There is widespread coverage of the avalanche of climate and energy policy documents published by the UK government yesterday. The Financial Times reports that the government has admitted its “new net-zero strategy will fail to cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to hit its own legally enforceable targets”. It says: “Ministers were forced to publish a raft of revised policies, contained in 40 documents and nearly 3,000 pages, after a court ruled last year that the existing strategy for reaching net-zero emissions was unlawful because it provided insufficient detail on how the target would be met. In its revised plans, the government’s calculations showed they would only deliver 92% of the emission reductions needed to meet the UK’s 2030 goal, rising to 97% in 2037, a key milestone on the path to net-zero by 2050.” In one of the supporting documents to its “Powering up Britain” strategy published yesterday, the government said there was “a judgement to be made whether the policies identified at this stage are sufficient” to meet the so-called sixth carbon budget – a reference to the UK’s permitted emissions between 2033 and 2037, the paper explains. BusinessGreen reports that shadow climate and energy security secretary Ed Miliband tweeted that the government’s confirmation that it was not fully on track to meet its 2030 goal was a “disaster”. He added: “For all these thousands of pages, the documents obscure in weasel words the startling admission that these plans do not meet the government’s 2030 [Nationally Determined Contribution] commitment – the centrepiece of their pledges at COP26.” Bloomberg says the new measures “were low on fresh funding, with any meaningful expenditure expected in the autumn”. Energy secretary Grant Shapps “appeared to concede there was little in the way of new spending”, the outlet reports. It adds: “‘This is money that’s been talked about,’ but it doesn’t take effect ‘until you actually set out the programme,’ Shapps said.”

The government’s plans aim to ensure the UK has some of the “cheapest wholesale electricity prices” in Europe by 2035, reports the Independent. The government says the measures will “rebalance gas and electricity costs”, the outlet reports, with proposals to move existing ‘green levies’ from electricity prices over to gas prices so as not to penalise those using electricity, which is less carbon-polluting than gas. The Daily Mail reports on criticism from Craig Mackinlay, Tory chairman of the niche Tory “net-zero scrutiny group” of MPs, who says “the whole concept of going for electricity and making gas more expensive is completely mad”. (In contrast to electricity, domestic gas use currently enjoys an effective subsidy of around £100 per tonne of associated CO2 emissions.) The Guardian lists the “winners” and “the gaps and losers” within the announcements. The former includes electric vehicles, carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen and nuclear, while the latter includes offshore wind, grid connections, farming and biomass. The Financial Times reports that the government “has watered down a proposed mandate for a minimum level of electric vehicle sales by allowing carmakers to defer a proportion of the annual target for several years”. BusinessGreen reports that the Department for Transport is “launching consultations on a proposed Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Mandate while confirming fresh funding for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure”. BusinessGreen also says the government has received “fierce criticism from business leaders and climate campaigners over its decision not to lift the ‘de facto’ ban on new onshore wind farms”. The i newspaper says the UK’s boiler upgrade scheme, which offers £5,000 towards the cost of replacing fossil fuel heating systems with a heat pump or biomass boiler, will be extended to 2028. In addition, “the existing ECO+ insulation scheme has been rebranded as the Great British Insulation Scheme, which will reportedly help upgrade 300,000 of the UK’s least energy-efficient homes”. The Daily Telegraph says that “boiler manufacturers will be fined thousands of pounds if they fail to install enough heat pumps” under a proposed mandate for clean heating systems. The government has also launched a 12-week consultation on measures such as a potential carbon border tax in an effort to “protect businesses against cheaper imports from countries with less strict climate policies”, reports Reuters. BusinessGreen reports that the UK Infrastructure Bank has announced plans to invest up to £200m across two investment funds to support the development of new energy storage projects, in a move which it said it hoped would “drive the country’s transition to a cleaner, greener and more resilient electricity network”. BusinessGreen has the key announcements “at a glance”, while CityAM reports on how the energy sector has responded.

On CCS, Bloomberg reports that the government has selected projects from developers including BP and Equinor to enter into negotiations for the country’s first large-scale efforts on the technology. The newswire says: “In total, eight projects are set to receive government support to trap carbon from industrial clusters in the north of England. The technology could be a key tool to help the UK reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Britain plans to spend £20bn ($24.6bn) subsidising the technology in the coming years.” The Times says that the Humber region “missed out in a blow for groups including SSE, while projects in Scotland were also left waiting for clarity”. A “notable omission” from the shortlist is also Drax’s proposed bioenergy and carbon capture and storage (BECCS) project, says BusinessGreen (see below). The Daily Express says the government plans to “gamble” on the technology, adding that “the nation could become a hub for CCS with the ability to store 78bn tonnes of gas”. It quotes Shapps, who says: “The world needs to deal with its tonnes of carbon. It needs to get rid of it. The European capacity that we hold in our basin in the North Sea is probably sufficient to take about 85% of Europe’s CO2 tracking requirements for the next two and a half centuries.” BBC News reports on the concern that reliance on CCS “could allow the UK to keep using oil and gas rather than focusing on renewable energy”. Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at LSE, tells the broadcaster: “What does not make sense is to carry on with further development of new fossil fuel reserves on the assumption CCS will be available to mop up all the additional emissions.” The Press Association reports that the government “has refused to commit to stopping the development of the Rosebank oil and gas field north of the Shetland Islands”. The newswire adds: “When asked by Labour’s Richard Burgon whether the Conservatives would use their powers to halt development, climate change minister Graham Stuart said fossil fuels will still be required for decades to come and that it is better to produce gas on the UK continental shelf than import it from other countries.”

Energy firm Drax is to “immediately enter talks with the government”, reports the Guardian, after the new energy strategy “cast doubt over its £2bn carbon capture project and plunged the company’s share price into turmoil”. The paper continues: “The company suffered one of the biggest falls on the FTSE 250 as shares tumbled 12% on Thursday morning. However, Drax assured investors that it would enter formal bilateral talks with the government immediately to ‘move the project forward’.” The Times reports: “shares recovered and ended the day up 5.5%…after the company disclosed that it had been ‘invited to enter formal bilateral discussions with the government immediately’ on the proposed bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) project, which ministers indicated could start up by 2030 instead [of 2027]”. Reuters explains: “Drax hopes to build a £2bn ($2.47bn) CCS project alongside its 2.6 gigawatt biomass power plant in Yorkshire, northern England.” City AM also has the story. A comment by the Financial Times Lex column says of the fall and recovery in Drax shares: “This roller-coaster ride highlights how vital carbon capture from biomass is for Drax. In its absence, using biomass to generate electricity makes little sense.”

The EU has reached a compromise on new targets for renewable energy after agreeing to make an exception for nuclear power in certain sectors amid pressure from France, the Financial Times reports. It continues: “Negotiators from member states and the European parliament agreed to increase the overall binding target of renewable energy consumed in the EU to 42.5% by 2030, up from 32%, according to a statement. They also set an ‘indicative’ target of reaching 45% by the end of the decade. France had pushed for nuclear energy to be included in countries’ efforts to reach those targets. But at the end of a long night of negotiations, the countries agreed on a more limited concession counting nuclear power towards the target for industry.” The paper notes that “nuclear-sceptic countries” including Germany and Austria had argued against its inclusion, saying that such a move would undermine efforts to expand solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy. It adds: “The agreement now includes counting ‘low-carbon’ hydrogen generated with electricity from atomic power plants as part of separate targets for renewable hydrogen used by industry, which can be reduced by one-fifth under certain conditions. The states would, however, still have to reach the overall renewables goal of 42.5%, regardless of the discount in the industry sector.” The paper quotes European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who says the deal “will help us progress towards climate neutrality, strengthen our energy security and boost our competitiveness – all at once”. Reuters notes that “the deal must be approved by the EU Parliament and EU countries to become law” and says this is “normally a formality”.

A “divided” House of Representatives yesterday passed an energy bill aimed at expanding mining and fossil fuel production in the US that would repeal sections of the landmark climate change legislation that President Biden signed into law last summer, the New York Times reports. The paper explains: “House Republicans pushed through the legislation, which they call the Lower Energy Costs Act, almost entirely along party lines on a vote of 225 to 204. It has no chance of passing or even being considered in the Democratic-controlled Senate – where Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has called it ‘dead on arrival’ – or being signed by Biden, whose advisers issued a veto threat against the bill on Monday, calling it ‘a thinly veiled licence to pollute’.” Although it will not progress, Politico says that “Republicans can use it as a cudgel ahead of the 2024 election, furthering their accusations that Biden’s opposition to fossil fuels helped produce last year’s record spike in gasoline prices, stoked inflation and continues to threaten voters’ pocketbooks”. (This accusation has been refuted by the International Energy Agency and many others.) The outlet adds that “elements of the bill…could serve as the starting point for negotiations on that narrower issue [permitting rules for energy projects] with the Senate, where centrist West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin last year pushed his own plan to ease those regulations”. Reuters reports: “Party disagreement over the House bill partly reflected gaping divisions over how to streamline permitting for energy projects, a goal otherwise shared by both Republicans and Democrats.” It adds: “Democrats want a permitting bill that will pave the way for a swifter adoption of clean energy technologies like solar and wind power that have received lucrative new subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, while Republicans are pushing for a renewed focus on fossil fuels.” The Hill also has the story.

Meanwhile, the US interior department yesterday proposed a new programme to offer leases of public land for conservation purposes, in much the same way as it currently offers acreage for drilling, mining and grazing, Reuters reports. It adds: “The Biden administration’s plan aims to protect landscapes from the impact of climate change and enable industries to offset their environmental footprints elsewhere.” The Hill also covers the story.

Provisional data suggests the UK’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fell by 2.2% in 2022, reports the Press Association. The annual data from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) tracks the emissions from UK homes and businesses, transport, energy production and land use, the newswire explains. It does not include “emissions from international air travel or shipping, UK overseas territories, imported goods or the burning of biomass for energy”, it adds. Emissions of CO2 specifically fell by 2.4% compared to the previous year – largely because of homes using less heating due to higher energy prices and warmer temperatures throughout 2022, the article explains. However, “transport CO2 emissions increased by 4% because of the increase in traffic after Covid lockdowns, but were still below the levels seen in the five years before the pandemic”. The newswire notes that “long-term trends continue to show a general decline in net GHG emissions”, with a fall of 48% between 1990 and 2022. DESNZ says this has been largely driven by the phasing out of coal in place of renewables and gas for energy production, the article says. Reuters also has the story.

After months of negotiations, Germany’s ruling coalition – which is made up of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) – has agreed on numerous new regulations and adjustments to the nation’s climate policies, including sectors such as buildings, transport and amendments to the Climate Protection Act, reports Table.Media. The outlet notes that “compliance with climate action targets is to be assessed based on a cross-sectoral and multi-year overall calculation”, unlike before when each German ministry had to meet exact emission caps every year, meaning that reductions could be “offset” between ministries. In addition, the article continues, the German government will adopt a four-year emission reduction plan, setting targets for 2035, 2040 and 2045 for the first time. As early as 2024, “negative emissions” are to be generated for the first time through carbon capture and storage (CCS), notes the news website. The parties also support 144 new highway projects, introducing a solar obligation for new autobahn construction, analysis says. It adds that a CO2 surcharge of €‎200 per tonne of CO2 will be introduced starting in 2024 for heavy goods vehicles (HGV). Furthermore, there will be around €‎20bn of investment in the rail industry over four years, says Table.Media, adding that, after 2030, the public sector will purchase only “zero-emission” vehicles. Finally, the article notes that the government’s “highly controversial” 2022 agreement that new heating systems must be fueled by at least 65% renewables by 2024 remains in effect, providing additional subsidies for electric heat pumps.

However, Manager Magazin reports that these climate decisions by the “traffic light coalition” have been criticised by several associations and opposition parties. “Sharp criticism” of the resolutions came from the Left Party and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), notes the outlet. It also adds that the executive director of Greenpeace Germany, Martin Kaiser, has “complained” that if 144 additional “climate-damaging highway projects” were to be paved through the country at an accelerated rate, the climate would be further “driven into the wall”. But the outlet adds that the Pro-Rail Alliance and its managing director Dirk Flege have welcomed the fact that the railways will receive more money: “Finally, the compulsion to invest the truck toll revenue back into federal trunk roads has been abolished. Now you can invest in environmentally friendly alternatives, that’s a huge step forward.” Der Spiegel quotes the president of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), Marie-Luise Wolff, saying that the coalition’s decision means “de facto the abandonment of the sector targets in favour of a fuzzy system in which the sectors play off against each other”, which is “a slap in the face” for the German energy industry, which – unlike the transport sector – “had done a lot for climate protection over the years”.

Finally, Bloomberg says that German economy minister Robert Habeck from the Green Party “did not bother to hide his frustration with the outcome” of the negotiations, quoting his interview with Die Zeit: “I’m not giving away any secrets when I say that the measures agreed on there will in no way enable Germany to meet its climate targets in the transport sector.”

Officials have urged that “urgent” steps be taken with respect to climate change during a sub-forum of the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference 2023, which concludes today in Boao, Hainan province, reports the state-controlled China Daily newspaper. Ban Ki-moon, former secretary-general of the United Nations, said at the forum: “The window to take climate action is closing fast. Progress on the ground is slow and limited, and the global emissions gap is wide.” Zheng Guoguang, secretary-general of the China’s National Disaster Reduction Commission, said that “China is vulnerable to climate change…So far, more than 5 million emergency plans have been arranged at the national, provincial, city and county levels to prevent deaths and injuries caused by natural disasters.” The state-run People’s Daily quotes Liu Yiyang, vice-secretary general and spokesperson of China Photovoltaic Industry Association, who said at Boao that “promoting the sustainable and healthy development of new energy is of great significance for implementing the major strategies for achieving ‘dual carbon’ goals, for building a clean, low-carbon, safe, and efficient new power system, and for achieving energy green and low-carbon transformation and high-quality development”.

In other China news, CNBC quotes Andrew Forrest, executive chairman of mining firm Fortescue, saying at Boao that China’s post-pandemic reopening will “boost demand for commodities more significantly” than it did when the country emerged from the 2008 financial crisis. Reuters has a comment by Clyde Russell, titled: “Thermal coal imports pick up in most Asian buyers as prices moderate.” The South China Morning Post reports that China is “expected to have a total new energy storage capacity of more than 50GW (gigawatts) by 2025”, citing a report released last week. The move comes as the country expects energy storage to “boost renewable energy consumption while ensuring a stable power supply”, the outlet adds. Finally, a CGTN article focuses on how to address “water scarcity in China amid climate change”.

New analysis shows that the UK’s Conservative party received £3.5m from individuals and entities linked to “climate denial, fossil fuels and high-pollution industries last year”, reports the Guardian. The investigation into Electoral Commission records by DeSmog reveals that “the party and its MPs received funds from the aviation and construction industries, mining and oil interests, and individuals linked to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a thinktank which has denied the legitimacy of climate science”, the paper explains. The largest donor to the Conservative party last year was the aviation entrepreneur Christopher Harborne, who gave £1.5m, the analysis reveals. Harborne “is CEO of a private jet company and also runs AML Global, an aviation fuel supplier operating in 1,200 locations across the globe”, the paper says. The party also “received £23,900 from Amjad Bseisu, CEO of the oil and gas firm EnQuest, who has argued that the North Sea could still yield further discoveries to extend its lifespan” and £17,500 from Sir Michael Hintze, “who was one of the early funders of the GWPF”.

Elsewhere, the Hill covers a new report from advocacy group Public Citizen that finds 10 members of the US House of Representatives received a combined $13m in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry over the course of their careers. Speaker Kevin McCarthy brought in the most campaign funding from oil and gas interests with $2.8m, the report says.

In an editorial, the Guardian describes the government’s newly announced package of climate and energy policies as “dangerous”, adding: “They will significantly worsen the climate crisis that threatens to engulf us all, if the globally agreed target of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C is missed.” The paper criticises “plans for a huge North Sea oilfield” (which was not officially confirmed yesterday), and says the government is “attempt[ing] to justify [it] on the grounds that it is investing £20bn (over 20 years) in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, in order to limit the damage caused”. It says that “it is devastating that the UK is now trashing its own reputation for pioneering climate laws, which made national emissions reductions compulsory. Ministers have chosen risky, dirty energy over clean”. The paper says there are some positives in the package – for example, the consultation on carbon border taxes is “welcome” – but “the negatives of this plan far outweigh the positives”. Prioritising CCS over scaling up renewables is “reckless” and the decision not to bring forward a ban on new gas boilers is “reprehensible”, it says. The paper adds: “Combined with the tilt of the whole plan towards continued dependence on fossil fuels, the misnamed ‘energy security’ package is, in truth, a disastrous abdication of duty.”

A Financial Times editorial says the UK is “in danger of squandering its green energy lead – and losing out on vital investments”. The paper says: “When it comes to sustainable energy, the promise to speed up planning consents for solar power and offshore wind is encouraging. But the government is dragging its feet on onshore wind. Nuclear power has rightly been identified as a priority, with a new body to support projects, but plans ought to be far more advanced than they are. Plans for home insulation remain puny. The government has also failed to match other countries’ recent efforts to boost electric vehicle charging infrastructure.” A Times editorial says the “latest dump…of policy documents reveals a continued reluctance to make the big strategic decisions needed to deliver net-zero”. One reason for “this paralysis” is the government’s “striking reluctance to make strategic bets on new technologies”, the paper says. It points to “the profusion of pilot projects in promising but currently not commercially viable technologies such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and floating offshore wind”. But, it says, “to meet the government’s targets in time, there is little alternative but to scale up proven technologies such as onshore and offshore wind and solar. It also means accepting that the only viable way to decarbonise homes is via insulation and heat pumps”.

The Daily Telegraph criticises the “bewildering cascade of announcements” and warns that the UK’s energy policy is “gravely incoherent”. For example, the paper says “we will need oil and gas for decades to come”, but argues the package of measures included “little to show how domestic production would be boosted”. It also says there is “no obvious strategy for achieving” a target of up to 25% of electricity from nuclear power. The paper concludes that “the aim is to make the country both more resilient and greener, but in the medium term these may be mutually exclusive aspirations”. (IEA executive director Fatih Birol has said, on the contrary, that “the only lasting solution to both the current energy crisis and the climate crisis lies in a rapid transition to clean energy”.) A Daily Mail editorial says “despite the UK’s carbon emissions falling again, the government is still pursuing net-zero at a foolish and damaging pace”. The paper says that ministers “must come clean…about the cost to households and businesses of their green strategy. If it impoverishes people, net-zero will be dead in the water – and the Tories will too.”

In an analysis piece, Adam Vaughan, environment editor at the Times, says “the government’s ‘Green Day’ did not happen voluntarily. Ministers had a deadline of 31 March to publish stronger emissions plans after losing a legal challenge brought by Friends of the Earth and other campaigners last year”. Vaughan quotes Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans, who, he says, “said that the new plans probably contained enough detail to fend off another immediate legal challenge. He appears to be right. Friends of the Earth, while expressing concern over the shortfalls, stopped shy of threatening another legal challenge.” The Evening Standard’s West End Final newsletter also quotes Evans and links to his “handy Google Doc listing all the documents (44) and the total number of pages (2,840) released today (so far)”. The Guardian’s environment editor Fiona Harvey says the “hasty” changes in the run up to the announcement – such as changing the “green day” name to “energy security day” – reveal “a warring Tory party”. In the Financial Times, energy correspondent Nathalie Thomas says that “what all of these plans have in common is they are strong on platitudes and far-off targets. Delivering them is a bigger problem”. Writing in the Daily Express, Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive at trade association Energy UK, says that UK industry will hope the package of measures is “the start of the UK delivering against our targets and our potential for the green economy”. Elsewhere, in the Guardian, Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at UCL, writes that “it’s mind-bogglingly stupid” that the UK’s net-zero plans involve new oil and gas.

In the Daily Mail, climate-sceptic columnist Richard Littlejohn picks through the government’s “latest madcap plans for making us colder and poorer”. In a lengthy article, Littlejohn denounces the proposed ban on the sale of conventionally powered vehicles in 2030 “five years before the rest of Europe”, as well as low-traffic neighbourhoods and London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). In the Daily Telegraph, Andy Mayer, chief operating officer and energy analyst at the right-wing lobby group the Institute of Economic Affairs, criticises the UK government for, as he says, “venerating heat pumps as a miracle solution to a problem that doesn’t exist”. (The latest IPCC report said there was a “rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all”.) He also repeats a series of myths about heat pumps. (A recent Carbon Brief guest post explains how the energy crisis has pushed heat pump installations in Europe to “unprecedented new highs” and a new commentary by the International Energy Agency says that “global sales of heat pumps grew by 11% in 2022”.) 

In other UK comment, climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark writes in the Times that “hysterical fearmongering will only backfire” as a way of encouraging action on climate change. Among his arguments, he suggests that half a metre of global sea level rise “hardly amounts to an existential threat to humanity – more an engineering challenge”. And, in the Daily Telegraph, farmer Jamie Blackett writes that the UK should “prepare for a Dutch-style revolt against-net zero”. Referencing a protest vote in the recent elections in the Netherlands in response to the government’s efforts to cut nitrogen pollution on farms, Blackett says “it probably is high time it happened here”.

A new study finds that of the world’s protected areas containing groundwater-dependent ecosystems, 85% have underprotected subsurface watersheds. Researchers map the watersheds of protected areas around the world, then compare these to the extent of the protected areas themselves. They find that half of the studied protected areas have a “groundwatershed” that sits mostly beyond the boundaries of the protected area itself, “highlight[ing] a widespread potential risk to protected areas from activities affecting groundwater outside protected areas”. They conclude: “Delineating groundwatersheds can catalyse needed discussions about protected area connectivity and robustness, and groundwatershed conservation and management can help protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems from external threats.”