The global shipping industry has agreed to reduce planet warming gases to net-zero “by or around 2050”, but “critics say the deal is fatally flawed”, reports BBC News. The broadcaster adds: “Ships produce around 3% of global CO2 but countries will now have to reduce this as close as possible to zero by the middle of the century. Small island states have welcomed the plan but green groups are furious. They believe the strategy is toothless and will do little to limit rising temperatures…Richer countries and small island states had called for a 50% reduction by 2030 and a 96% emissions cut by 2040. But with resistance from China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and others the new strategy…will see ‘indicative checkpoints’ rather than hard targets and these would aim to see emissions from shipping fall by at least 20% by 2030, and at least 70% by 2040. For both these checkpoints, the agreement says that countries should ‘strive’ for a higher target of 30% by 2030 and 80% by 2040. ‘This outcome is far from perfect, but countries across the world came together and got it done – and it gives us a shot at 1.5C,’ said Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s climate change minister.”

Climate Home News says the “compromise” deal means that the “targets are less ambitious than those that international bodies including the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) consider compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C”, continuing: “While not legally binding, the agreement sends a signal to the industry on the direction of travel. Future work is planned to set out concrete measures that aim to reduce emissions, for example, by introducing more climate-friendly fuel standards. In the final evening of the talks, the Pacific island nations managed to include provisions for the sector to ‘striv[e]’ for a 30% reduction by 2030 and an 80% cut by 2040. It was a last-minute victory that allowed them to claim that the global temperature limit of 1.5C was kept ‘in reach’. Despite resistance, the meeting agreed to look into a tax on shipping emissions – although how much the tax should be and how the money should be spent will be fought over at future meetings.” The Times of India notes that the nations “adopted interim guidance on the use of biofuels and biofuel – a resolution for which was strongly pushed by India”.

The Guardian says: “Attempts to impose a levy on greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, in order to fund climate action, have been delayed but not extinguished at the conclusion of talks among 175 governments…China, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, Paraguay, Thailand, Cuba, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Belarus, Russia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia and Saudi Arabia all tried to prevent such a levy being adopted at the talks, the Guardian understands.” The newspaper adds: “To spur the uptake of clean technologies for shipping, at least 5% of the energy used for international shipping by 2030 should be zero carbon, or near zero carbon, with an ambition to reach 10% by that date, according to the agreement reached on Friday morning. These targets were nowhere near enough to put the world on track to stay within 1.5C of global heating above pre-industrial levels, campaigners said. Bryan Comer, the marine programme lead at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), said: ‘By our estimates, international shipping will exceed its 1.5C carbon budget by approximately 2032 under this agreement.’” In an interview with the Financial Times, Denmark’s minister for climate policy Dan Jørgensen explains why a shipping levy would be an “innovative source of climate finance”.

During her recent trip to China, the US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen “pressed China to do more to support international climate institutions”, reports the Guardian. The newspaper quotes Yellen saying: “I believe that if China were to support existing multilateral climate institutions like the Green Climate Fund and the Climate Investment Funds alongside us and other donor governments, we could have a greater impact than we do today.” ABC News reports that Yellen also met with Chinese premier Li Qiang and “announced no new plans for more high-level meetings to revive contacts that disputes over technology, security and other irritants have disrupted”. She did not meet Chinese president Xi Jinping, said the outlet. Many other outlets, including the New York Times, BBC News, Politico and Associated Press cover Yellen’s comments in China about climate change. Additionally, Chinese financial outlet Yicai quotes China special climate envoy Xie Zhenhua saying at a separate domestic climate conference in Huzhou that China’s “commitment and stance” in climate change “will not waver or change”. The state news agency Xinhua quotes Zhang Xiaohua, senior policy advisor on South-South Cooperation at the UN, saying “climate change is one of the most pressing global challenges faced by the world today”.

Meanwhile, Chinese financial outlet Caixin carries an interview with the IEA executive director Fatih Birol, who has also been visiting China. He is quoted saying: Policymakers in China should reconsider whether making so many additional large-scale coal-fired power investments is worthwhile in light of the generally low utilisation rates.” (Birol also met with Xie Zhenhua, according to Birol’s Twitter feed, where he said: “Our comprehensive meeting covered topics such as prospects for COP28’s clean energy achievements and my expectation [China’s] emissions will peak well before 2030.”) The state-run newspaper China Daily quotes European Commission executive vice-president Frans Timmermans who said he had a “very positive” visit to China at the beginning of last week and that “the strong feeling I have is that China subscribes to our analysis that whatever differences we may have – and we also addressed the differences we have – tackling the climate crisis transcends these political differences.” 

Separately, China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment has announced that the “national voluntary greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction registration and trading systems” have met the “basic requirements” for “online operation”, reports the People’s Daily, a newspaper supporting the ruling Communist party. The ministry has released a draft for consultation titled: “Measures for the administration of voluntary GHG emission reduction trading (trial).”

In other China news, state newswire Xinhua reports that China Energy Investment Corporation, the world’s “largest” coal-fired power generation company, says it has ramped up coal production to ensure “reliable” power supplies nationwide. The South China Morning Post says that, in an effort to enhance solar capacity and achieve its carbon neutrality targets, China intends to increase the utilisation of solar energy in its public transportation sector. Hellenic Shipping News reports that China is “actively engaging” in a “significant natural gas acquisition campaign” and government officials are urging importers to “continue striking deals even as the global energy crisis subsides”.

Finally, Bloomberg has published an article titled: “Chinese scientists are trying to shield melting glaciers from the sun.” It says “the experiment in the Tibetan Plateau could help preserve thousands of jobs, though it’s a temporary solution as global temperatures continue to rise”. CNN has an article titled: “Beijing may be facing one of its hottest summers on record.” The Wall Street Journal has an analysis titled: “China controls minerals that run the world – and it just fired a warning shot at the US.” And Javier Blas in his Bloomberg column writes under the headline: “The most overlooked oil production boom is in China: the boost in the country’s output, while auspicious for China, could cause collateral damage in the global oil market.”

The UK media has published a wide range of stories over recent days relating to climate and energy policymaking. Today’s Guardian reports that the opposition Labour party has “said that job opportunities for almost 4 million workers would be created under its plan to bring 19m of the UK’s leakiest homes up to an acceptable standard of insulation”. The newspaper adds: “While it has previously said that the plan would reduce annual household energy bills by up to £500, the party has set out details of what it said would be a major expansion of the retrofitting workforce. More than 4 million people have skills that will be needed in retrofit jobs, but only 200,000 people are currently working to retrofit homes, Labour said, citing research by the progressive thinktank Autonomy.” In other news relating to the Labour party, the Guardian separately reports that the party’s leader Keir Starmer has been accused of “wavering on climate commitments” after the Labour party refused to commit to the £11.6bn climate funding pledge made to the world’s poorest nations. The Sunday Times – which, over recent weeks, has run a series of articles attempting to undermine Labour’s green policies – has a news feature based on unattributed quotes under the headline: “‘I hate tree-huggers’ – Keir Starmer explodes over green policy.” Today’s Times reports that “Labour’s shadow chancellor [Rachel Reeves] has appeared to further water down the party’s flagship pledge to invest in green technology”. It adds: “The party had promised to spend £28bn a year on green technologies of the future from its first year of entering power – but last month said it would only meet the commitment by the middle of its first parliament. Reeves said the green pledge was dependent on whether the government had balanced the books. She said her fiscal rules – that debt must be falling as a share of national income after five years – were ‘non-negotiable’.” The Sun, which is also hostile to Labour’s climate policies, reports under the headline: “Labour’s Rachel Reeves slams Just Stop Oil as ‘pathetic’ after eco-loon interrupts George Osborne’s wedding.” And the Daily Mail – again, which is hostile to Labour’s policies – has a story headlined: “How Labour’s green energy splurge could cost taxpayers an extra £10bn more than the party has admitted.” It seems to base the story on unpublished “analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility”.

In other UK news, the Guardian’s energy correspondent Jillian Ambrose says that the UK’s energy and climate secretary Grant Shapps will “this week outline plans for Britain’s atomic power’s renaissance and 2050 emissions commitment”. She adds: “The [Science Museum in London] will play host to the government’s dreams for a new industrial renaissance – this time for nuclear energy…Shapps has chosen the venue to set out his ambitions for the UK’s nuclear programme. He is expected to illuminate the path towards the government’s existing commitment to build [up to] 24 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity – the equivalent of a quarter of Britain’s total [electricity demand] – by 2050. The event, scheduled for Thursday, will also be the official launch of the arm’s-length government body that has the task of driving the delivery of new nuclear energy projects. The first priority of Great British Nuclear (GBN) will be in streamlining the government’s ambition for small modular nuclear reactors.” The Sunday Times says: “This week, Shapps will formally kick off a competition to pick the first SMR builder, with a winner to be chosen by the autumn. A beauty parade of about 15 nuclear firms has already been wooing officials in a series of meetings…Industry sources suggest that Rolls and GE Hitachi are considered the frontrunners in Great British Nuclear’s competition. But officials are also running the rule over newer, more exotic types of nuclear reactors called advanced modular reactors (AMRs). The government is expected to adopt a twin-track approach, with more conventional SMRs in the first wave and AMRs in the second – a tactic that could keep developers keen if they don’t make the cut in the competition.”

Separately, the Sunday Times reports that “proposals for a Tata gigafactory in Somerset have reignited investors’ interest in another potential British battery facility in Coventry”. The Daily Telegraph says “new Brexit tariffs on electric car parts threaten the future of Vauxhall’s huge factory in Luton, the plant’s director has warned”. The Financial Times carries a news feature under the headline: “Planned power reforms set to redraw map for British electricity bills.” The Daily Telegraph frames an article under the headline: “Why net-zero is on a collision course with falling house prices: eco targets will affect millions of properties and stick another nail in buy-to-let Britain.” And the i newspaper carries new polling commissioned by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit which shows “more than 40% of Tory MPs believe climate change can be stopped without the UK reaching net-zero emissions, sparking accusations that they do not understand the ‘basics of climate science’”.

Finally, Politico reports that when US president Joe Biden arrives at Windsor Castle today for tea with Charles III “environmental issues will make up the backbone of the two men’s meeting…Biden and Charles will receive a joint briefing from Britain’s energy security and net-zero secretary Grant Shapps and US special presidential envoy for climate John Kerry on a trans-Atlantic drive to ‘accelerate the deployment of literally trillions of dollars’ of climate change investment, Kerry told the BBC on Sunday.” And in breaking news this morning, Energy Live News reports on the National Grid ESO‘s report, “Future Energy Scenarios 2023” which shows that the “UK power sector could smash net-zero target one year ahead”.

There is continuing media coverage of the extreme heat that has been affecting many parts of the northern hemisphere. Justin Rowlatt, BBC News’s climate editor, speaks to Prof Richard Betts, climate scientist at the Met Office and University of Exeter, who says that the highs are in line with what climate models predicted: “We should not be at all surprised with the high global temperatures. This is all a stark reminder of what we’ve known for a long time, and we will see ever more extremes until we stop building up more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” Adam Vaughan in the Times says that a “US government agency has said the world is in a ‘warm period’ due to climate change and the El Niño weather pattern, but was unable to verify provisional data showing that several of the hottest days on record were measured [last] week”. He adds: “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an authority on climate data, said it could not validate the figures as it did not evaluate daily temperature records. It added that the modelling technique used was ‘not suitable’ as a substitute for ‘actual temperature measurements’…A UN agency, the Geneva-based World Meteorological Organization, said it was ‘premature’ to declare records, but that the University of Maine figures [which were used to say that last week saw the global daily average temperature record broken three times] were ‘another piece of the evidence’ of the impact of climate change and El Niño.”

On his RealClimate blog, Nasa’s Dr Gavin Schmidt has an explainer about these new records: “There is no direct measurement of the global temperature – not from satellites, stations, or from the one random person who happens to be in most average place on Earth (where might that even be?). But that doesn’t mean the products aren’t useful! In this particular instance we are looking at the output of a weather forecast model (NCEP CFS) that ingests multiple sources of in situ and satellite data every three hours which is then averaged over a day and over the surface of the planet. These calculations are precise reflections of what is in the model, but for multiple reasons this might not be a perfect reflection of what the real world is doing.” Schmidt also dismisses a comment article published in the Wall Street Journal by a notorious climate sceptic lobbyist who tries to claim – falsely – that “calculated estimates of current temperatures can’t be fairly compared with guesses of global temperature from thousands of years ago”. Schmidt says: “The climate is warming, records are being broken, and we are increasingly seeing the impacts. I know why the WSJ doesn’t want you to realise this, but it’s not hard to see past their obfuscation.”

Die Welt reports that the German parliament passed amendments to the LNG Acceleration Act on Friday, which “creates the conditions” for the construction of a liquified “natural” gas (LNG) terminal on the German holiday island of Rügen. It could start operating by this winter, says the newspaper, explaining that two floating storage and regasification units are to be moored in the port of Mukran on Rügen, which could see up to 13.5bn cubic meters of gas arriving per year. However, the outlet adds that “local resistance is picking up speed” because construction of the LNG terminal “clearly contrasts with Rügen’s reputation as a holiday paradise close to nature”. The newspaper quotes Thomas Kunstmann, spokesman for the Livable Rügen citizens’ initiative: “We will try everything to prevent the construction of this insane facility from taking place.” In addition, the mayor of Rügen’s city Binz is now trying to “obtain temporary orders to stop construction”. Another piece by Die Welt says that, “despite the Ukraine war, Russian liquid gas exports to Europe are booming”. It explains that the Russian gas company Novatek is installing a large transfer station to ship LNG more quickly from the Yamal peninsula to Europe, with “sanctions unlikely to come into force”. 

In other German news, Der Spiegel reports that the German Environment Agency (UBA) expects 14.4m tonnes of CO2 to be saved by raising fuel prices through the Fuel Emissions Trading Act. The article notes that the German ruling coalition has agreed within its current budget deliberations to increase the fuel’s CO2 surcharge from €30 to €45 per tonne in the coming year – and €55 the following year. However, the outlet says such plans could become “a sensitive intervention” for German car companies and hence, will see opposition from the coalition’s pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP).

At least 22 people in northern India died as torrential rain caused landslides and flash floods in the region while Delhi received “the most rainfall in decades”, the Guardian reports. Many districts in the mountain-state of Himachal Pradesh “received a month’s rainfall in a day”, with flash floods bringing down bridges and sweeping away homes while landslides blocked “about 700 roads”, it adds. Authorities used helicopters and rafts to rescue people stranded on roads, bridges and inside their homes, the paper says.

According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), the monsoon has gone from “a 10% deficiency” till the end of June to a “2% excess” on 9 July over the country as a whole on average, because of its “surge over the west coast and parts of northern India in the past week”, the Hindustan Times reports, with “59% excess rainfall over northwest India”. The IMD chief, quoted in the story, attributed the heavy rainfall to “an interaction between a western disturbance and the monsoon”. M Rajeevan, India’s former earth sciences secretary, is quoted saying that the rains were reminiscent of the catastrophic “2013 Uttarakhand floods with similar synoptic conditions…[which] are predictable” and that “recent heavy rains and flash floods remind us one of important impacts of climate change on monsoon: it rains fewer hours, but when it rains, it rains very heavily”. Climate scientist Roxy Koll, also quoted in the story, points out that the “Himalayan foothills or the Western Ghats are particularly susceptible to heavy rains and landslides” and that “due to global warming, there’s extra moisture…the hills stop this moisture flow and lift it, which comes down as heavy rains”. Koll is also quoted urging authorities to “check the land use changes and development activities that might have aggravated these flashfloods”. With at least another day of heavy rain forecast, authorities have ordered schools shut in New Delhi on Monday, Al Jazeera reports. Meanwhile, orange alerts have been sounded for Gujarat, western Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and northeast India, while a  “yellow” alert has been issued for four districts of southern Kerala state, the Independent reports.

The FT’s chief economics commentator Martin Wolf says that a “credible programme for restoring economic growth” is “the most important priority for the UK”. But looking at Labour’s “green prosperity” plans, he says: “It may be good politics to sell the green transformation as a growth and jobs strategy. It is less likely to prove good economics.” He adds: “This is not to deny that the energy transition itself is vital. But the idea that it also offers the Holy Grail of renewed growth for every country is, to say the least, optimistic. In the UK in particular, a big part of what is needed, especially the transformation of home heating, will be expensive and unpopular. In most cases, moreover, the most efficient thing for the UK to do will be to buy cheap equipment abroad, definitely including from China.”

Meanwhile, in other UK comment, Gaia Vince in the Observer takes a cynical look at UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s stance on climate change: “We need honesty from our leaders. If the new policy is to abandon the goal of limiting heating to no more than 1.5C, or even 2C, above the pre-industrial average, then what is the plan for dealing with the consequences of this more extreme Britain? Let Sunak tell us frankly what east London or Cardiff or Lincolnshire will look like in 2050 when sea level rise and intense deluges are causing severe flooding. How many reservoirs is he planning for the chronically drought-afflicted south-east? What are his plans for dealing with climate migrants from the increasingly unliveable tropics?” Also in the Observer, Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation thinktank argues that “economists failing to predict levels of inflation is bad enough but it’s deadly when weather forecasters miss the mark”. In the Independent, Andrew Grice says Sunak’s commitment to the environment is “flimsy at best”, adding: “When it comes to green policies, Rishi Sunak is colour blind.”

Separately, the UK’s right-leaning newspapers carry a slew of comment articles attacking a variety of net-zero policies. The Sun continues with its long-running series of editorials hitting out at how – it claims – Labour is “in thrall to demented eco-zealots…and letting Extinction Rebellion’s doomsday nutters co-write its green policy”. The pro-fracking Sun on Sunday gives its lead comment slot to “Britain’s richest man” Sir Jim Ratcliffe who says: “When it comes to energy, Europe has ignored science and run scared of shale gas while letting minority activists dictate nuclear strategy. I’ve talked to the government about the benefits of nuclear and shale in particular, but it goes in one ear and out the other. So I now have fewer conversations, because I’ve only got so much time and I’ve discovered I’m wasting my time – every time…Almost half a trillion dollars of government grants and assistance are now in place to attract the world’s best green energies and technology to the USA. So if you wish to invest in hydrogen, carbon capture, solar or wind, head west, young man.” The Sunday Telegraph gives space to comedian Clive Anderson who laments that “it’s already too difficult for local people to resist eyesore pylons”. 

Finally, the anti-electric vehicle campaigning continues apace in the Daily Mail. An editorial in today’s Daily Mail says: “Britain’s failure to properly invest in its own electric vehicle technology means the UK car market is likely to be flooded with more affordable Chinese imports for the foreseeable future. By allowing Beijing’s totalitarian regime such a hold over our car industry, we would be ceding not only economic power but, as MPs now warn, we may allow China to spy on us as we drive. This pell-mell dash towards net-zero may be well intentioned. But the government must now take its foot off the accelerator.” The same edition gives space to its motoring correspondent Ray Massey – fresh, as it happens, from returning from California where he test-drove Rolls Royce’s new all-electric car – to rage that “this headlong rush to electric vehicles could see the wheels come off Britain’s motor industry”. Saturday’s edition of the Daily Mail saw a full-page article by the climate-sceptic Conservative commentator Matt Ridley in which he states: “The rush to electric vehicles risks killing our car industry, shackling us to China and bumping up our taxes to reduce global emissions by just 0.044%. That’s why I’ll be buying a brand new petrol car just before the 2030 ban.” The article has already been debunked online due to it containing a range of misleading and outdated claims. An editorial in Saturday’s Daily Mail says that government’s policy of ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 “is being driven by an out-of-touch metropolitan elite. For now, ministers should slam on the brakes.” Elsewhere, the Sunday Times has a comment piece by Jon Yeomans which says “electric car sales risk going flat if we don’t stop prices soaring”. And the Sunday Times also features a column by Ed Conway under the headline: “Our race to embrace electric cars has let China get ahead. History teaches us that if we neglect our own industries, we are at the mercy of global rivals.”

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump begins his latest column: “The old debate about the existence of climate change is dead, immolated in 110F heat or asphyxiated on wildfire smoke or drowned in a flash flood. The idea that the world was getting warmer, the butt of both sincere and opportunistic mockery a decade ago, is harder to deny in this warmer world. It is not the case that everyone has accepted the reality of the warming climate, which we’ll get to in a second. But it is the case that the arguments once lazily thrown out to deny that it was occurring have mostly vanished.” In the Guardian, its economics editor Larry Elliott says: “The combination of weak activity and the increasing number of extreme weather events is worrying. Normally, pressure on the environment intensifies during booms, which is why there were big surges in support for the green movement in the early 1970s, the late 1980s and the period immediately before the global financial crisis of 2008.” He continues: “In the current circumstances, politicians think they have more pressing matters to deal with than hitting net-zero goals. Action to tackle the climate emergency can be put off to another day when, fingers crossed, science and market forces will come up with a solution that will allow us all to consume as much as we like without destroying the planet. This may be shortsighted. It may be dumb thinking. It no doubt infuriates the Just Stop Oil protesters who have made their presence felt at Lord’s and Wimbledon in recent days. But for those in positions of power, the temptation to delay action remains strong.”

Elsewhere, an editorial in the Financial Times looks at the climate cost of aviation: “Despite flight-shamers’ hopes, air travel will remain important for business and leisure. But consumers’ options for real sustainable travel, and not the illusion of it, need to improve. Better rail connections and cheaper train fares would help. As for airlines, a stronger push towards greener aviation fuels and technologies is vital. Ultimately, it will come down to big actions by governments, industry, and international bodies to drive sustainable travel – not a few climate-conscious backpackers.” In the New York Times, Jeff Goodell argues that “in Texas, dead fish and red-faced desperation are signs of things to come”. He adds: “Living under the Texas heat dome has reinforced my view that we have to be cleareyed about the scope and scale of what we are facing.” And Christiana Figueres, a key architect of the Paris Agreement, writes for Al Jazeera under the headline: “I thought fossil fuel firms could change. I was wrong.”

Average annual precipitation and precipitation frequency have increased across the central and eastern US since the year 1970, according to new research. Meanwhile, average annual precipitation and frequency in the western US have declined, the paper finds. The authors analyse daily precipitation observations from 1970 to the present across 17 regions in the US. They find that interannual precipitation variability has increased in the southeast US and decreased in the “far west”. Signals in the Rocky Mountains and north-central US are “mixed”, they say.