The US is considering its first contribution to a multilateral fund aimed at fighting Amazon deforestation, reports Reuters in an “exclusive”, citing “two US officials with direct knowledge of the matter”. The newswire reports that there could be a “possible announcement during President Joe Biden’s meeting with Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (“Lula”) at the White House today. It explains: “The Amazon Fund was set up in 2009 with an initial donation from Norway to help fight deforestation and spur sustainable development in Brazil. Bolsonaro froze the fund when he took office in 2019, but Lula has rebooted it with support from Norway and Germany. Britain is also looking at joining the fund, which has received $1.3bn so far.” The White House said it had no announcement to make “at this time”, the newswire reports, it adds: “One of the sources added that Washington hoped by joining the fund it could ‘solidify’ the fight to protect the rainforest and ‘turn back the clock on all this deforestation and wildfires’.”

Reuters also reports separately on Lula’s visit to the White House, which “will focus on support for Brazilian democracy and shared environmental commitments”. It continues: “Lula will visit Biden on Friday afternoon, after meeting with Senator Bernie Sanders and Democratic lawmakers in the morning. Brazil’s foreign ministry said support for democracy, human rights and the environment will be at the centre of Lula’s agenda in Washington.”

Meanwhile, the Hill reports that the Biden administration yesterday announced that it would issue a $2bn loan to a battery manufacturing facility as it looks to bolster the country’s supply chain for electric vehicles. 

NatWest bank has announced it will stop offering loans to new customers hoping to fund oil and gas exploration, extraction or production projects, as part of a wider climate transition plan due to be unveiled next week, the Guardian reports. The banks’s chief executive, Alison Rose, also said similar steps would be taken to phase out the same funding for existing customers, meaning the bank would refuse to renew, refinance or extend loans for upstream gas projects from the start of 2026, the paper continues. The paper quotes Rose, who said: “We want to ensure our capital is being used to support a transition while continuing to reduce the financing of harmful emissions…I hope this sends a strong signal that we are serious about ending the most harmful activity while financing the transition.” Reuters notes that NatWest is set to launch its first climate transition plan – which will set out its commitments to move to a net-zero economy – next week, alongside its full-year results. BusinessGreen also has the story.

Meanwhile, the Independent reports that a group of investors with combined assets of more than £1.2tn has written to five of Europe’s biggest banks urging them to stop lending to fossil fuel firms. The outlet continues: “Responsible investment group ShareAction coordinated the letters which have been backed by up to 30 investors. They ask one or more of the banks to stop directly financing new oil and gas fields by the end of this year. British bank Barclays, and European banking giants BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole, Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale, all received letters expressing concern that funding fossil fuel projects could jeopardise the global path to net-zero.” Reuters also has the story.

US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen has stepped up pressure on the leadership of the World Bank by urging it to “quickly” put in place reforms to free up more money to address climate change among other global challenges, the Financial Times reports. Speaking in Washington DC yesterday, less than a fortnight after a trip to three African countries, Yellen said the bank should “expand its vision to include addressing global challenges” and help lower costs for countries needing funds to do so, as well as to engage in “stronger” mobilisation of private finance. She also noted that including global issues such as climate change or pandemic preparedness should not mean shifting the bank away from its existing goal of reducing poverty. Yellen said the US expected “to see ideas translated into action” over “the next few months” and called on the bank to make “straightforward” decisions first and to begin putting in place elements of its road map by the time of the spring meetings held by the financial institutions. Yellen said her recent trip to three African countries – Senegal, Zambia and South Africa – underscored the impact of fragility, conflict and climate change on those economies, Reuters reports. “The world has changed, and we need these vital institutions to change along with it,” Yellen said. “In today’s world, sustained progress on poverty alleviation and economic development is simply not possible without addressing the global challenges that face us all.”

South Africa has declared a national state of disaster over the country’s worst-ever spate of rolling blackouts, reports the Financial Times, “as the government scrambles to remove obstacles to investing in energy supply outside the broken Eskom power monopoly”. During a state-of-the-nation address yesterday, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the measure would take immediate effect, as he warned that the power cuts that have hit Africa’s most industrial nation every day this year were “an existential threat to our economy and our social fabric”. The paper explains that “Eskom has had to cut off swaths of customers for up to 10 hours per day in recent months in order to prevent the accelerating collapse of ageing coal power plants, the mainstay of South Africa’s power network, turning into a total grid breakdown. As a result, Ramaphosa’s governing African National Congress is facing the wrath of South Africans in national elections next year, as factories grind to a halt, crops wither without irrigation and food rots in refrigerators”. The declaration of a disaster “will enable us to exempt critical infrastructure such as hospitals and water treatment plants from load shedding…it will enable us to accelerate energy projects and limit regulatory requirements”, Ramaphosa said. However, the paper notes that the South African government “has already made ambitious policy changes to unleash private power production outside Eskom, but experts and investors have warned that these will take years to bear fruit”.

Bloomberg reports that German industrial companies continue to burn fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, that were adopted as a temporary solution at the height of Europe’s energy crunch last year, even though wholesale gas prices have fallen considerably since summer. The outlet lists carmaker Volkswagen, cosmetics manufacturer Henkel and chemical giant Evonik among those continuing to use coal after they were legally permitted to delay a planned switch to gas. It also adds that German chemical giant BASF, which can switch its turbine between gas and oil, is using the dirtier option, emitting around 1.5 times more carbon emissions. Clean Energy Wire reports that an “intensive use” of German coal power plants has led to additional emissions of 15.8m tonnes of CO2 in 2022, according to a report by consultancy Energy Brainpool commissioned by Green Planet Energy. According to the authors, the emissions are “additional” because they are not accounted for in the European emissions trading system (ETS).

Meanwhile, Politico reports that Germany and France are “on the same page” when it comes to how to respond to the US’s “massive” green subsidy plan, the Inflation Reduction Act. French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Olaf Scholz support the EU’s green subsidies plan, with its proposed relaxation of state aid rules to “shore up Europe’s industrial base” and “fight back against the US”, notes the outlet. But the other 25 EU countries suspect the bloc’s two industrial powerhouses of seeking “to prop up their own industries at the expense of less-well-off countries in the single market”, explains the article. EurActiv says that France, Germany and Spain are arguing over nuclear energy, as Paris wants support from Berlin and Madrid for its efforts to have nuclear-derived hydrogen labelled as “green” in EU legislation. The outlet adds that the dispute could block a multi-billion euro hydrogen pipeline from the Iberian peninsula via France to Central Europe.

Elsewhere in German news, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) says that the main beneficiary of the liquified natural gas (LNG) boom is French oil major TotalEnergies, known above all in Germany for its network of filling stations and its refinery in Leuna. TotalEnergies boss Patrick Pouyanné has said that the company will be strengthened by the LNG import terminal in German Lubmin, which was inaugurated in January, saying that he is pleased about how “extremely efficiently” Germany had approved the new system. In addition, FAZ reports on a study by Fraunhofer Institute about hydrogen demand forecasts in Germany, noting that, for the year 2030, the study authors calculate a hydrogen requirement in Germany of just over 40 terawatt hours (TWh), which is just over 1% of Germany’s current energy consumption. However, demand will increase to around 250TWh in 2045, representing around one-tenth of today’s final energy demand in Germany and will be created mainly by industry, explains the newspaper. 

Finally, Reuters reports that Germany and Oman are in “advanced talks” to sign a long-term deal for LNG lasting at least 10 years as Berlin continues its search for alternatives to Russian fuel supplies, three sources familiar with the matter say.

China’s Global Times, a state-supporting newspaper, writes that analysts believe the earthquake in Turkey will have “a limited impact on China’s energy supply, given the temporary disruption of crude supply channels and ramped-up domestic oil output”. Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, is quoted saying that “the sudden disruption has a limited impact on international crude supply, as only a small amount of oil flows through the channel”. Lin stresses that, “being the world’s largest oil importer, China’s imported oil and natural gas accounts for about 28% of its total consumption”, adding that China’s energy supply is “ensured despite an expected demand increase due to its stable economic recovery”. Separately, Bloomberg reports that China’s state-owned oil majors have “stepped up Russian imports in a sign that Beijing is ready to give the go-ahead for more purchases of the country’s crude”, according to industry consultants Energy Aspects.

Elsewhere, China Dialogue has an article, which focuses on the “profound” impact of climate change. Jia Xiaolong, deputy director of the National Climate Centre, is quoted saying at a press conference on Monday that, as “global warming accelerates, the impact of climate change on China is profound”, adding that in recent years, extreme weather and climate events have “occurred frequently, affecting a wide range of areas and causing severe disasters”. Experts from the centre also “looked ahead, predicting that the climate situation in China will be ‘relatively poor’ in 2023”, the article adds. The state broadcaster CGTN looks at China-US cooperation on climate change. The state-run newspaper China Daily says that public participation is “playing a role in improving Beijing’s air quality and is also expected to contribute to the capital’s low-carbon transition”, citing Du Shaozhong, former head of the Beijing Ecology and Environment Bureau, a government agency.

Finally, the Financial Times Lex column says that China “had bet big on converting plentiful coal to chemicals, fertiliser and coke as a contributor to fresh growth”; however, with China “now in hurried retreat from green commitments”, the coal-to-chemicals sector “stands to lose the most”.

“Big Oil’s coffers are overflowing,” says an editorial in the Financial Times, and while “there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the supermajors’ super profits…what is more problematic is how they actually plan to spend them”. Recent announcements by oil-and-gas firms suggest they “may be squandering this opportunity”, the paper argues: “European oil firms are being distracted by short-term interests. Greater political focus on energy security to cover lost energy flows from Russia, high oil and gas prices, and returning demand from China are favourable for their traditional business. The promise of lofty dividends means shareholders are egging them on.” Such a “near-term focus on returns is detrimental to net-zero efforts”, the FT says, adding that “emissions need to be cut today, not just in the decades ahead”. It continues: “A managed phaseout of carbon is key. Oil and gas is still important while clean electricity infrastructure, renewables and storage ramp up. Oil companies also have significant research and engineering expertise that could support the transition.” The paper concludes: “Energy security should, however, not be used as an excuse to slow down on green initiatives. The best way to support energy supply in the long run is by focusing on renewable power sources and decarbonisation…And ultimately, Big Oil chief executives and their shareholders need to wake up fast to the existential risk of leaning too heavily on the declining petroleum economy.”

Elsewhere in the FT, business columnist Helen Thomas also considers the shift in focus of Big Oil, noting: “BP this week rowed back from its 2020 climate commitments, including the headline pledge to cut production by 40% by 2040. Given that those promises were three years ago dubbed “cynical” by Friends of the Earth, the oil and gas major may rather have proved the environmental campaigners’ point.” And the FT’s Energy Source column says that BP’s pivot has “echoes of the early 2000s’ ‘Beyond Petroleum’ campaign and subsequent reversal”.

Also focusing on the profits of Big Oil, Oliver Milman – an environment reporter for Guardian US – writes that “while 2022 inflicted hardship upon many people around the world due to soaring inflation, climate-driven disasters and war, the year was lucrative on an unprecedented scale for the fossil fuel industry”. An editorial in the Daily Mirror urges UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt to abandon plans to reduce the help people receive towards their energy costs from April. The newspaper says that Big Oil is “making billions profiteering from the rise in prices caused by Russia’s illegal war” and that “by extending the windfall tax on these firms Mr Hunt can help cut bills for many”. However, “if he refuses he will put the interests of greedy corporates ahead of hard-pressed families”. The Daily Mirror’s political correspondent Paul Routledge also argues that the government should put off a reduction in energy cost support, but warns that the “this lot’s record on energy is one of complacency, craven worship of ‘the market’ and incompetence”.

In other UK comment, writing in the Times, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for business and industrial strategy Jonathan Reynolds MP argues that his party “has an industrial strategy – even if Rishi Sunak doesn’t”. He adds: “Under the Conservatives the UK economy has underperformed significantly on growth, productivity and wages. Turning this around, whilst forging a prosperous post-Brexit future for the UK and capitalising on the net-zero transition, is at the heart of the economic challenge facing the next Labour government. We will have to do so in a world where the US Inflation Reduction Act, and the EU’s Net-Zero Investment Act, will have radically altered the relative competitiveness of rival investment destinations. With the UK already bottom of the G7 for business investment, the need for a response is urgent. We in the Labour party do not underestimate these challenges. But nor should anyone underestimate our determination to meet them.”

Finally, two newspapers give space to climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark. In the Times, Clark writes that securing the UK’s energy security “means postponing net-zero”. In the Daily Express, Clark says the earthquake in Turkey and Syria [which has killed more than 21,000 people] “reignites the debate on international aid: what is it for, and how generous should it be?”. Clark writes: “The trouble with setting a hard target for aid spending – especially with setting it into law – is that it encourages ministers to think of spending as a good in itself…In 2021, we spent £50m of aid money in China – a country still merrily building coal-fired power stations – on medical and climate change projects.”

An editorial in the Economist considers the social aspects of the “daunting transition away from fossil fuels” that is facing countries of the Gulf in the coming decades. The outlet explains: “Ever since Gulf governments took control of oil and gas production from western firms in the 1970s, the social contract has been clear. Rulers used petrodollars to pamper their subjects with everything from cushy public-sector jobs to water subsidies and bonuses for newlyweds…That contract will eventually become obsolete. One reason is climate change. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, which together pump 14m barrels of oil per day, know that demand for fossil fuels will fade. That gives them a window of 10-20 years to transform their economies.” But, the outlet says, “another transition is happening in parallel that is just as striking: a shift from state-led economies and conservative social norms towards somewhat more liberal and open societies. That prospect is thrilling”. This “euphoria” may “help dull the pain of economic reforms”, the outlet says: “Benefits are being cut. The UAE has ditched fuel subsidies. Saudi Arabia may follow. Since 2018 four of the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have brought in a value-added tax. Income tax, once unimaginable, is now a possibility.” All this “creates a sense of insecurity as well as freedom”, the editorial says, arguing that “Gulf citizens will need the tools to succeed in a new era”. It suggests: Education is a good place to start. Schoolchildren in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE lag far behind their rich-country counterparts. Dropout rates are high because students – boys in particular – assume they can rely on a government job. A better education would prepare them to compete for one in the private sector.”

A new study finds that methane emissions from rice paddies have been stable over the past three decades, but that several low-cost changes could significantly lower these emissions. Researchers estimate global methane emissions from rice production, then model how these emissions could change if different interventions are implemented. They find that by using existing strategies, such as improving water and straw management, global methane emissions from rice farming could be cut by one-third. They conclude that “optimising multiple mitigation measures in rice fields could contribute significantly to the abatement goal outlined in the Global Methane Pledge”.