UK climate news continues to be dominated by prime minister Rishi Sunak’s shock decision to rollback several flagship net-zero policies. In a frontpage story, Guardian reports that the government is “likely to face a series of legal challenges aimed at thwarting his plans to U-turn on net-zero policies”. It says the Good Law Project and Friends of the Earth have both written to ministers to warn of a fresh court challenge. Both groups have already been involved in similar legal action after they charged the government’s previous net-zero plans as being inadequate. The Financial Times reports that, despite the uproar that has followed, Labour has confirmed that it will not reverse Sunak’s delay to the phaseout of fossil fuel boilers. This comes in contrast to their pledge to reverse the five-year delay on the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars, demonstrating “how fraught Britain’s move away from fossil fuel heating has become”, the newspaper says. According to the Daily Mail, government sources say delaying the switch to electric cars by five years would, under the terms of the 2008 Climate Change Act, probably require approval in both the Commons and the Lords. It notes that this means the move could be blocked by “Tory rebels” who oppose the rollback of climate policies. The i newspaper reports that up to 20 Conservative MPs could rebel against the plan.

Another Guardian story reports that European MEPs from across the political spectrum have criticised Sunak, with one saying he is “making the UK a climate villain and destroying its international reputation as a climate leader”. Japanese industrial company Daikin, the market leader for heat pump manufacture in Europe, said Sunak’s actions – which included loosened rules around installing heat pumps – would undermine confidence and international investment, Reuters reports. As for industries that could benefit from the delays, City AM reports on comments from Dr Tony Ballance, chief strategy and regulation officer at gas distribution company Cadent, who framed Sunak’s rollback as a “reality check” for net-zero. Several news outlets – including Politico and the Daily Express – make a link between Sunak’s U-turn and a speech that King Charles has made in the French senate calling for climate action. The King’s climate speech is trailed on the frontpage of the Daily Telegraph. The Times has a piece about Sunak “scrapping green policies that never existed”, with various senior politicians and other important figures pointing out that supposedly proposed policies mentioned by Sunak, such as taxes on meat and frequent flying, were never seriously being considered. Along similar lines, the Guardian has a piece factchecking the prime minister’s speech, including his claims that he was not, in fact, slowing down the UK’s climate action. Analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, reported by BusinessGreen, concludes that delaying the gas boiler phaseout and scrapping energy efficiency measures could increase British household bills by up to £8bn over the next 10 years.

The Economist says Sunak “has been weighing such moves since a by-election in Uxbridge in July, where a backlash over a charge for drivers of polluting cars in outer London helped the Conservatives cling to the seat”. Yet, it adds, if Sunak “hopes attacking its green plans is a way to turn around the polling figures, then he is almost certainly wrong”. The Guardian reports in an analysis piece that insiders say the purpose of the speech “was to create dividing lines with Labour, with more policy announcements expected in weeks to come”. An analysis piece in New Scientist emphasises that the UK was already off-track to meet its existing climate targets. BusinessGreen has rounded up the reaction from campaigners, politicians and green business leaders to the dilution of key climate policies. The Financial Times has an article titled “how net-zero became an election issue around the globe”, in which it reflects on the UK case and examines how a “subject once regarded as a peripheral concern for voters has moved to centre stage”. 

The Scotsman reports that the Scottish National Party (SNP) has confirmed that Scotland will have to abide by the delayed ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. Dave Doogan, the party’s energy spokesman at Westminster, said the Scottish Government will have to mirror wider UK law as the country is “snared” into the UK Internal Market Act. Other SNP politicians called Sunak’s actions as “unforgivable betrayal” and said they were “urgently” assessing the effects in Scotland, after being given no notice of the plan by the prime minister, according to the Press Association.

The UK car industry must still meet mandatory electric vehicle sales targets from January, despite the government pushing back its ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, according to people briefed on the new rules speaking to the Financial Times. It notes that industry figures were told within hours of the announcement that the targets still stand, and business secretary Kemi Badenoch has also since confirmed that the mandate is “still in place”. BBC News notes that, from January, just over a fifth of vehicles sold must be electric, under the mandate with the target expected to hit 80% by 2030. “If a car maker fails to hit the targets, it will either face fines expected to be £15,000 per vehicle, or have to buy a surplus credit from a company that has sold lots of electric vehicles,” it explains. Yet, as one large manufacturer tells BBC News, forcing firms to hit these targets while pushing back the ban on new petrol and diesel cars would make it harder for firms to sell electric ones. The Guardian notes that criticism of the delayed ban has united industry and environmental groups, and will impact the electric car charging sector as well as manufacturers.

The Conversation has a piece by Tom Stacey, a senior lecturer in operations and supply chain management at Anglia Ruskin University, who says: “While Sunak’s decision to delay the ban may allow some to breathe a sigh of (polluted) relief, all the data and theory in this area indicates that the inevitable switch to electric vehicles shows no sign of abating – among consumers or manufacturers”. The Guardian also has an article in which it has gathered interviews with people around the country about what they think of the delayed car ban.

China’s special envoy for climate change Xie Zhenhua says that he is “willing to travel to the US” to discuss climate cooperation with his counterpart John Kerry, reports the state-supporting newspaper Global Times. Xie adds that the two have held regular video conferences. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post covers Xie’s comments that export controls on renewable energy products are “politicising” and “imperilling” decarbonisation goals. The Chinese financial outlet Yicai also quotes Xie saying that Kerry, former vice-president of the European Commission Frans Timmermans and others have stated that they would “definitely deliver” on the pledge at COP15 to channel $100bn to less wealthy nations by 2020, which, he said “even though it is 14 years late, it is better than nothing”. 

The state news agency Xinhua reports on a meeting between Chinese vice president Han Zheng and US non-governmental organisations where “US participants expressed appreciation for China’s green, low-carbon and sustainable development path”. The Chinese energy website BJX News reports on Han’s speech at the UNGA, at which he stressed that countries must “deepen practical cooperation in the fields of green development”.

Meanwhile, BJX News writes that, according to the National Energy Administration (NEA), China’s top energy regulator, natural gas is “one of the important approaches for addressing the new energy and [carbon] peaking issue both now and in the medium-to-long term”. The state-run newspaper China Daily writes that, according to the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), oil and gas are likely to continue to play a “fundamental” role in China’s energy system in the “foreseeable future”, possibly until 2040.

In other news, William Li, head of the Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer Nio, urges all governments to adopt an “open attitude” following the European Commission’s decision to conduct an anti-subsidy probe into Chinese-made EVs, reports Reuters. Tokyo-based Nikkei Asia reports that “five of the top 10” recipients of government subsidies among mainland Chinese companies in the first half of 2023 were “local manufacturers of electric vehicles or their batteries”. The Chinese business news outlet National Business Daily reports that the “first carbon accounting project” for hydrogen fuel cell industrial vehicles has been launched. Finally, Xinhua reports that the inaugural global sustainable transportation summit will be held in Beijing over 25-26 September.

Former US vice president Al Gore has warned that fossil fuel interests are trying to co-opt the battle against climate change, using the example of the appointment of Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, a “top oil executive”, as the leader of COP28, reports the New York Times. Speaking at the New York Times’s Climate Forward event, Gore said that the fossil fuel industry was “far more effective at capturing politicians than they are at capturing emissions”. He added: “They have captured control of the political and policymaking process in too many countries and too many regional governments, and they’ve reached out to try to capture the UN process.” Fossil fuel industries, Gore continued, “have portrayed themselves as the source of trusted advice that we need to solve this crisis. But they are responding to powerful incentives to keep digging and drilling and pumping up the fossilised remains of dead animals and plants and burning them in ways that use the atmosphere as an open sewer, threatening the future of humanity. It’s enough already”. The Independent also covers the story, adding Gore’s comments that “I don’t think it’s fair to expect [fossil fuel companies] to solve this when they’re incentivised to do otherwise. But I think it’s more than fair to ask them to get out of the way”. Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres also told reporters that fossil fuel companies should not be included in the COP28 climate summit if they continue to block climate action, says the Guardian.

Meanwhile, in China, climate envoy Xie Zhenhua called a global fossil fuel phase-out unrealistic, “dampening hopes that such an aim could be agreed at the COP28 climate talks”, writes Climate Home News. Xie argued instead that “fossil fuels should serve as a flexible and backup energy source”, the climate news outlet adds. Reuters also covers Xie’s comments, adding that while ending fossil fuel use “would not be on the table” at COP28, Xie stated that China was “open to setting a global renewable energy target as long as it took the divergent economic conditions of different countries into account”. And Axios also has continuing coverage of the UN Climate Ambition Summit on Wednesday.

The UN’s flagship Green Climate Fund (GCF), which distributes climate finance to developing countries, will likely have to “rein in its ambition after France announced just a 4% boost in its contribution”, Climate Home News reports. If other contributors match that trend set by major donors France and the UK, the GCF will raise just $11.5bn this funding round – short of the $12.5bn in its middle ambition scenario. “Big potential donors Japan, Sweden and Norway are yet to pledge. A commitment from the US, which did not give any money in 2019 and only delivered two-thirds of its 2014 pledge, could be game-changing,” it adds.

Separately, the Independent reports that the UK has pledged £160m towards developing nations’ net zero efforts at the UN “climate ambition” summit taking place in New York. Current News says the funds, announced by energy minister Graham Stuart will be spread across “four separate global initiatives aiming to speed up the development and deployment of new green technologies”. BusinessGreen reports on polling that finds 60% of the British public are “supportive of the UK’s international climate finance pledges being funded through either an increase in taxes on fossil fuel companies or through the revenues that could be freed up by ending subsidies to coal, oil and gas firms”.

Germany’s parliament has passed a bill mandating energy conservation across all economic sectors as part of efforts to combat climate change and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, reports Reuters. The newswire explains that the energy efficiency act, introduced by the Green-led economy ministry, encompasses regulations for energy savings in public buildings, industry and rapidly expanding data centres throughout Germany to achieve a 26.5% reduction by 2030 compared to 2008. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) says that “primary energy consumption” is supposed to decrease by 39.3%. The reductions align with the “high level of ambition” that the European Union envisions for Germany as part of its “Fit for 55” package, adds the media outlet.

Meanwhile, German chancellor Olaf Scholz has mentioned on the sidelines at the UN general assembly in New York that he is “pinning hopes” on 2023 as a potential “turning point in the fight against climate change”, reports Die Zeit. The newspaper says that Scholz presented three reasons for his optimism: the potential fulfilment of the commitment by industrialised nations to allocate $100bn to climate financing; the goal of tripling renewables by 2030; and the accession of 27 countries into the “Climate Club”, which was founded last year with a focus on the climate-friendly transformation of industries. However, Greenpeace has criticised the chancellor’s speech, labelling it as “lacking credibility”, notes Die Zeit. Clean Energy Wire also covers the story. 

Finally, the Financial Times analysis piece on how net-zero has become an election issue around the globe mentions that, in Germany, the proposal to ban oil and gas boilers was seen by analysts “as a key driver of a decline in the popularity of Olaf Scholz’s ruling coalition and a surge in support for the far right AfD”.

The deluge of op-eds and editorials concerning UK prime minister Rishi Sunal’s rollback of net-zero policies continues. A Times editorial is broadly supportive of Sunak’s plans and takes aim at a general lack of “critical scrutiny” of net-zero policies by politicians. It says: “Climate policy is far too important for the main parties to allow bold pledges to pass into law with only nominal review. It is to be hoped that Sunak’s welcome dose of realism will be a wake-up call for legislators who backed onerous measures against the public with a pitiful amount of scrutiny.” The Independent is far more critical of Sunak in its editorial, accusing him of “succumb[ing] to the pressures of the election cycle” and embracing “anti-science”. An approving Daily Mail editorial says it was “refreshing” to see Sunak coming out “all guns blazing yesterday to defend hitting the brakes in the race to net-zero”. It adds: “To further impoverish millions by forcing them to buy extortionately expensive electric cars and heat pumps would be intolerable.” [Polling still shows that the public overwhelmingly supports net-zero, and analysis after analysis shows that its policies will lead to people saving money.] The Sun’s editorial – as with many op-ed writers (see below) – takes aim at what it sees as the “remainer left” who have come out in opposition to Sunak’s plan. “This baying, Tory-hating mob, plus the climate change industry and its tame politicians, and the Labour Party and its broadcasting arm the BBC, have already lost their minds,” it says.

Meanwhile, the UK’s climate-sceptic commentariat are out in force, all with predictably approving takes on Sunak’s decision. In the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejohn has a full-page column titled: “Net-zero is Brexit MkII – the political class versus the people.” In a screed that takes aim at “Remainers”, “The Blob” and describes former net-zero tsar Chris Skidmore as “Chris Skidmarks”, Littlejohn says that, in his view, “wokery, EU membership and net-zero have replaced Christianity as our new state religions”. Allison Pearson begins her column in the Daily Telegraph praising Sunak’s actions by focusing on BBC climate editor Justin Rowlatt and the “broadcast media’s absurd overreaction” to the new plan. She resorts, once again, to quoting anonymous Daily Telegraph readers commenting underneath her columns to demonstrate her point, and concludes by stating: “Personally, I think the Climate Change Act should be repealed, and Britons freed from its crazy, punitive legal targets. But that’s for another time. Rishi Sunak has made an excellent start. Carry on, Prime Minister. We’re right behind you.” This is a common theme in the op-ed pages, with Leo McKinstry writing a whole piece in the Daily Mail titled, “Has any bill ever been as reckless as Ed Miliband’s 2008 climate act?”. [The act sets legally binding “carbon budgets” that the UK must meet. It set the basis for the current net-zero target and is often described as world-leading.] Another climate-sceptic columnist, Ross Clark, writes in the Daily Mail that “this isn’t the last time [Sunak] or his successors are going to have to revisit Britain’s net-zero target”. Clark and Littlejohn both follow UK home secretary Suella Braverman and other commentators in describing net-zero targets as “arbitrary”. [The need to reach net-zero globally by “around 2050” in order to limit warming to 1.5C was set out in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on 1.5C in 2018.] Spectator editor Fraser Nelson has a piece in the Daily Telegraph framing Sunak as a straight-talker who is tasked with dealing with the “fairytales” left over from his predecessor Boris Johnson – including net-zero policies. Academic Matthew Goodwin writes in the Sun that, with his net-zero reforms, Sunak will “rile the metropolitan elite, but he’s speaking for ordinary people”. 

Not all writers in the UK’s right-leaning press are in favour of Sunak’s plans. In his Daily Telegraph column (not yet online), international business editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says Sunak’s latest move shows his government’s energy strategy is “disintegrating before our eyes”. He continues: “If he had followed America with a blizzard of tax credits, drawing in the world’s capital to drive an infrastructure boom and keep ahead in the clean-tech arms race, it would have been a policy worth the name…But he has not done anything of the sort.” Daily Telegraph columnist Judith Woods has a piece titled “Rishi’s U-turn on net-zero is so appalling, I’m almost starting to miss Boris”. She adds that Sunak’s defence of the move, in which he claims that he was not, in fact, watering down climate policies, reminded her of “Orwellian doublethink”. Writing in Conservative Home, Sam Richards, chief executive of Britain Remade, says Sunak’s speech “disappointed investors and demoralised allies”. However, he focuses on what he sees as some of the more positive elements of the announcement such as changes to planning rules, concluding: “But if the Government is serious about planning reforms and changes to the way we hook stuff up to the grid, it’s just possible today’s speech could end up accelerating the rollout of electric cars, and the deployment of new clean energy.”

Polly Toynbee uses her Guardian column to criticise Sunak, calling him “just another in the line of shameless and reckless Tory leaders devoid of any sense of national interest, political honesty or concern for anything beyond his own very short-term future”. Finally, the Spectator’s political editor Katy Balls has a piece in the Guardian titled: “Inside the Tory climate soap opera this week: ‘The WhatsApp groups are a bloodbath’.”

A new study finds that extreme temperatures in soils are increasing in both frequency and intensity more rapidly than extreme air temperatures. Researchers use in-situ and satellite data to determine air and soil temperatures across Europe over 1996-2021. They find that soil temperature extremes are increasing at 0.7C per decade faster than air temperature extremes. They note that “hydrology and many biogeochemical processes are more sensitive to soil temperature” than air temperature. Furthermore, they say, increasing air temperatures increase evaporation from soils, “which may further dry and warm the soil”.