The Times carries the exclusive news that UK chancellor Rishi Sunak is “examining proposals for a UK-wide carbon tax that could raise billions of pounds while encouraging the drive towards net-zero emissions”. The newspaper continues: “The chancellor is seeking to replace existing EU carbon-reduction schemes with the new tax when the transition period finishes at the end of the year. Treasury officials are also looking at longer-term proposals to extend the tax to other areas including domestic gas and agriculture, which could raise more than £25bn by 2030, supporters say. A Whitehall source said Mr Sunak saw the idea as a way of ‘raising revenue while cutting emissions’. Another added that the idea was getting ‘increasing traction’ across government. However, the move has alarmed some environmental groups who fear a carbon tax could become subject to political pressure, like fuel duty, which could make it less likely that Britain meets its 2050 net-zero target.” The article concludes by quoting Guy Newey, a former government energy adviser who is now the strategy and performance director at Energy Systems Catapult: “The danger with relying solely on a carbon tax is that no one believes politicians will not scrap it when things get tough, so no one invests. A cap-and-trade scheme that guarantees an outcome, alongside regulation and innovation support, is much more likely to lead to cuts in emissions.”

In other UK news, the Daily Telegraph reports that “British and EU negotiators have moved closer to enshrining the Paris Agreement on climate change in the new Brexit free trade deal”.  The newspaper adds: “In March, Britain called for a climate agreement separate from the free trade deal that would affirm support for Paris. The UK is now ready to hardwire respect for the Paris Agreement into the draft trade deal, sources on both sides said as negotiators met in London. There is disagreement over whether the Paris commitment should be enshrined in the ‘provisions’ of the deal, the UK’s latest position, or the agreement’s ‘essential elements’, where it would sit alongside rules forbidding crimes against humanity. If put in the essential elements, the whole trade deal could be suspended as punishment if either side leaves the UN accord. If the commitment is in the provisions, the punishment would be the triggering of dispute resolution procedures. EU sources claimed UK negotiators were preparing to give in to their demands for Paris to be in the essential elements chapter of the deal.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reports that the head of the navy, first sea lord admiral Tony Radakin, has warned that China could exploit new sea routes opened up in the Arctic due to global warming: “Speaking aboard HMS Prince of Wales, one of the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers, he said China would undoubtedly take a faster trade route to the Atlantic if given the option…Setting out future threats, Admiral Radakin said: ‘Climate change is a concern for all of us, but it is opening up new maritime trade routes across the top of the world, halving the transit time between Europe and Asia. And we sit at the gateway to those routes.’”

The New York Times reports that “a three-judge panel appeared divided [on] Thursday on President Trump’s effort to repeal his predecessor’s regulations on planet-warming emissions from the power sector and replace them with far weaker control”. It continues: “The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia panel, with two judges named by president Barack Obama and one by President Trump, could well agree to block the Trump administration’s plan, but the issue is almost sure to reach the Supreme Court if Mr Trump is re-elected. Even if Mr Trump loses next month, the arguments by the Environmental Protection Agency laid the groundwork for a protracted legal war over future administrations’ ability to cut the pollution responsible for climate change from the power sector, the country’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. At stake is whether the Trump administration can lock in an extremely narrow interpretation of the Clean Air Act by persuading judges that the federal government does not have the authority to set national restrictions on carbon emissions or force states to move away from coal-fired power. If it succeeds, a Biden administration would be stripped of a key regulatory weapon to tackle the United States’ share of climate change.”

However, the Hill has a report filed later in the day which says that the court “struck down an Obama-era regulation targeting methane leaks from drilling on public lands, arguing that it went beyond the scope of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which promulgated the rule”. It continues: “The court argued that although the rule’s stated purpose was to reduce waste, it was essentially used to regulate air quality, which is not the job of the BLM…The Interior Department celebrated the ruling, signalling that it’s unlikely to appeal the decision…The new ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance, two oil and gas groups…Environmentalists, meanwhile, expressed disagreement with the ruling. ‘We are disappointed, and deeply concerned, with today’s ruling,’ the Environmental Defense Fund’s lead attorney Peter Zalzal said in a statement.”

In other US news, InsideClimate News says, referring to Wednesday’s vice-presidential TV debate, that “the Pence-Harris showdown came up well short of an actual ‘debate’ on climate change”. It adds: “No one who sought a substantive discussion of climate change could have been satisfied with the exchange of pat answers between two candidates.” (See Carbon Brief’s interactive tracker on the Democrats and Republicans positions on climate change and energy.)

Meanwhile, the Independent reports on how a “record 16 climate disasters have hit US in 2020 costing more than $1bn each”, adding: “The price tag of the disasters was totted up by scientists at the National Centers for Environmental Information, part of the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).” Reuters says that “California’s record wildfires pose a problem for the state’s plan to use its forests to help offset climate-warming emissions”. It continues: “It is unclear how much California’s plan for becoming carbon-neutral by 2045 depends on its forests. But as climate change fuels increasingly frequent and intense blazes, any plan that relies on keeping forests healthy could be frustrated.” BBC News has a video headlined: “Are wildfires the end of the Californian dream?” Another Reuters report notes that “the prospects for quick federal aid for US airlines remained uncertain on Thursday with mixed signals about the state of negotiations over standalone legislation for the struggling sector and a larger Covid-19 economic relief bill.”

The Guardian says that “the world’s most powerful oil-producing nations have denied that oil demand may have already reached its peak and have claimed the world will continue to consume more fossil fuels for almost 20 years”. It adds: “A report from the Opec oil cartel, which represents the interests of countries including Saudi Arabia and Iran, has predicted that the global appetite for oil will continue to rise before reaching a plateau in the late 2030s. The research arm of the Vienna-based cartel said oil use would rise from just below 100m barrels a day last year to 109m barrels in 2045 after recovering from the severe slump in demand during the coronavirus pandemic…The latest oil demand figures from the group are lower than their predictions before the outbreak of Covid-19, but are still markedly out of step with many energy economists who believe the the world’s oil demand may have peaked in 2019.” Last month, Carbon Brief analysis of BP’s forecasts showed that they implied the world has already passed “peak oil” demand.

BusinessGreen reports that “dozens of investors, businesses, NGOs and local and regional authorities have called on EU heads of state to adopt the ‘most ambitious’ 2030 climate target possible, ahead of deliberations scheduled for next week”. It adds: “In an open letter sent today, nearly 50 organisations representing thousands of cities, hundreds of regions and €62tn of investments – including Eurocities, EDF, Oxfam, The Club of Rome, Climate Action Network Europe and We Mean Business – have urged EU member states to ‘support the highest level of ambition possible’ as they debate enhancing the EU’s existing 2030 reduction target.” The Guardian says that “EU capitals have been put under pressure to agree to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030 compared with 1990, after the European parliament voted in favour of an ‘ambitious’ climate law that would also oblige each member state to be carbon neutral by 2050”.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that “Germany’s lower house of parliament on Thursday approved a tax on greenhouses gas emissions to be levied in stages from 2021, raising retail prices of car fuels such as gasoline and diesel, heating oil and natural gas”. It adds: “The move, which entails alterations to a law on fuel emissions trading, envisages a tax of €25 ($29.41) per tonne of CO2 equivalent in 2021, rising to €55 per tonne in 2025. Gasoline prices will rise by 7 cents per litre and by 8 cents per litre for diesel from next year.” Another Reuters story reports that “Denmark’s government called on political parties to discuss the future of oil and gas extraction in the North Sea after Total withdrew from the latest licensing round, the ministry of climate, energy and utilities said on Thursday”.

An editorial in the Times welcomes the new “Earthshot” prize which was launched yesterday by Prince William with the help of Sir David Attenborough: “In a year in which world governments have so conspicuously failed to overcome nationalist sentiments and rivalries to tackle a global pandemic, such range is critical. One of the criticisms levelled at the teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg is that she has focused her ire almost entirely on western governments to the exclusion of huge and continuing polluters such as China and India. Another is that in seeking to prick the conscience of the world, she is fuelling a generation’s despair and not concentrating sufficiently on solutions.” The editorial concludes: “[Attenborough]’s involvement may help to convince sceptics that hope does not have to equal naivety and that reward can power change. Already, carbon taxing has emerged as an effective driver of technological innovation. Coal is burning out and Boris Johnson, a former sceptic of wind power, has adopted it as his premier policy for greening Britain. New approaches may be revealed in surprising places, including in the less developed world, and matched with capital and leading technology.”

Writing in the Daily Express, environment editor John Ingham also welcomes the prize, saying: “Normally I run a mile whenever a celebrity tells me to do anything. But in Prince William’s case I’m happy to make an exception…Already dubbed the Noble Prize, it tacitly acknowledges one stark fact: politicians cannot be relied on to fix this mess. Our best bet is technology…William’s Earthshot Prize also hits on a vital need in tackling the environmental crises facing the world: hope.”

The BBC has launched a new podcast about climate change hosted by Liz Bonnin. The first episode features an in-depth interview with Sir David Attenborough, plus reflections by BBC News environment reporters Matt McGrath and Victoria Gill on “where we are at now and what lies ahead”.

There is continuing reaction to Boris Johnson’s announcement earlier this week that the government plans to ensure that the UK is producing 40 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from offshore wind by 2030. The Economist adopts a sceptical tone: “The boost is not new – it was in the manifesto for the 2019 election…The country has a long way to go to get there. Roughly one-third of its electricity comes from renewables – the EU average. Though well endowed with wind, its islands are not leaders in making turbines…Meeting the 40GW target will be a stretch…Mr Johnson promised £160m ($207m) in public funds to support tens of thousands of new jobs, and upgrade ports and infrastructure to accommodate the additional offshore wind power. Yet the proposed sums are trifling compared with what the sector needs. The government estimates that every new gigawatt of offshore generation capacity costs £1.5bn to build…The government says that the boost to the wind-power industry will ‘support’ 60,000 jobs. The careful wording presumably includes the 44,000 jobs that already exist.”

In the Daily Telegraph, industry editor Alan Tovey focuses on another pledge by Johnson, namely, that the government will invest in small nuclear reactors (SMRs): “The idea of cheap, emission-free energy from a fleet of British-designed and built mini nuclear reactors that are cheaper and faster to build than their conventional counterparts is something of a no-brainer for the government…In a way, mini reactors face the same capital intensity hurdle that traditional nuclear power plants do…Just as with traditional plants that need the state to effectively underwrite them to get private industry involved, SMRs need a similar guarantee for business to go ahead and spend billions on a technology that is as yet unproven.”

In CapX, pro-nuclear advocate Zion Lights writes: “Building more wind turbines is just a small step towards solving an issue that requires much bigger steps…Offshore wind is not much more reliable than onshore wind. There’s more wind offshore (due to higher capacity), but when the wind doesn’t blow in the UK it’s the same inland as offshore, with similar level of intermittency. [This is incorrect. The average load factor of onshore windfarms in the UK is below 30% but is expected to reach 50% or even 60% for new offshore sites.] For evidence of how misguided this approach can be, just look at Germany…We need a plan for when the wind doesn’t blow, one that brings in an energy alternative that is as reliable and efficient as fossil fuels currently are, but without contributing to global warming and air pollution. That solution is nuclear energy, but we are in real danger of letting it pass us by.”

Meanwhile, in the House magazine, Conservative MP for Rother Valley Alex Stafford argues that “the government should welcome the recommendations of the Climate Assembly, which show the Conservative approach to protecting the environment is in line with what ordinary people want”. He adds: “Not only do they demonstrate that the Conservative approach to protecting the environment is in line with what ordinary people want, they also show that people are willing the government on over climate change and looking for ministers to show the way.”

Finally, Chatham House has published an interview with Peter Hill, who is the chief executive of the UK team organising next year’s COP26 climate change summit in Glasgow. He says: “The next 10 years are critical to getting to net-zero emissions by 2050. This is not about blue sky technologies. Progress is above all about driving the fall in cost of tried and tested technologies.”

In the first of a two-part article, Michael Liebreich, the founder of BloombergNEF, wonders whether “green hydrogen” will be competitive with “blue hydrogen” by 2030. He concludes: “Probably. Competitive with brown hydrogen in Europe? Not quite, but close. Will there be vast amounts of green hydrogen, cheaper than brown hydrogen by 2050? Absolutely, though in Europe much of it is likely to be imported from places where it can be made more cheaply. And even if it is made in Europe, it will probably not be made using European electrolysers, and certainly not using exclusively European renewable power. Next week, in Part II, we’ll be looking at the demand side. Where on earth is all this cheap green hydrogen meant to go? Stay tuned, hydrogen fans!”

Airborne black carbon particles generally warm Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere, but the individual mechanisms that contribute to and offset this effect are difficult to measure and poorly understand. The impact of black carbon’s ability to enable ice to form in clouds is highly uncertain. This study uses simulations of Earth’s climate to estimate the global impact of black carbon’s role in ice formation. It finds that, in this role, black carbon causes a moderate cooling. This is mostly due to black carbon forming ice in high, thin clouds.

The balance of expected climate damages and mitigation costs play a role in helping set international climate targets. This study uses a newer high-end estimate of climate damages in the classic DICE economic model of climate change to calculate the optimal level of mitigation under various assumptions around timeframe and future discount rate. It finds that the cost of limiting emissions to 1.5C (vs 2C) may be higher than the benefits through to the end of the 21st century, but the benefits will likely be much higher than the costs from 2150 and beyond. The authors suggest that there is a temporal asymmetry between the costs of mitigation and benefits of avoided damages from climate change and, thus, the long timeframe for which climate change mitigation investment pays off.