The UK is using its current leadership of the G7 group of major economies to push for mandatory corporate reporting of climate risks, Bloomberg reports, citing “people familiar with the matter”. It explains: “Under the proposals, the biggest companies would report annually on their exposure to risks and opportunities presented by climate change. It would follow guidelines set out in 2017 by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.” The news comes ahead of a 4-5 June meeting of G7 finance ministers, Bloomberg says, adding that while a final communique from the group has “yet to be agreed”, the UK is pushing the idea of climate disclosures as a priority.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports calls from “leading climate experts” who it says want the UK to use its leadership of the G7 and COP26 climate summit to “push [the] G7 to pay billions more in climate aid”.

The UK’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) started trading yesterday for the first time, Reuters reports, following the country’s departure from the EU ETS at the end of 2020. Carbon prices reached more than £50 per tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) in early trading, the newswire says, a level that made “the cost of polluting in Britain higher than in the EU”. It adds that companies subject to both the EU and UK schemes “hope a link will be established between the two to allow cross trading of permits, but there are no signs yet of formal negotiations on linking”. The Financial Times also leads on the UK ETS topping £50 per tonne before falling back to just below £46, close to EU ETS prices. It notes some market participants “had warned that [UK] prices could rise significantly higher, creating the potential for arbitrage between the UK and EU systems, and that the smaller UK market could be more volatile than its European equivalent”. The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and BusinessGreen also have the story.

Government officials from some Asian countries have “disputed the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) call for no new oil, natural gas and coal investments for the world to be able to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”, Reuters reports. It says: “[O]fficials in Japan and the Philippines said there were many ways to get to net-zero, even as the IEA said its pathway was ‘the most technically feasible, cost-effective and socially acceptable’.” The newswire continues: “Akihisa Matsuda, the deputy director of international affairs at Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), said the government has no plans to immediately stop oil, gas and coal investments.” It adds: “In the Philippines, where coal is set to be the dominant power source for years even after a ban on new coal plant proposals, energy secretary Alfonso Cusi said the energy transition should be ‘fuel and technology-neutral’. Cutting finance for oil, gas and coal without considering efficiency and competitiveness would ‘set back the Philippines’ aspiration to join the ranks of upper middle-income countries.‘” The piece also quotes the head of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association saying: “The IEA report doesn’t take into account future negative emission technologies and offsets from outside the energy sector – two things that are likely to happen and will allow vital and necessary future development of oil and gas fields.”

A comment by Reuters columnist Clyde Russell says the IEA’s call to end fossil fuel development is “likely to fall on deaf ears in Asia”, pointing to the Australian government’s decision to fund a new gas-fired power plant and adding: “China, the world’s biggest coal miner, importer and consumer, shows little sign of weaning itself off the polluting fuel, continuing a massive build-out of coal-fired power, with 88.1 gigawatts currently under construction, equal to about half of the global total. Japan, India and other countries across Asia are still building coal-fired generators, albeit at ever-slowing rates, but these assets will still likely run for decades to come given most are designed to operate for at least 40 years.” Another Reuters article reports that China has “urged coal producers to boost output”.

An iceberg as large as the Spanish island of Majorca has broken off the coast of Antarctica, Bloomberg reports, adding that measurements from planes and satellites have “confirm[ed] it’s now the world’s largest”. The A-76 iceberg is 170km long and 25km wide, it adds. MailOnline also has the story. BBC News has a feature on the Larsen C ice shelf in the Antarctic, reporting: “new research [suggests] that Larsen C may be more resilient than we dared hope”.

At the Earth’s other pole, Agence-France Presse via France 24 reports on the Arctic Council meeting in Iceland, saying: “Accelerated global warming, untapped resources and new maritime routes opened up by retreating sea ice, as well as the future of local populations top the agenda for the foreign ministers gathered in Reykjavik.” The Los Angeles Times says that melting ice in the Arctic caused by “intense climate change” has “allowed Russia to push its military apparatus” in the region. It adds: “Russia this week declared much of the Arctic to be Russian territory. That is the backdrop to the Biden administration’s first bilateral in-person contact with Russia on Wednesday, when US secretary of state Antony J Blinken meets with his counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, on the margins of an Arctic Council session in Reykjavik, Iceland.” According to Reuters, Blinken “said the two countries could work together on tackling the coronavirus pandemic, combating climate change, dealing with Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs, and the conflict in Afghanistan”. In the Financial Times, European affairs commentator Tony Barber writes under the headline: “Arctic rivalry heats up among the great powers.” He adds: “Friction in other parts of the globe as well as climate change are fuelling tensions in the high north.”

China’s president Xi Jinping and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin attended the groundbreaking ceremony of a Sino-Russian nuclear energy cooperation project via video link on Wednesday afternoon, reports Chinese state news agency Xinhua. The project involves two plants, the Tianwan Nuclear Power Station in east China’s Lianyungang and the Xudapu Nuclear Station in east China’s Huludao, Xinhua says. It is estimated that the project will cost more than 100bn yuan (£11bn), according to state-affiliated Jiemian News. Four third-generation “VVER-1200” nuclear reactors, two for each plant, will be built, Jiemian adds.

An article from Reuters assesses the obstacles on China’s journey to hit its climate goals. “One of the most pressing challenges for China to meet its pledge to cap carbon emissions this decade and pivot toward renewables is overhauling its electricity grid,” says the newswire, citing officials and analysts. Meanwhile, the Financial Times documents its visit to the Xinjiang-based solar plant Daqo New Energy. Elsewhere, Singapore-based the Straits Times carries a Reuters report of COP26 president Alok Sharma’s call for China to address its climate promises “with more urgency” ahead of the November climate summit.

In other news from the country, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) of China has said that it remains “to be observed” how China’s efforts to cut carbon emissions would impact its economic growth, reports state-run Shanghai Securities News. Separately, Reuters cites the NBS and reports that China’s crude steel output hit an all-time high in April. The article states that Chinese factories “churned out 97.85m tonnes of the metal last month”. The figure is a 13.4% increase year-on-year, according to state-affiliated China Steel News. Analysts expect the nation’s crude steel output to continue surging in May, reports Chinese news portal Sina.

The Biden administration has reinstated the director of a federal climate research programme who had been removed under Trump, the Washington Post reports. It says Michael Kuperberg will return as executive director of the US Global Change Research Program, coordinating climate research across 13 agencies and overseeing the country’s National Climate Assessment. The Hill also has the news.

In other US news, the Hill reports the comments of Biden’s climate chief Gina McCarthy saying, the website reports, that “the Biden administration is aiming to develop energy and environment policies that will be too popular for a future administration to attempt to roll them back”. Reuters says Biden will unveil his first detailed budget proposal on 28 May. Meanwhile, E&E News via Scientific American reports that president Biden has “tout[ed] electric vehicles amid negotiations on infrastructure spending”. It says the president visited a Ford test site to drive the company’s new F-150 Lightning, “the electric version of the country’s most popular vehicle”. In the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer uses his column to argue that the electric F-150 “signals that decarbonisation has entered a new era”. He explains: “An electric F-150 opens up an enormous new market for EVs and signals that climate-friendly technology has reached the soybean fields and construction sites of middle America.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has “carpet-bombed the fossil incumbency that it once defended so doggedly”, writes Daily Telegraph columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, referring to the agency’s roadmap for net-zero emissions by 2050. [See Carbon Brief’s coverage of the roadmap for more.] Evans-Pritchard continues: “Slashing CO2 emissions and switching to renewable energy is not a ‘cost’ or a constraint on rising affluence: it lifts global GDP growth by 0.4% a year over the course of this decade,” according to the IEA. He adds: “It does not raise energy costs: it cuts the average bill for households on heating, cooling, electricity, and car fuel from $2,800 to $2,300 a year by 2030 in advanced countries.” Evans-Pritchard wraps up by saying: “Reading the report, you could conclude if we did not have a climate crisis, we would need to invent one in order to make humanity richer, healthier, safer, more self-sufficient, and less vulnerable to hostile geopolitics. And yes, we crack CO2 emissions as well. Hallelujah.”

Elsewhere in the comment pages, Allister Heath, editor of the Sunday Telegraph, has a comment for the Daily Telegraph on the launch of the new “anti-woke” GB News TV channel. He writes: “As to environmentalism, the [UK’s current] broadcasters have equally lost their critical faculty. Where is the relentless, forensic questioning about the costs the green revolution could impose on consumers? Or whether the claims relating to ‘green jobs’ are true? Or the big bet on electric, rather than hydrogen-powered, cars?” Another Daily Telegraph comment by columnist Madeline Grant runs under the headline: “Beware the twin fanatics of Net Zero and Zero Covid.” She writes: “There are some striking and dangerous similarities between the movements to eradicate carbon and Covid.” Grant adds: “Net-zero advocates excel at pretending this vast transformation will involve little sacrifice, or be funded exclusively by the super-rich or amorphous baddies like the energy industry. In truth, modest households will inevitably shoulder much of the burden.”

An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald berates the Australian government for its decision to fund a A$600m gas-fired power station in the country, saying it “raises questions about the federal government’s attempts to improve its climate change credentials”. It continues: “[Energy minister Angus] Taylor should explain why he decided on gas over alternatives such as batteries and pumped hydro, which have zero carbon emissions and could help Australia achieve the target of zero net emissions by 2050.” In a comment for the Guardian, climate scientist Bill Hare writes under the headline: “The world is moving away from fossil fuels, while in Australia, it’s all systems go for coal and gas.” He says of the planned new gas plant: “The government argues that the Kurri Kurri plant will reduce costs for consumers, whereas most energy analysts argue the opposite.” Another article in the Guardian reports that the opposition Labor party is “demanding the Morrison government urgently release the business case for a new taxpayer-funded gas plant in the Hunter Valley, saying the Coalition’s A$600m proposal at Kurri Kurri isn’t justified by the economics or the engineering”.

An article for the Sydney Morning Herald reports that a “flood of grid scale batteries proposed by the private sector could undermine the viability of the new gas fired power station federal government says it will build in the Hunter Valley”. It notes that firms committed to building 600 megawatts (MW) of battery capacity in the first quarter of 2021 alone, adding that this is “roughly equivalent to the 660MW gas peaker plant the Morrison government plans for a site at Kurri Kurri”. Another Sydney Morning Herald article reports: “Australia’s power industry has hit out at the Morrison government’s plan for a taxpayer-funded gas-fired generator, describing it as an unnecessary market intervention that risks derailing vital future investments needed to transition the energy grid.” The Guardian reports on how Australia’s Covid-recovery spending compares with the rest of the world. It says: “When it comes to infrastructure and public investment, many other countries have been more ambitious – especially on green stimulus.” [See the Carbon Brief green recovery tracker for a detailed country-by-country breakdown.]

A new study finds that conditions for “overwintering fires” – those that smoulder through the non-fire season and flare up in spring – may be becoming more favourable due to climate change. The authors run an algorithm that takes into account satellite imagery, records of lightning strikes, human presence and infrastructure for fires in Alaska in the US and the Northwest Territories in Canada. They find that overwintering fires – also known as “zombie fires” – were responsible for 0.8% of the total burned area between 2002 and 2018, on average – and 38% in one single year. They note that “overwintering fires in boreal forests are associated with hot summers generating large fire years and deep burning into organic soils, conditions that have become more frequent in our study areas in recent decades”.

New research suggests that human-driven fires and deforestation “pose a greater threat to the future of Amazon ecosystems than drying alone”. The authors use proxy data to reconstruct the central and western Amazon tree cover response to aridity and fire in the mid-Holocene – a time of less intensive human land use and drier conditions than today. The authors then compare these results to observational data. They find that “under limited human interference, modern tree cover is likely similarly resilient to mid-Holocene levels of aridification”.