There is extensive coverage across the UK media about the UK government’s plans to decarbonise the economy. The Financial Times is among several outlets to preview a much-anticipated (and delayed) speech by prime minister Boris Johnson this week in which he is expected to says that the sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned within a decade. The FT says: “In February the prime minister said he was bringing forward a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 to 2035. Now Mr Johnson is expected to move the date to 2030 in an attempt to jump-start the market for electric cars in the UK and propel the country towards its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, according to government and industry insiders. However, ministers are expected to keep the less stringent date of 2035 for an end to the sale of hybrid cars that are powered by electric batteries as well as traditional motors.” The Guardian says: “The government hopes the policy will energise the market for electric cars in the UK and help the country achieve its climate targets, including reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to net-zero by 2050. Scientists, academics and campaigners have urged governments and businesses to be more ambitious, calling on them to work to ‘restore the climate’ to as safe a level as possible.” Justin Rowlatt, BBC News’s chief environment correspondent, has a video report on the news, asking: “Would UK be ready for a new petrol car ban in 2030?” A frontpage story in today’s Times says that “[chancellor] Rishi Sunak is considering plans to charge motorists for using Britain’s roads amid concerns over a £40bn tax shortfall created by the switch to electric cars”. It adds: “Mr Sunak is said to be ‘very interested’ in the idea of a national road pricing scheme despite concerns in the Treasury about the cost of the green agenda, including that revenues from fuel duty, one of the government’s largest revenue earners, are set to vanish. A government source said that the issue was ‘increasingly pressing’, adding that the Treasury had drawn up an analysis outlining potential options for a national road pricing scheme. The source said that a scheme was not ‘imminent’ but that plans were being developed as the government considered how to hit its target of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050.” The Sun also follows up on the Times’s scoop. The Times has also published a supportive editorial, which says: “Charging motorists according to their road use would ease congestion, benefit the environment and help to plug a long-term gap in the public finances…Charging road use is sound, market-based economics. It uses the price mechanism to ration road use. It would give an incentive to drivers who do not need to travel at peak times to use the roads at other times, and thereby ease congestion. By making commuting easier it would enable workers to travel more freely to where jobs are. And it would plug the gap in the public finances left by declining fuel duties.”

In contrast, a frontpage story in the Observer reveals that “Boris Johnson’s plans to relaunch his premiership with a blitz of announcements on combating climate change and the creation of tens of thousands of new green jobs are meeting stiff resistance from the cash-strapped Treasury”. It adds: “Senior figures in Whitehall and advisers to the government on environmental issues say negotiations on the content of a major environmental speech by the prime minister are still ongoing between No 10, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy with just days to go before Johnson delivers the keynote address. The speech, containing a 10-point plan, has already been repeatedly delayed as government attention has been focused on the fight against Covid-19 and multibillion-pound measures by the Treasury to keep the economy and business afloat during the resulting economic crisis.” Bloomberg says the speech is “currently scheduled for 18 November, people familiar with the matter said”. The i newspaper says “Johnson is set to announce fresh backing for electric vehicles, hydrogen, and nuclear power as part of a 10-point plan to put the country on course for net-zero emissions by 2050”. It adds: “He is expected to commit to building a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk, and bring forward a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035 to 2030. Fresh support for hydrogen, which could provide a low-carbon replacement for fossil fuels in industries such as steel manufacturing, is also expected.” A separate i newspaper article reports that “the public would prefer the government to plant millions of trees to suck carbon out of the atmosphere rather than plough huge sums of cash into carbon capture and storage technology, in a blow to the prime minister’s plans to kickstart a green industrial revolution”. It continues: “YouGov polling conducted on behalf of the energy company Ovo reveals strong public support for renewable energy and tree planting to tackle climate change. But Britons are decidedly lukewarm about the prospect of government focusing investment on emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage, or green hydrogen production, the survey reveals.”

A frontpage story in the Independent quotes Lord Deben, the chair of the Climate Change Committee, who says Johnson must immediately commit to a raft of fully-funded environmental policies if he hopes to be seen as “credible” on tackling climate change. The former Conservative environment minister Lord Deben said: “It seems to me what characterises the government at the moment is having the right ideas and determination to do the right things, but so far we haven’t had a programme and a plan of those things actually being put into action.”

BBC News reports that, as part of the 10-point plan, “a further £40m is to be ploughed into green spaces in England as part of a plan to restore species and combat climate change”. It adds: “The plan has been widely leaked and it is thought to include a commitment to: energy efficiency and heat for homes and business; offshore wind; the power system; nuclear – including small modular reactors; carbon capture/storage; hydrogen; innovation funding for net-zero; transport; green financing; and natural environment investment.”

Meanwhile, in other UK news, the Guardian says “the government’s plan to insulate England’s draughty homes is faltering because builders and installers are failing to sign up, leaving thousands of households unable to access the £3bn green home grants”. It adds: “According to government data, only 1,174 installers have signed up to the scheme, which started on 30 September, while more than 36,000 householders have applied for the grants, which will be available until March. Green campaigners are growing increasingly concerned about the scheme, which is so far the UK’s only policy measure aimed at a green recovery, despite Boris Johnson’s pledge to ‘build back better’.” The Daily Telegraph reports that “the Forestry Commission has admitted it made an error in allowing trees to be planted on valuable peatland in Cumbria…which plays a vital role in sequestering carbon and protecting communities from flooding”. In a related story, the Guardian also says that “world heritage status for Scottish peat bogs could help UK hit net-zero goals”. Another Guardian article says that a group of 18 leading environmental organisations, including the RSPB, Friends of the Earth and the Wildlife Trusts, have written to the prime minister to warn that “offshore windfarms risk harming delicate landscapes and vulnerable wildlife habitats if the government fails to coordinate the planning system in its push for a big expansion of clean energy”.

The Times reports on a new report by the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at Cambridge University which suggests that “the government should set up a National Conservation Corps to help meet its target of planting 30,000 hectares of woodland each year”. The Sunday Times says that “car ownership over the past decade has fallen in areas that account for 31.5% of the population of England, according to official registration figures from the DVLA, released under freedom of information rules”, adding: “The latest figures on vehicle ownership reveal a stark divide between cycle-loving wealthy areas and motoring-mad poor ones.” The Times reports that “how a solar power station in space could help Britain to meet its carbon emissions pledge is to be the subject of a government review”. It adds: “The project would involve a mile-wide solar power satellite (SPS) weighing several thousand tonnes being assembled in orbit by robots. Engineers believe that it could supply as much electricity as a nuclear power station.” Finally, the Financial Times says that “large investors are piling pressure on the UK government to take bolder action in the fight against climate change, despite the green finance measures unveiled by the chancellor last week”. It adds: “The Investment Association, a trade body representing investors with £8.5tn in assets, called for ‘further action to consolidate the world-leading policy signalling that we have seen from the UK government’. In a paper set to be submitted to the Treasury, it called for the introduction of ‘pathway’ policies for different sectors of the economy to facilitate their transition to net-zero.”

Reuters reports that India’s environment minister Prakash Javadekar has said that the US should quickly back its words with actions when it rejoins the Paris Agreement under Joe Biden. He tells Reuters: “We want all countries to join but…they should…not bring in new issues into the discourse. We want action to start immediately.”

Meanwhile, the Hill reports that “several former Obama-era energy officials are seen as top contenders to lead the energy department in the incoming administration”. It continues: “Ernest Moniz, who held the role in the final years of the Obama administration, is seen as a prime contender for the post, while his former deputy, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, has also been floated. Another name that’s been circulated for the position is Arun Majumdar, the founding director of an energy research agency during the Obama years who is now on the Biden-Harris transition team.” E&E News reports that “president-elect Joe Biden has embedded climate-minded officials throughout his sprawling transition team”. It adds: “Climate experts, former Obama administration officials and green activists abound among the teams managing the transition for EPA; the Energy, Interior and Agriculture departments; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Unlike past transitions, officials with significant climate or clean energy experience also pop up in departments like State, Defense, Treasury and Justice.”

The Independent, in a joint investigation with DeSmog UK, reveals that “an anonymous ‘news and media’ organisation using sophisticated adverts to promote climate science denial on Facebook was set up by the chair of a pro-Brexit thinktank”. It continues: “The group, called Eco Central, features a doctored image of Greta Thunberg as its Facebook banner and has called Sir David Attenborough an ‘eco-hypocrite’. It has spent thousands of pounds on adverts on Facebook, including one that claims ‘climate change is a hoax perpetrated by politicians, the media, and celebrities’ and another that claims that climate change is ‘fake news’ that ‘harms our children’. In one of its most recent posts, Eco Central said: ‘Climate alarmism: Causes psychological damage. Destroys childhoods. Enough is enough.’ A joint investigation by the Independent and environmental investigations outlet DeSmog UK can reveal that the organisation was set up by Matthew MacKinnon, who is director of the Centre for Welsh Studies, a pro-Brexit think tank based in Cardiff.”

Several UK newspapers react to the news that Boris Johnson’s key advisor Dominic Cummings has left No 10 abruptly. An editorial in the Daily Telegraph says this is a chance to “reboot” the “Downing Street operation”, but it says “ it is no time to be prioritising impractical green initiatives”. It adds: “Among a raft of proposed initiatives, the Prime Minister is set to announce that the sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned in the UK within 10 years. A prohibition had initially been set for 2040, which seemed a difficult enough target, before being brought forward to 2035. The latest deadline is even more unrealistic and there seems no obvious point to it other than to burnish Mr Johnson’s eco-credentials. It will place massive pressure on the car industry, which is already reeling from the economic slowdown. Moreover, the infrastructure for electric vehicles, which appear to be the Government’s preferred future, remains rudimentary, with just 20,000 charging points – even if the number is growing rapidly. In any case, who is to say the non-carbon future for cars is, or should be, electric? Hydrogen-based technology would be more environmentally friendly and can use the existing petrol-delivery systems.” An editorial in the Sunday Telegraph says Cummings departure must not “mean caving in to the woke crowd or elevating the green agenda as [Johnson’s] primary mission”. It adds: “This would make the Government almost indistinguishable from Labour, and would misread the 2019 election completely…They might not want a culture war – but unless they fight one, they’ll find themselves conquered and occupied by the Left.” In his Daily Telegraph column, Nick Timothy writes: “It is…easy to imagine ministers making promises to keep a lid on the cost of living and to revive British industry, while pursuing climate change policies that make both family and industrial energy costs unaffordable.” In the Mail on Sunday, columnist Dan Hodges says: “If the future is now all about wind farms, trans rights and wokery, Boris Johnson is doomed.”

However, not all the right-leaning newspapers adopt this tone. Matthew Parris in the Times says the “vacuum in No 10 could be filled if the PM plots a new course focusing on the green revolution and jobs for the young”. He adds: “Look at Rolls-Royce’s collaborative project to manufacture small nuclear reactors. British science and engineering has a long pedigree in innovative ideas but a more chequered history in exploiting them. We’ve seen what non-state bodies can do in this week’s news about the Pfizer vaccine breakthrough and Oxford University’s work on a vaccine. Targeted state investment in renewables, green energy generation, design and manufacturing could bring similar returns. A prime minister who could inject the same energy and sense of urgency into green politics could distinguish our country for its vision and idealism, as well as seed an economic harvest. What about a Severn tidal barrage? Boris loves big, newsworthy projects and knows how to brush aside myopic cost-benefit analysis.” Also in the Times, Conservative MP Alexander Stafford writes: “It is essential that our government stands up for drivers and provides them with adequate help and support to upgrade or get rid of their polluting diesel vehicles and switch to cleaner forms of transport.” In the Sunday Telegraph, its business editor Christopher Williams says that “climate gives [the] PM [a] chance to recover from [the] Covid wreck”. He adds: “The post-Brexit, post-Trump, post-pandemic world of 2021 is racing towards Johnson. As he seeks to make tackling climate change the keystone of bridges with the Biden administration, this ought to be a big and serious moment to reset.” The Daily Mail’s Ruth Sunderland says: “New nuclear will have to be part of the mix and, unfortunately, the UK’s record on this front is abysmal. The role of nuclear power in the UK’s energy strategy is under discussion at the highest level in government…A couple of billion quid is a lot when there are multiple calls on the public purse and critics have been sniffy about small modular reactors, citing the expense and the risks involved. Rolls Royce has not come up with a magic formula to solve our energy dilemma, but it must be preferable to relying on Chinese and French conventional nuclear facilities – and it will help keep our kettles on.”

On the Times letters page, Lord O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary and head of the civil service from 2005-11, says: “The prime minister has made clear that climate change is at the top of his agenda, and the successful global research into new vaccines has shown what can be done when the world’s scientists jointly attack a worldwide problem. The prime minister could build on this success by calling on the world’s scientists to find a way to make clean energy cheaper than that produced using fossil fuels. The market would then provide results that would benefit consumers, businesses and the planet. The extra research and innovation would be a boost to the UK’s economic recovery and long-term prosperity. Moreover, this would enhance our relations with the US, as the Obama administration proposed a similar approach, called Mission Innovation, at the Paris summit. It would also be a great example of how Britain could play a global role post-Brexit.”

In the Financial Times, contributing editor and columnist Camilla Cavendish says: “Until now, climate diplomacy has battled a zero-sum mindset. Many countries have liked to sound green at summits, while delaying action and freeriding on others’ efforts. But there is a growing realisation that climate action is an investment not a cost – a vital insurance policy against wildfires, floods and other natural disasters.” But she adds: “Even so, politicians will need to be brave. It is in this decade that tough actions must be taken that will disrupt daily life. Restructuring economies away from fossil fuels will mean ripping out boilers, insulating homes, phasing out the combustion engine and changing the way we farm to improve carbon capture in soil. Not all of that will be popular – and leaders will seek safety in numbers, justifying their actions on climate by what others are doing, just as they did with Covid-19 lockdowns.”

Also in the FT, Gavyn Davies – chairman of Fulcrum Asset Management – says that “democracies that failed the Covid test will struggle on climate change”. He continues: “America’s promised return to the Paris accord is the first and necessary step on a very long road. No one has thought of a magic bullet for global warming, equivalent to a vaccine against Covid-19. This problem will have to be solved the hard way.”

In the New York Times, international climate reporter Somini Sengupta says that “If Joseph R. Biden Jr. wants to be known as the first climate president of the United States, he will have to engage his biggest rival on the world stage: President Xi Jinping of China”. Sengupta previews new research from the Asia Society Policy Institute and Climate Analytics which concludes that “China would have to peak its carbon emissions by 2025, five years earlier than the country has promised, and phase out coal by 2040 in order to keep global temperatures close to the upper limits laid out in the Paris Agreement”. Sengupta adds: “Analysts of United States-China relations said Mr. Biden would have to make big moves, fast. He would need to one-up Mr. Xi with a more ambitious net-zero target.”

Elsewhere in the New York Times, senior writer David Leonhardt says that, even if the Republicans control the Senate, “Biden may also be able to win over a few Republican senators – which is all he would need – for an economic recovery bill that included billions of dollars of clean-energy spending”. He adds: “The fact that Mr. Biden seems inclined to make the climate a top priority does not stem from a longtime personal obsession. He is not Al Gore. But he has spent his career trying to understand where the centre of the Democratic Party is moving and then moving with it. And both the Democratic Party and the country have moved on climate.” In the Sunday Times, columnist Ian Cowie looks at how green-energy investors could benefit from a “Biden bounce”. He writes: “Whether or not he persuades the Senate to approve all this stimulus, the direction of travel is clear…I expect we will hear a great deal more about green energy before Britain hosts the 26th United Nations climate change conference.”

A new study attempts to constrain climate model projections of global temperature change from the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The researchers use a model weighting approach, which “accounts for the models’ historical performance based on several diagnostics as well as model interdependence within the CMIP6 ensemble”, to constrain projections under “weak” (SSP1-2.6) and “strong” (SSP5-8.5) climate change scenarios. The results show a “reduction in the projected mean warming for both scenarios because some CMIP6 models with high future warming receive systematically lower performance weights”, the study says. This includes an average end-of-century warming, relative to 1995-2014, of 3.7C under SSP5-8.5, compared with 4.1 C without weighting, and of 1.0C under SSP1-2.6, compared to 1.1C in the unweighted case. For more on CMIP6, see Carbon Brief’s recently updated explainer.

A combination of temperature and rainfall factors is driving shifts in mountain treelines across the northern hemisphere, a new study says. In this meta-analysis, researchers assessed annual treeline shift rates at 143 sites from 38 published studies. Treelines ascended at 88.8% of the sites, remained stable at 10.5% and descended at 0.7% of the sites, the study finds, adding that “the mean hemispheric shift rate (0.354 m/year) was half of what would be expected from climate warming alone”. The study finds that rainfall “was more important than temperature for predicting treeline shift rate”. For example, in the subarctic – where treeline shifts were faster than in temperature regions – “autumn precipitation mostly determined treeline shift rates”, the researchers say.