UK prime minister Rishi Sunak has announced a major u-turn on the government’s climate commitments, including delays to the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers, reports the Guardian. Sunak said he was “absolutely unequivocal” about sticking to the commitment to reach net-zero by 2050, but that he wanted to take a “more pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach”, the newspaper continues. He promised to put his party on a more “radical” path, in an attempt to close the gap with the Labour party before the next general election, the article notes. In “one of the biggest policy changes since taking office”, Sunak confirmed that the deadline for the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be pushed back from 2030 to 2035, in line with other European countries, adds the Guardian. Reuters quotes Sunak saying: “We’re going to ease the transition to electric vehicles. You’ll still be able to buy petrol and diesel cars and vans until 2035. Even after that, you’ll still be able to buy and sell them secondhand.” (Under the previous target, it would have been possible to still be able to buy and sell petrol and diesel cars secondhand after 2030, and new hybrid vehicles till 2035). Sunak also announced a nine-year delay in the ban on new fossil-fuel heating for off-gas grid homes, pushing it back to 2035, reports BBC News. The ban on the sale of new gas boilers in 2035 remains, but exemptions for poorer households will be introduced, it adds. A fifth of households will now be exempt, reports the Times, and five million homes, in which moving to heat pumps would be “disproportionately expensive, would not “ever” have to switch from gas. Additionally, the boiler upgrade grant will be increased by 50%, offering households £7,500 to help replace their gas boilers with heat pumps, it notes. Sunak suggested his government would not implement any taxes on air travel, that it would not “interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car” or “make you change your diet”, reports the Independent. These policies have been “scrapped” he said, along with a suggested meat tax and forcing households to have seven different rubbish bins. (Many outlets and observers have noted that none of these were existing policies and were not even being considered by the government, previously.) Additionally, the Independent notes, no households will be forced to introduce energy-efficiency improvements and a £150m green future fellowship to support scientists and engineers to develop green technologies will be created. Sunak said that the government will not ban the extraction of new oil and gas in the North Sea “ever”, but still pledged that the UK would hit net-zero by 2050, notes City AM. (See Carbon Brief’s factcheck on government claims about North Sea drilling). Additionally, Sunak vowed to fasttrack grid connection for renewable energy technologies, promising to end the “first-come-first-served” approach, reports the Daily Telegraph. The article quotes Sunak, saying: “Right now, it can take 14 years to build new grid infrastructure. There are enough projects waiting to be connected to generate over half of our future electricity needs. We’ll set out the UK’s first ever spatial plan for that infrastructure, to give industry certainty and every community a say.”

Meanwhile, Sunak has been widely criticised for watering down the government’s net-zero commitments, with Reuters reporting that Prof Piers Forster, chair of the Climate Change Committee, has said in reaction: “We need go away and do the calculations, but today’s announcement is likely to take the UK further away from being able to meet its legal commitments. This, coupled with the recent unsuccessful offshore wind auction, gives us concern.” A wave of criticism has come from industry, with the car sector warning the delay to the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars will undermine investment certainty, reports the Financial Times. It quotes Ian Plummer, a former Renault and Volkswagen executive, saying: “This U-turn will cause a huge headache for manufacturers, who are crying out for clarity and consistency.” Similarly, delaying the ban on the installation of gas boilers sends “completely the wrong message”, reports the i newspaper. Analysts and campaigners have said the plans would not help most low-income families, especially private renters struggling with the cost of living crisis, reports the Guardian. One estimate suggests that delaying the need for more energy-efficiency measures by two years could cost private renters £1bn in higher energy bills. City AM quotes Eon UK chief executive Chris Norbury, who calls watering down the climate policy a “mis-step on many levels”, which risks the UK missing out on opportunities to “transform the economy”. Scientists and environmental groups have expressed anger and dismay at the U-turn, a separate article in the Guardian reports, with Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, chair of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London saying: “Our PM wants to have his cake and eat it when he says that the government wants to keep to the UK climate change targets but to weaken the policies to achieve them. These policies were already too weak, according to the June report of its advisers, the Climate Change Committee.” Additionally, it quotes Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, who says: “The grim reality is that Britain is no longer seen as a serious player in the global race for green growth. Under the Conservative government, Britain has gone from leader to laggard on climate change and further planned U-turns leaked last night will only hasten our waning influence on the world stage.” Within the Conservative party there has been criticism, with Sir Alok Sharma, COP26 president, saying the U-turn “will not help economically or electorally” and former minister Sir Simon Clarke saying the PM had acted against the country’s “environmental, economic, moral and political interests”, reports the Independent. Former prime minister Boris Johnson warned Sunak that he was in danger of losing “ambition for this country” and said that businesses were desperate for “certainty about our net zero commitments”, while Lord Goldsmith went further to call for a general election “now”, the online newspaper adds. Sunak has been backed by his predecessor Liz Truss, ministers Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman, plus former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, it continues. A separate article in the Independent quotes Sir Lindsay Hoyle, speaker of the House of Commons, who has complained that the policy shift was unveiled during a Commons recess for party conferences, robbing it of the chance to scrutinise the changes. Elsewhere, former US vice-president Al Gore has lambasted the move, saying it marks a “turn back in the wrong direction”, reports BBC News. “At times in the past, the UK has been one of the impressive leaders on climate. And so for those who have come to expect that from the UK, it’s a particular disappointment,” he tells BBC News. Opposition parties have been scathing about the rollback, with Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow energy secretary, saying the prime minister was “rattled, chaotic and out of his depth”, while another shadow frontbencher said that he had “lost the plot”, reports the Guardian.

Government-supporting, right-leaning newspapers have welcomed the changes, with the Daily Telegraph reporting that Sunak is sparing the public “net-zero pain”. Sunak is cutting “unacceptable costs”” for households, it writes, quoting Sunak’s comments that voters would revolt against net-zero unless politicians were more “honest” and “realistic” about the costs. It quotes Suella Braverman, the home secretary, who was among the first to publicly back the moves, saying he had made “difficult decisions” that put “household costs first”. The Times highlights that some industry voices who have welcomed the changes, quoting Mike Foster, of the Energy and Utilities Alliance, which represents a number of gas-boiler manufacturers. “It’s a very sensible move to extend the off-grid boiler ban to 2035 — that’s smart politics ahead of an election,” he says. The Daily Express quotes Rees-Mogg, who called ex-premier Johnson an “eco-zealot” following his criticism of the changes, as well as ex-premier Truss, who urged the government to go further and “abolish the windfall tax on oil and gas and [to] lift the fracking ban, which would reduce people’s energy bills and make the UK more competitive” (A Carbon Brief factcheck highlights that scaling up fracking would take many years and would do little to bills or energy security). Welcoming the changes, the Sun states on its frontpage that Sunak has “given us a brake”. It states Sunak praised the newspaper’s “brilliant” “Give us a brake” campaign, which has been calling for a delay in the ban on new petrol and diesel cars, arguing that electric vehicles are too expensive and are not actually better for the environment. (These claims have been widely rebuffed, as highlighted in this Carbon Brief factcheck). DeSmog lists “anti-net zero campaigners and climate science deniers” who have claimed credit and welcomed Sunak’s weakening of green policies, including lobbyists such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Net Zero Watch and Fair Fuel, among others.

Throughout his speech, Sunak insisted that the delays to net-zero policies were not a “short-term decision” aimed at winning the next general election, but instead they were “about doing what’s right for the country in the long term,” reports the Independent. The Guardian reports “the story behind the PM’s decision to u-turn”, stating “with PM’s electoral options narrowing, strategists came to conclusion policy could help create dividing line with Labour”. Over coming months, Sunak’s pitch will be that he is saving “hard-pressed families from unacceptable costs” of green policies, it adds, while trying to present Labour as “piling them on”. “Rishi Sunak has rolled the dice on weaponising net-zero for electoral advantage. No one knows if it will pay off — and some say it’s already costing him dearly,” reports Politico. It argues that the goal of the changes to environmental policy is to “make net-zero a wedge issue at an election expected next year”, noting that Sunak’s Conservative party has been well behind the opposition Labour party in the polls. The i newspaper reports that Sunak’s backtracking on net-zero pledges risks doing more electoral harm than good for the Conservatives, however. A new survey of more than 4,000 people and several focus groups found, it notes, that it was a “poor electoral decision” that will lose voters. Politico reports via its London Playbook newsletter: “Playbook hears a key element of Sunak’s plan will need a vote by MPs – the delay of the ban on new petrol car sales to 2035. But it is not expected before the King’s Speech.”

Rolling back climate policies risks the UK’s net-zero target, as well as “jeopardising Britain’s place as global leader on climate”, reports Bloomberg. Snap analysis from Carbon Brief supports this, as the rollback creates an increasingly large gap between where the UK’s emissions are heading and where they are supposed to go. The Times notes “the government is not on course to meet its net-zero commitments and the perilous state of national and household finances makes it politically and economically difficult to get on track, at least in the short term”. Elsewhere, Prof Miles Allen of the University of Oxford tells BBC News: “What’s depressing about all the changes [Sunak] has told us about is they all go in the same direction. If we do everything slower, we’re just going to make it more difficult to reach that target.”

The EU is to ban sweeping environmental claims such as “climate neutral” or “eco” by 2026, reports the Financial Times. Companies will not be allowed to use the terms unless they can prove the claim is accurate, as part of efforts by the block to crack down on greenwashing of consumer products, it continues. The rules – which were agreed late on Tuesday – will also outlaw claims based on emissions-offsetting along with green labels that have not been approved by sustainable schemes, the FT adds. The change will make “ the EU the toughest region of the world in terms of its approach to green claims made to the public”, the article notes. The ban was first proposed in March 2022, reports Edie, and is designed to “empower consumers”. The article quotes Ursula Pachl, the deputy director of EU consumer advocates BEUC, who says: “There is no such thing as ‘carbon-neutral’ or ‘CO2 neutral’ cheese, plastic bottles, flights or bank accounts. Carbon-neutral claims are greenwashing, plain and simple”.

Speaking at the inaugural “climate ambition” summit in New York, UN secretary-general António Guterres has warned that the “gates of hell” are at hand as climate change intensifies, reports the Associated Press. International officials said that world leaders were still not doing “nearly enough to curb pollution of heat-trapping gases” at the summit which ran during the UN general assembly, as they pleaded with major emitting nations to do more, it adds. Guterres warned that the world is “decades behind” in moving away from fossil fuels, with the world on track for 2.8C of temperature rise since pre-industrial times, reports the Financial Times. “We must make up time lost to foot-dragging, arm-twisting and the naked greed of entrenched interests raking in billions from fossil fuels,” Guterres continued, the FT notes. There were 34 countries invited to speak at the one-day summit on Wednesday, in “recognition of their strong action on climate change” reports Reuters, including Brazil, Canada, Pakistan, South Africa and the island nation of Tuvalu. Some railed against the fossil fuel industry and continued reliance on oil, gas and coal, while others highlighted the need to reform financial institutions to improve access to funding for developing nations, it notes. Wealthy countries need to get to net-zero as close as possible to 2040, Guterres said, as well as deliver promised climate funding to poorer and more vulnerable nations, reports the Guardian. The article quotes Guterres, who said: “Many of the poorest nations have every right to be angry, angry that they are suffering most from a climate crisis they did nothing to create, angry that promised finance hasn’t materialised and angry that their borrowing costs are sky high.” Leaders from the world’s biggest emitters were notably absent at the summit, says a separate Guardian article. US president Joe Biden, Chinese president Xi Jinping, UK prime minister Rishi Sunak, and French president Emmanuel Macron all failed to attend the summit, it notes. Kenyan president William Ruto was the first to speak, highlighting Africa’s young, highly-skilled workforce, and its minimal carbon footprint meaning it has the potential to “leapfrog” to a green economy given the right investments, debt relief and boring conditions, reports the Independent. “Africa does not need handouts – what we need is fairness,” Ruto said, notes the article. Other leaders, such as the prime minister of Samoa, Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa, prime minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, president Gabriel Boric of Chile and others spoke, along with  state and local leaders, including California governor Gavin Newsom, and London mayor Sadiq Khan, it adds. “It’s time for us to be a lot more clear. This climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis. For decades and decades, the oil industry has been playing each and every one of us in this room for fools”, said Newson, to applause and cheers in the chamber, notes the Independent. This story is also covered by Politico, CNN, the Irish Independent and many others.

US president Joe Biden is intending to use executive authority to train and employ thousands of young people in jobs that could help “fight global warming”, reports the New York Times. According to White House national climate adviser Ali Zaidi, the government is planning to establish the American Climate Corps, which will provide young people with skills to work in wind and solar production, disaster preparedness and land conservation, the article continues. Many of the programs will have age limits, but not all, with 20,000 recruits expected in its first year, it adds. Biden had “previously been thwarted by Congress” on creating a climate corps, reports the Guardian. Early versions of the climate corps were proposed within the Inflation Reduction Act approved last year, but were “jettisoned amid strong opposition from Republicans and concerns about cost”, the article adds. He is now looking to use executive powers to bring in the program, which will be modelled on Roosevelt’s New Deal, it notes. The creation of the American Climate Corps is designed to “win over young voters, a critical constituency, before next year’s presidential election”, reports the Washington Post. Biden has come under criticism from youth climate groups for his approval of  new fossil-fuel projects such as the Willow oil drilling project in Alaska, it notes. The story was also covered by the Hill.

China is “off track” from its Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to less than 1.5C by the end of the century due to its “continued reliance on coal-fired electricity plants”, the South China Morning Post writes, citing research from energy consultancy Rystad Energy. The Hong Kong-based outlet adds that coal consumption in China will increase “until 2026”. Reuters reports that China imported more coal in August, according to customs data, as domestic coal production fell. CNBC says that China’s oil demand will peak in three to five years, quoting Fereidun Fesharaki, chairman of research service Facts Global Energy. It also quotes Yaw Yan Chong, director of LSEG oil research in Asia, who attributes China’s lower dependence on oil to its “quite explosive growth in EV adoption”. 

Meanwhile, newly installed capacity of solar power between January and August reached 113 gigawatts (GW). This accounted for about 57% of all new power installations during this period, reports the Chinese business news outlet Jiemian. The state-run industry newspaper China Electric Power News covers the same story, adding that investment in solar companies totalled 187.3bn yuan ($20.7bn), up 82.7%. The state news agency Xinhua reports that, from January to July 2023, China’s exports of solar products reached a “record high” of $32bn, up about 6% year-on-year. Finally, Bloomberg’s Energy Daily newsletter writes that the solar industry has seen share prices crater this year, adding that China’s top five manufacturers have lost a combined 347bn yuan ($48bn) in market capitalisation since the start of 2023. However, it notes that panels are cheaper now than they have ever been and global demand is surging.

All of the UK’s national newspapers carry editorials reacting to Sunak’s U-turn on key climate policies and they largely divide between right-leaning titles that support the government and have a history of promoting climate-sceptic viewpoints and those that do not. An editorial in the Financial Times concludes by saying: “The Conservative premier apparently sees presenting himself as someone who would slow and alleviate the short-term climate transition burden on families as a way to draw a clear divide with the Labour opposition. True leadership, however, would involve finding ways to carry voters with him through the challenges ahead and seizing on the green transition to rekindle growth and spur innovation. This, not backtracking, would be the best way for Sunak to demonstrate that he deserves to keep his job after the next election.” The Guardian says: “There is an economic cost of inaction alongside the moral shame of flinching from the climate challenge. Signalling that Britain is a capricious jurisdiction directs investment elsewhere. Countries that move faster in the green transition will sell their expertise to the laggards. Britain does not want to fall behind in that race.” The Independent headlines its editorial: “Reckless Rishi has turned his back on eco-Britain.” It goes on to say that the “prime minister has ignored the furious backlash from within his own party to reverse key green pledges – and has done so at his peril”. The Daily Mirror argues that Sunak gave a “deeply dishonest speech” in which he claimed he was “acting on behalf of working people”. The editorial concludes: “But it will be households who pay more if homes are not insulated, energy prices continue to rise and firms no longer invest in green jobs. Mr Sunak has capitulated to the zealots and climate change sceptics in his party and betrayed the next generation.”

In stark contrast, the Conservative-supporting newspapers all get behind Sunak – and largely ignore that the UK has legally binding net-zero targets and carbon budgets. An editorial in the Daily Mail says: “By dialling down the green agenda, the PM has drawn a dividing line with Labour – vital with a general election looming. The government now has a sensible net-zero policy: Taking action, of course, but accepting the planet will not be saved by bankrupting Britain. By contrast, Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to reverse Mr Sunak’s changes if in power to avoid upsetting his activists and main financial donor [a false claim] and Just Stop Oil backer, Dale Vince – whatever the hardship to the public. That’s the difference between the two parties. Labour’s leader is looking out for his own interests. Mr Sunak is taking tough decisions to benefit the whole nation.” The Daily Telegraph says: “Eventually, market forces and scientific advancement should create a green world of affordable electric (or hydrogen) cars and well-insulated homes heated by eco-friendly technologies, backed up by all the necessary infrastructure. But we won’t get there by impoverishing the country and alienating its people. Mr Sunak is to be commended for saying so in such unequivocal terms.” An editorial in the Sun “salutes” Sunak going on to say: “Britain has cut our emissions by half since 1990, easily the fastest in the G7, to globally insignificant levels. We lead the world on it. Why do some also want us to lead the world on self-inflicted economic harm? Mr Sunak, whose No10 speech amounted to a bold relaunch, is right to put voters before vested interests. He wrong-footed Labour, despite their complacency about winning power. Their abuse ­concealed their confusion. And the Tories at last have something to sell on the doorstep.” The Daily Express says: “Over-zealous ‘green’ campaigners believe that if it isn’t hurting, it isn’t working.They seem to think that the more unaffordable a policy is, the better. By contrast, Mr Sunak understands that the move to net-zero needs public support…Those who disagree with Mr Sunak’s approach must explain exactly what they would do differently.” Finally, the Times (now under the editorship of Tony Gallagher, who was formerly an editor at the Sun, Mail and Telegraph) concludes its editorial: “It is now for Mr Sunak to make good on his promise of achieving net-zero by 2050 without impoverishing those with too little to give. The grants he promised to low-income households unable to afford heat pumps are a good start. They should be followed by investment in onshore wind and nuclear. That, for all the outrage, will amount to a more substantial legacy than Mr [Boris] Johnson’s hollow boosterism. The prime minister deserves credit for grasping the green nettle.”

The UK national newspapers also carry a range of comment pieces, including an article by Rishi Sunk in the Sun in which he claims: “Like Sun readers, I care deeply about climate change and hitting net zero…We are not watering down our commitment on net zero — in fact, we’re doubling down. [This is false.] But we’re going to do it in an honest, fair and sensible way — a way that eases the burden on households and carries the consent of the British people.” The rest of the opinion articles published by the UK newspapers, again, broadly divide as expected with the government-supporting newspapers largely providing cover for Sunak’s announcements. The Times gives space to Iain Martin who applauds the “honesty” about net-zero, adding that “by extending Johnson’s fanciful deadline the PM is squaring with voters and putting Labour on the spot about its plans”. The (increasingly hysterical) climate-sceptic editor of the Sunday Telegraph Allister Heath uses his weekly column in the Daily Telegraph to claim that “the furious Blob will try to destroy Rishi Sunak for his net-zero heresy”. Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail is handed a whole page and says: “Ideologues in their ivory towers have been allowed for too long to impose a hair-shirt agenda on the rest of us. They’ve dictated the running – forcing us to adopt unrealistic targets, and loading costs onto ordinary people, who are in no position to bear them.” Also in the Daily Mail, sketch writer Quentin Letts claims that “adopting a policy the public might actually like [has] caused a rupture in Blob’s molten core”. The Daily Express columnist Esther Krakue says: “We are certainly not going to encourage less developed countries to go carbon neutral if we crash our own economy.” The Daily Express also gives space to the climate-sceptic Conservative MP Craig McKinlay, who leads a small group of climate-sceptic politicians: “It’s good politics too as Labour peddle more extreme, expensive, controlling and unachievable pipe dreams.” In the Independent, Sean O’Grady begins: “Relax, petrol-heads: the ban on new gas-guzzlers was probably never going to hit you. But don’t despair, electric-fans: you can still save the planet – but for some time yet, it might cost you the earth.”

There is widespread condemnation of Sunak’s U-turns on climate policy, too. In the Guardian, Green MP Caroline Lucas says that “Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Greens and car manufacturers against him”. The Daily Telegraph gives space to Conservative MP Chris Skidmore who argues: “Net-zero has always been proportionate, pragmatic and fair. It makes no economic sense to abandon the commitments we gave to industry.” Camilla Cavendish, the former head of the Downing Street policy unit under David Cameron, writes in the Financial Times: “Sunak’s speech reflected a reality that has been dawning for most European governments since Russia invaded Ukraine. Namely that some of the easiest wins have been secured already (Britain’s dash for gas, which has half the carbon emissions of coal, being a prime example) and that the next stage of getting anywhere close to net-zero will entail pushing costs on to consumers that they haven’t been warned about…True leadership is about building a majority for change, explaining that we owe this to future generations and other countries, and creating the fairest possible solutions. That is what Sunak seemed to be arguing for. But there was too little detail to be sure whether this was, actually, more than another political manoeuvre.” Keiran Pedley, director of politics at pollsters Ipsos, writes in the i newspaper: “His shift is fraught with risk. Given the strength of public concern about climate change, how Sunak sells his changing stance is as important as the change itself. Early signs are not good for the prime minister, with the car industry demanding clarity over the 2030 target for banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars. A row with business is the last thing an embattled government needs and Sunak will want to be sure the Conservative party is behind any change in strategy here, too. Although perhaps more sceptical than Labour voters, it would be wrong to say Conservatives are overwhelmingly opposed to pro-climate policies. Sunak should expect push back from his own side too.” The Lex column in the Financial Times points out that “tinkering with targets will deter clean-energy investors”. The Independent carries a comment piece by former BBC News environment and energy analyst Roger Harrabin in which he says: “Any vestiges of optimism among climate scientists must have drained away on the news that the 2030 sales ban on fossil fuel cars is likely to be delayed, along with measures to curb emissions from homes and boilers. Forget optimism – despair will be the prevailing emotion for many…Right-wing papers have campaigned relentlessly against the tools of net-zero – electric cars and heat pumps, without suggesting how emissions might be cut otherwise. They have successfully persuaded many people that carbon targets will harm their lives, when in the longer term clean tech should reduce bills.” Finally, the Guardian also carries a range of other reaction pieces. Diarist John Crace says: “Cynical Rishi sells net zero targets down the river to appease the right.” Columnist Zoe Williams says: “I had to check whether I’d slipped into a coma, or whether it really was only the weekend when he vowed his determination to phase out petrol and diesel cars, in defiance of the climate emergency-sceptic wing of his party who have seemingly, in the intervening three days, managed to change his mind entirely.” The Guardian‘s financial editor Nils Pratley says the “net-zero rollback could be a disaster for business confidence, with cars policy looking particularly perverse”. And associate editor Martin Kettle urges readers to “see Sunak’s green retreat for what it is: a ruthless short-term electoral gamble”. 

A new study suggests that if every iron and steel plant globally is retrofitted with low-carbon technology just five years earlier than the planned schedule, this could reduce cumulative global emissions between 2020 to 2050 by 69.6bn (±52%) tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) from 2020 to 2050 – close to double global CO2 emissions in 2021. The study constructs an inventory of 4,883 individual iron and steel plants worldwide and matches them with appropriate technologies and strategies to reduce or remove emissions. Describing their approach as a “road map”, the authors say their approach illustrates “the decarbonisation pathway to the net-zero-emissions target with the efforts from each plant”.