It says the ruling “block[s] one of the most high-profile attempts yet to reduce the aviation industry’s environmental impact”. The paper explains: “The case rested on the local impact of flying, including noise and nitrogen dioxide levels and was closely watched within the European aviation industry as one of the first efforts by the state to limit flying on environmental grounds. The industry argues that it does not need to curtail growth in flying as it strives to hit net-zero by 2050 because of new technologies, notably cleaner fuels. But environmental campaigners have questioned the potential of the new technologies, which are unproven commercially, and on Wednesday said the judgement was a setback.” It adds: “[Schipol] airport this week announced plans to become ‘quieter, cleaner and better’, and said it would consult with airlines on a ban on night flights and private jets and a reversal of plans to build an additional runway.”

Chinese companies should be required to disclose the carbon emissions along their “value and supply chains”, in order to enable investors to adequately evaluate climate-related business risks, the South China Morning Post reports, citing asset managers from investment company Ninety One. The newspaper says this requirement would also support the country’s effort to achieve its “dual carbon” goals. Companies that are in the “early stages of their sustainability efforts” face challenges in reporting emissions associated with the use of their products – known as scope 3 – the outlet says, adding that these emissions account for the majority of a company’s carbon footprint. 

Separately, China Energy News publishes an analysis focusing on challenges for China’s wind power sector. One suggestion mentioned by the outlet is to increase government funding in technology innovation. Meanwhile, shipping news outlet Lloyd’s List predicts Mongolia will be China’s largest supplier of coking coal for the third consecutive year.

Elsewhere, Xinhua reports that Chinese president Xi Jinping participated in a tree-planting event in Beijing on Tuesday. Xi emphasises “green development” as the country’s current and future “major development strategy”, the state-controlled newswire reports. 

Finally, online magazine China Briefing publishes a long editorial on French president Emmanuel Macron’s trip to China, which is taking place during 5-7 April. It says the two countries are expected to “expand cooperation”, according to Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning. It adds that this trip is of “particular significance”, given that the relations between China and the EU have not been steady in recent years. Energy has been a key section in bilateral cooperation, the outlet notes, with the trip seeing deals including between China’s State Grid Corporation and the French power grid operator RTE.

A series of prominent investors in French oil giant TotalEnergies have filed a shareholder resolution calling for the company to make faster emissions cuts by 2030, the Financial Times reports, adding that this “would imply rolling back some of its gas projects and investing more aggressively in renewable energy”. It says: “Dutch shareholder activist Follow This brought the motion ahead of Total’s shareholder meeting on 26 May, echoing the pressure that the group is also looking to put on other big oil groups such as BP, Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil.” It adds: “In the resolution seen by the Financial Times, the investors said they considered that Total’s 2030 targets were not aligned with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, and the goal of keeping global warming well below 2C above pre-industrial levels.” Reuters also has the story. A separate report in the Financial Times says TotalEnergies has “struck a deal” with the Iraqi government to “salvage a $27bn series of energy projects” including “gas, oil and solar”.

The energy regulator Ofgem needs to have its statutory remit updated to include net-zero, according to a report on how to boost the offshore wind industry commissioned by the government and covered by the Financial Times. The report from government-appointed “offshore wind champion” Tim Pick “said there was also an urgent need to upgrade the UK’s grid infrastructure and speed up the approval of renewable energy projects”, according to the FT. In other energy news from the UK, City AM says offshore wind developer Ørsted and storage firm Highview Power “have teamed up to try and prove the feasibility and economic value of merging offshore wind turbines with long-duration storage”. Separately, City AM says North Sea oil and gas operator EnQuest “has joined industry calls for a windfall tax price floor”. The Times also has the story under the headline: “Windfall tax is driving firms out of UK, energy boss warns.” The Daily Telegraph says: “North Sea operator blames windfall tax as it axes 350 jobs.”  The Guardian says business leaders in the north of England, including Drax and Siemens, “have written to the prime minister, chancellor and energy secretary asking for help to reach net-zero”. The i newspaper reports in an “exclusive” that Drax “could lose its funding over alleged ‘greenwashing’”. The paper explains: “A source at Ofgem confirmed to i [newspaper] that Drax was subject to an additional ‘assessment audit’ over its renewable obligations, following criticism of the company. It is understood that some of the penalties being considered include the revocation or withholding of Renewable Obligation Certificates. This could see Drax lose access to some or all of its subsidies.” Elsewhere, openDemocracy says that trade secretary Kemi Badenoch “dined with anti-climate lobbyists in US”. It adds: “[The] minister had secret meeting with oil-backed thinktank that warned UK government not to listen to climate scientists.” Finally, the Press Association reports concerns of rising flood damage to health service infrastructure, with new findings suggesting there were 176 flooding incidents at NHS sites between April 2021 and March 2022.

Global climate-related alliances of companies need supportive guidelines from governments to “allay fears they could be tripped up by antitrust rules”, Reuters reports, citing “legal experts”. It notes separate reports that Zurich Insurance has followed Munich Re in leaving the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). The Financial Times “moral money” newsletter says of the alliance: “Disagreements over coal financing led some banks to threaten to quit the world’s biggest climate finance group last year. Now the hot topic is whether to cut off lending to oil and gas companies, and the debate shows all signs of being equally contentious.” It explains: “According to a leaked document seen by Moral Money, the Net Zero Banking Alliance, a Gfanz subgroup led by global banks including HSBC and Morgan Stanley, made plans last year to tell members to slash their fossil fuel financing based on a straightforward metric of carbon emitted…The proposals were open for consultation until September and appeared to target a swift implementation of the rules…[But] more than five months later the NZBA said it has still not been sent to executives for approval.”

Separately, the Floodlight reports: “Global banks pledged to cut emissions – but still invest billions on US gas exports.” GreenBiz says: “Investors increase scrutiny of climate policy engagement.” Meanwhile, BusinessGreen reports: “Reclaim Finance and Beyond Fossil Fuels claim major banks and investors have provided more than $500bn to [the] European gas sector since 2019.”

In a comment for Foreign Policy, columnist Adam Tooze reflects on the focus on energy security in response to the global energy crisis. He writes: “[S]ome hawkish voices in the US have gone so far as to suggest that the new geopolitical configuration puts the entire European vision of energy transition in question. They argue that the basic maths in favour of fossil fuels is now triumphing over green ideology.” Tooze continues: “This conservative, national security-based case for fossil fuels and nuclear power has the ring of hard-boiled realism about it.” He adds that it is “superficially compelling”. However, he notes: “As far as Europe is concerned, the suggestion from the US side that Putin’s war has proven the indispensable importance of fossil fuels and provoked a general retreat from the energy transition is quite simply at odds with the facts.” Tooze adds: “[T]here is absolutely no sign of any retreat by investors from renewables, rather the reverse. Far from falling back in love with gas, oil, and coal, the world clearly realised in 2022 that fossil fuels are an expensive and fickle trap.” The piece concludes: “European governments, businesses, and society are accelerating the energy transition. And they aren’t doing so on ideological grounds, or because they are blind to the risks of new dependencies (notably China). They are doing so because – in a world of tough choices and uncertainty, including about US politics, mounting ecological crisis, and geopolitical risk – the green energy transition simply looks like the smartest bet.”

In the first of a recently-launched series of podcast episodes interviewing authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Conversation host Michael Green and co-host Joelle Gergis of the Australian National University speak with Ed Hawkins, Kim Cobb and Valérie Masson-Delmotte about how scientists know the climate is changing and “what…it feel[s] like [for scientists] to carry that knowledge and do their vital work at this crucial juncture in Earth’s history”. The second episode interviews Guðfinna “Tollý” Aðalgeirsdóttir and Matt Palmer about sea level rise.

An editorial in the Economist says the scale of expansion needed in the world’s electricity networks is “vastly underappreciated”. It argues: “Too little investment is taking place. Planning rules get in the way. And, in a deep and damaging irony, some of the biggest advocates of slowing climate change do not accept the logic that to do so requires building more.” The piece continues: “The strongest objections to building are often lodged in the name of the environment, and by those keenest on a greener future. The skyline must be preserved, they might say, or the woodland is too ancient to fell, or the colony of terns too important in and of itself. But climate change is a problem of a different magnitude from almost all other environmental concerns, and of a different kind. That it was brought to the world’s attention mostly by the environmentally minded is to the movement’s credit. But it cannot be tackled merely with the values central to classical environmentalism. Those most anxious to achieve the energy transition must acknowledge that more building is the most practical course of action.” It concludes: “To those who want humans to flourish on a planet they can care for, the idea of an environmentalism that builds must be a call to action.”

An editorial in the Washington Post criticises “protectionist clauses” in the Inflation Reduction Act, which it says will hold back the buildout of energy infrastructure. It says: “​​The nation’s spring construction season is starting up, and, in theory, it should be a big one. The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law devoted more than $1tn to upgrading the country’s roads, rails and ports. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act is supposed to pump tens of billions more into renewables and other energy infrastructure.

But tucked into these laws are provisions that make it harder to build the things the country needs to sustain Americans’ quality of life and reduce planet-warming emissions: protectionist clauses such as ‘Buy America’ requirements.” An article in the Economist says: “Getting the most ambitious energy and climate laws in American history through Congress was not easy. Now comes the hard part.” In the Financial Times, meanwhile, columnist Martin Wolf warns of the “costly” shift away from globalisation, writing: “The slowdown in world trade, the shift towards economic nationalism and the growing demands in the west, and especially in the US, for decoupling from China are reshaping the global economy. It is, as yet, unclear how far this decoupling will go. It is unclear how far the inward-looking interventionism will go either. But there is no doubt this is a significant turning point, with unpredictable and, in all probability, damaging outcomes.”

New research investigates a “paradox” in coral survivorship, where coral communities that had already been exposed to human pressures appeared to fare better than undisturbed communities. The authors use data from nine expeditions over 2013-17 to investigate changes in coral reefs near Kiritimati (an atoll that is part of Kiribati) following the “globally unprecedented” 2015-16 tropical heatwave. They find that the heatwave killed 89% of hard coral cover. At the community level, coral exposed to high levels of human disturbance fared better than less disturbed reefs, according to the study. However, at the species level, survivorship was worse for corals already facing more stress from human disturbance – particularly water pollution. “Our study reveals that prolonged heatwaves projected under climate change will still have winners and losers,” the authors say.