There has been widespread and continuing coverage of the extreme flooding in Spain. The Financial Times reports that the “death toll from catastrophic flooding in southern and eastern Spain rose to 211 as an unknown number of people remained missing and the government dispatched 10,000 more soldiers and police officers to the rescue effort”. Another FT article says that “prime minister Pedro Sánchez was evacuated from Spain’s flood disaster zone on Sunday as furious locals pelted mud at political leaders and the Spanish king over a string of failures that left them helplessly exposed to a deadly deluge”. El País says that the region’s “garages and tunnels are the great unknown” as the search continues for more victims.

Meanwhile, many outlets focus on the causes of the flooding itself, as well as the huge damage it has caused. The Washington Post says: “Climate change helps explain why the storms and floods were so extreme. But questions have emerged about whether communication failures contributed to the toll.” NPR says: “Climate change made [the] intense rainfall about 12% heavier and twice as likely, according to a rapid analysis by World Weather Attribution…‘There is a clear climate change footprint on events like this one,’ Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA who was not involved in the analysis, writes in an email.” The Times’s Weather Eye column is headlined: “Why slow-moving storms are wreaking havoc across Europe.” The Financial Times reports that “flash floods that ravaged southern and eastern Spain have underscored the lethal threat from rising temperatures that are turning the Mediterranean Sea into a ‘petrol can’, experts say”. Reuters covers comments made by World Meteorological Organization officials who stress that “effective flood warning systems could help to avoid the level of destruction that has occurred in the Valencia region of Spain”. (See Comment below.)

The two-week CO16 biodiversity summit in Cali, Colombia, “ended in disarray on Saturday, with some breakthroughs but key issues left unresolved”, reports the Guardian. The newspaper continues: “Negotiations were due to finish on Friday evening but ended in confusion on Saturday morning after almost 12 hours of talks. Governments failed to reach a consensus on key issues such as nature funding and how this decade’s targets would be monitored. Many were forced to leave the talks early to catch flights, and negotiations were suspended at 8.30am when fewer than half of the countries were present, and the meeting lost quorum. Countries will need to continue the talks next year at an interim meeting in Bangkok. A number of countries expressed fury at the way the talks had been dragged out and the order of discussions, which left crucial issues undecided at the final hour.”

Climate Home News says: “Some progress had been made, however, as the talks established a new ‘Cali Fund’ to channel voluntary contributions from the private sector to compensate countries for the commercial use of genetic material from plants and animals. They also created a new permanent body for Indigenous people, granting them formal power to influence decisions made under the UN biodiversity convention. But no common ground was found on the most pressing issue facing governments: how to close the gap in biodiversity finance.” The Financial Times reports that “pharmaceutical and a host of other companies will be expected to voluntarily pay into a new fund covering their use of genetic data, the UN COP16 biodiversity summit agreed, but countries failed to reach a wider agreement on global finance for nature”. The Guardian has a news feature on the summit headlined: “‘Two sides of the same coin’: governments stress links between climate and nature collapse.” BBC News, the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and Reuters were among the many other outlets covering the conclusion of COP16.

Carbon Brief’s team of specialist journalists at the summit have published a 13,000-word summary of the key outcomes. And they will be discussing their conclusions in two free webinars – in English or Spanish – later today.

The Times reports that Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, has “backed the government’s ambitious plan to clean up Britain’s power supply by 2030 so the UK can keep its lead in cutting-edge energy industries”. Birol tells the newspaper: “[The 2030 target] is a good target. It’s an ambitious target, but I think the UK can achieve it…Other economies are going very fast, and the UK, with its push towards renewables and nuclear power, I expect could be one of the leaders of clean power around the world. [The 2030 target] is not only important for the UK at home, but also for UK industries, to be an important player globally.” The newspaper continues: “He praised Labour’s plans to use the newly created National Wealth Fund to subsidise companies that want to make clean technologies in Britain. The government has capitalised the fund with £5.8bn, giving it a mandate to support producers of clean steel, batteries and hydrogen. ‘If public money is used wisely it can be returned to the public by a factor of 10 in terms of economic growth,’ he said. He added that if governments do not support manufacturers through this difficult period of high energy prices, they can expect ‘bad news in terms of downsizing industries, relocating industries, loss of employment’. That, he warned, would create ‘fertile ground’ for ‘populist political groupings who question the climate science’.”

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times reports that “power lines stretching for 1,000km and 4,500km of undersea cables will have to be installed if ministers are to hit their 2030 clean-energy target, an in-depth analysis has found”. The newspaper adds: “The UK’s energy system also needs £40bn a year of investment, according to a report by the National Energy ­System Operator (Neso), commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary. It concludes the 2030 aim – the subject of widespread scepticism across the political spectrum – is ‘a huge challenge but is achievable’.” The Financial Times also picks up the story, saying: “UK businesses and households will need to be far more flexible about when they use electricity for the country to decarbonise the power system by 2030, according to official advice set to be published on Tuesday.” It continues: “Some of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations will also need to be kept open longer than planned, under the modelling of one of the Labour government’s flagship climate targets. The advice from the National Energy System Operator says businesses and households need to play a far greater role than currently in balancing the electricity system, according to people familiar with the matter. This could involve factories ramping up output during windy periods when wind farms were at higher capacity, or households unplugging electric cars when renewables output is low.” The Daily Telegraph, which is relentlessly hostile against net-zero policies in its journalism, reports that “Britain is importing record amounts of electricity from Europe to keep the lights on, as the shutdown of coal and nuclear power plants puts more pressure on the grid”. The Guardian reports: “More than 60 Labour MPs have formed a bloc to push back against anti-pylon lobbying by Conservative and Green MPs, saying they back plans to build the pylons despite local opposition in several areas.”

In other UK news, the Financial Times says “environmental levies added to electricity bills in the UK are set to climb 23% by the end of the decade, according to official forecasts, highlighting the upfront costs of the shift to renewable energy and reigniting debate over how it should be paid for”. The Times also covers the story, saying: “Green levies will rise by the equivalent to £120 per household within five years to help fund the shift to renewable energy, economists have said. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the tax was ‘fundamentally raising prices for consumers’ to pay for longer-term projects such as windfarms, adding: ‘We are getting consumers to pay for greener energy when it wouldn’t otherwise be as cheap as dirtier energy.’” (See Carbon Brief’s coverage of last week’s budget.)

Separately, the Sun on Sunday, which is another newspaper which is relentlessly hostile against net-zero policies in its journalism, says: “Net-zero minister Ed Miliband has tried to sink Britain’s trade talks with the Gulf – because he thinks their oil production undermines his eco agenda. ‘Red Ed’ has been lobbying No10 and the Treasury warning it would undermine the government’s mission to make Britain a “clean energy superpower”, the Sun on Sunday understands.” Meanwhile, under the headline, “Electric car sales boom is blamed for chancellor’s budget snub”, the Times reports: “Heavy discounting by manufacturers and dealers is likely to have kept sales of new electric cars close to the highest levels of the year amid a storm of criticism of the chancellor for not doing more to financially support the take-up of zero-emission vehicles.”

Finally, the Guardian reports: “Drax will keep raising the levels of carbon emissions in the atmosphere until the 2050s despite using carbon capture technology, according to scientific research [by “Spatial Informatics Group, a scientific thinktank”]. The large power plant in North Yorkshire is a significant generator of electricity for the UK, but has faced repeated criticism of its business model of burning wood pellets sourced from forests in the US and Canada. The new study found that the intensive forest management needed to source 7m tonnes of wood pellets from forests in the US to burn as fuel every year would erode the carbon stored in the ecosystems of these pine forests for at least 25 years.” Relatedly, the Times says: “Drax, the UK’s biggest power station, is sourcing fuel from American wood pellet plants that have broken environmental regulations more than 11,000 times, an investigation for The Times has found.”

China hopes the US will be able to continue to cooperate with other countries on climate change, whatever the outcome of the presidential election, reports Reuters, according to comments made by a senior government official. It quotes Xia Yingxian, director general of the climate office at China’s environment ministry, saying during a briefing on Friday: “We expect the US can maintain the stability and consistency of its climate policy, and we hope it can continue to work with other countries globally.” The newswire adds: “Washington has been pushing Beijing to commit to an emissions cut of 30% by 2035, but experts have warned that US clout in climate diplomacy would be eroded significantly if Trump wins next week. Xia told reporters China will ‘firmly implement its NDCs [nationally determined contribution]’ and said new targets for 2035 had already been proposed, but he didn’t give any further details.” (See Carbon Brief’s new article headlined, “Experts: What to expect in China’s climate pledge for 2035.”)

In other news, the Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily reports that, for the first three quarters of 2024, China’s renewable energy generation reached 2,510 terawatt hours (TWh), a year-on-year increase of 20.9%, which accounts for nearly 35.5% of total electricity generation in the country. Meanwhile, nuclear power generation reached 328TWh, as of September, a 1.5% growth compared to the same period in 2023, industry news outlet BJX News reports, citing data from China Nuclear Energy Association. However, coal, oil and gas production capacity has also “steadily increased”, with oil and gas production growing by 2% and 6.6% respectively, year-on-year, China Energy Net reports. 

Elsewhere, China’s Ministry of Commerce has confirmed that the EU will “send representatives” to China for negotiations related to “price commitments in the electric vehicle (EV) tariff dispute”, reports Reuters. Chinese EV company BYD has started its last three months of the year with “another record month of sales” in October, “continuing its strong performance in what is typically a peak season for car purchases in China”, Bloomberg reports. Another Bloomberg article is headlined: “China’s top coal firms lean into power as mining profits slip.” And Reuters reports: “Some of the biggest Chinese-owned solar factories in Vietnam are cutting production and laying off workers, spurred on by the expansion of US trade tariffs targeting it and three other Southeast Asian countries.”

Separately, the Taipei Times reports that the Taiwanese authority has allocated a budget of $1.72bn for “water control for next year” after Typhoon Kong-rey killed three people and injured 690. The New York Times says Kong-rey is “the most powerful typhoon” to hit Taiwan in 28 years. China’s state news agency Xinhua reports that Chinese authorities have “stepped up precautionary measures” against Kong-rey, which has brushed China’s south east coast, including Shanghai.

Finally, the Financial Times publishes a comment piece by Robin Harding, the newspaper’s Asia editor, arguing that “the rise of Chinese cars in China is already claiming victims abroad”, but this is “just the beginning”. The state-run newspaper China Daily carries a comment article by Hong Nong, executive director of Institute for China-America Studies and a senior fellow at Beijing Club for International Dialogue, under the title: “China, Russia navigate in Arctic cooperation.” It says China is “keen to secure a stable supply” of resources including “oil, natural gas and minerals” from the Arctic. And a comment piece by Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, in the Global Times is headlined: “Global carbon cuts falling short, harming shift to green economy.”

Many outlets around the world are focused on the potential impact of Republican candidate Donald Trump winning tomorrow’s US presidential election. The Financial Times reports: “TotalEnergies’ chief executive has urged Donald Trump not to axe climate rules if he wins the election, warning that taking a ‘wild west’ approach to regulating fossil fuels would provoke a backlash against the oil industry. Patrick Pouyanné told the Financial Times that if the former US president pressed ahead with pledges to tear up rules governing methane and other emissions it would torpedo the sector’s reputation and fuel opposition.” Relatedly, the Guardian says: “The world needs the US to remain in the international climate process to avoid a ‘crippled’ Paris Agreement, the UN secretary general has warned, amid fears that Donald Trump would take the country out of the accord for a second time.” The New York Times has an article under the headline: “How a Trump win would upend major climate court fights.” It says:  “A second Trump administration could stop defending the EPA against lawsuits attacking its climate policies. Other effects might be more far-reaching.” The Guardian says: “If Trump is re-elected, a familiar face may lead the fight against wind: RFK Jr.” Another Financial Times article says: “US clean energy industry’s future hangs in balance on election day. Few industries stand to gain – or lose – more on US election day than renewable sources of power.”

In other US news, the Associated Press reports that Joe Biden has “declared a major disaster area in southeast New Mexico after historic flooding killed two people and forced the rescue of more than 300 last month”. Another AP article says that “New York’s mayor urged residents to take shorter showers, fix dripping faucets and otherwise conserve water, issuing a drought watch Saturday after a parched October here and in much of the US”. The Washington Post says “New York has declared a citywide drought watch as it experiences one of the longest dry streaks on record”. 

Finally, the New York Times reports: “President Biden will not attend [COP29], which is being held in Azerbaijan less than one week after the US presidential elections, the White House confirmed on Friday. This is the second year in a row in which Biden will have skipped global climate negotiations. Last year, vice-president Kamala Harris attended the talks in place of the president.”

The Times reports that a “leader of one of Germany’s ruling parties has said ‘the house is on fire’ in the governing coalition and no one can be sure how long it will survive before a crisis meeting in the chancellery”. The newspaper adds: “The three-party ‘traffic light’ alliance is in danger of collapse, which could lead to an election in March…At the weekend Christian Lindner, the finance minister and leader of the centre-right Free Democratic party (FDP), took the drastic step of unilaterally publishing a provocative 18-page manifesto to ‘revive’ Germany’s stuttering economic fortunes. Warning that the country is ‘weakening itself’ and sabotaging its industrial base with ‘premature’ net-zero targets, the document is perceived as a frontal attack on Lindner’s left-of-centre partners, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens.” Tagesspiegel reports that Lindner has specifically criticised the Green party’s approach to climate policy in his “position paper”: “It does not benefit climate protection if Germany, as a supposed global pioneer, attempts to transition its economy to climate neutrality as quickly as possible, thereby incurring avoidable economic damages and political upheavals.”

Elsewhere, Germany’s move towards a “climate-friendly” energy supply faced “a setback” in October, with coal accounting for nearly 30% of electricity generation, the highest monthly share this year, reports Der Spiegel. The outlet explains that the reasons are reduced wind power generation and a surge in gas prices, quoting Till Stehr, a gas market expert at the pricing agency Argus saying this “made even some older coal plants more economically viable than the newest, most efficient gas turbines”. The outlet continues that European coal traders are “reportedly betting” on higher coal consumption this winter and keeping prices low enough to make coal-fired power generation “attractive”. In addition, German economists note that the energy price shock from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to an “annual economic loss exceeding 4% of GDP and wage losses of 3.4%”, marking it as “the most severe economic crisis in postwar German history”, reports Handelsblatt. 

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel reports that the German government has supported nearly 2.2m electric vehicles through a purchase subsidy programme, spending around €10bn since its inception in 2016 until its abrupt end in December 2023 due to budget constraints. The outlet notes that despite reducing CO2 emissions by 44m tonnes, the programme’s climate benefits were “less than expected”. Due to current “low sales figures” for electric cars, the Social Democrats, the German Federal Council, plus several manufacturers, including Volkswagen and Opel, are calling for a return of the subsidy, says the newspaper. 

An editorial in the Guardian concludes: “In Spain, a large majority of the public recognises the threat from climate change and favours policies to address it. There, as in much of the world, catastrophic weather events that used to be regarded as “natural disasters” are now, rightly, seen instead as climate disasters. Policies that support people and places to adapt to heightened risks are urgently needed. Clear and timely warnings and recovery plans are part of this. But reducing the threat from dangerous weather, such as that which struck eastern, southern and central Spain this week, remains the greatest political challenge.” An editorial in France’s Le Monde says: “The catastrophe that has struck Spain, a consequence of global warming and the delay in adaptation policies, should come as a powerful warning at a time when political ecology is weakening and climate-related demands are receding.”

Meanwhile, an editorial in China’s state-supporting Global Times says: “This disaster represents not only a significant test for Spain but also a severe challenge to the global community’s ability to cooperate and respond effectively to climate change. Indeed, climate change has emerged as a critical global concern, prompting governments and international organisations worldwide to set emission reduction targets to mitigate global warming…Some Western countries display a contradictory stance on climate change. While they vocally emphasise the urgency and severity of the crisis, calling for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the planet, they use excuses like ‘overcapacity’ and ‘unfair competition’ as a shield, applying double standards and attempting to hinder the development of the global green industrial chain…Climate change knows no borders, and the fates of nations are closely intertwined. If some countries prioritise their self-interests and cling to the outdated economic systems through unfair practices, the global green transition will be significantly hindered.”

Finally, the Guardian’s Jonathan Watts writes: “Spain’s apocalyptic floods show two undeniable truths: the climate crisis is getting worse and Big Oil is killing us.” And in the Observer, Martha Gill argues that “we are in danger of forgetting what the climate crisis means: extinction”.

In a comment for the Financial Times, former president of the European Central Bank and former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi writes: “A co-ordinated reform agenda is crucial if the EU is serious about becoming a climate leader and geopolitical player.” Reflecting on the UK government decision to “significantly raise public investment over the next five years”, based on revised fiscal rules, Draghi says that the EU’s own new rules offer “scope for public investment to expand significantly”. However, he says that early indications suggest many EU member states are not planning to make use of this extra fiscal space and adds: “Until now, public goods like climate mitigation and prevention, energy interconnections, research and defence have been underfunded. It is an open question whether this gap will persist in the future.” He concludes: “The EU may have a stated preference to be a climate leader, a digital innovator and a geopolitical player. But for now, the revealed preference of its members is different. Without using its fiscal space and reforming its markets, it is hard to see how Europe will achieve its ambitions.” A comment for the Conversation by academics Sam Fankhauser and Anupama Sen says UK chancellor Rachel Reeves “has opened the door for additional capital spending, much of which has been earmarked for low-carbon investment”. An editorial in the Daily Mail, meanwhile, celebrates the UK opposition Conservatives selecting Kemi Badenoch as leader and criticises the government’s “tax-and-spend socialis[m]”. The newspaper calls on Badenoch to “take a common-sense approach to net-zero”. [Badenoch, who describes herself as a “net-zero sceptic”, ran her campaign for leader from the house of Neil Record, a Conservative donor and chair of the climate-sceptic lobby group Net Zero Watch.] Finally, for Climate Home News, Christine Shearer of Global Energy Monitor writes: “Republican candidate Donald Trump has cited China’s coal plants as a reason for the US to stick with fossil fuels – but he fails to acknowledge China’s massive clean energy industry.”

The climatic conditions that helped drive the extreme wildfire season seen in south-west France in June 2022 were made twice as likely by human-caused climate change, a new study finds. The authors conducted an “impact-oriented” attribution study using data on soil moisture and vapour pressure deficit. They find that in today’s climate, fires of a similar scale can be expected once every 13 years. “Our study raises the question of the sustainability of the Landes Forest and stresses the urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change,” the authors say.