The US Supreme Court has allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to move ahead with its plans to limit carbon emissions by power plants, “handing a victory to the Biden administration”, the New York Times reports. According to the newspaper, the regulation states that coal- and gas-fired power plants scheduled to operate “long-term” will have to capture up to 90% of their emissions by 2032. “Environmental groups, as well as the EPA, lauded the decision,” the paper says. However, it adds: “More than two dozen states challenged the regulation, arguing that the federal government had failed to prove that the techniques used to control emissions would curtail them to the degree that the government is seeking…The challenge is currently pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In July, a three-judge panel refused a request by the conservative-led states to stop the EPA rule from going into effect while the court case continued, prompting the states and other groups to ask the Supreme Court to step in. In its decision, the appeals court panel wrote that there was no need to pause the EPA rule from going into effect while litigation continued because the case would proceed quickly and the federal government’s compliance deadlines were years from now, in 2030 or 2032.” Reuters reports that the “emergency requests” came from 27 mostly Republican-led states, as well as “power companies and industry associations”. The Guardian adds that the EPA has called carbon capture and storage technologies “proven and technically feasible”. The Associated Press says this decision is “the third time this month the conservative majority has left an environmental regulation in place for now”. The Washington Post, CBS News and the Hill also cover the ruling.

Hurricanes Helene and Milton will “likely join the infamous ranks of Katrina, Sandy and Harvey as super costly $50bn-plus killers”, the Associated Press reports. The newswire continues: “In the last 45 years, and adjusted for inflation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has counted 396 weather disasters that caused at least $1bn in damage. Sixty-three of those were hurricanes or tropical storms.” The outlet adds that only eight hurricanes have ever reached $50bn of damage. The outlet also warns that most of the damage – at least 95% in the case of Helene – was uninsured. Separately, Guardian analysis says that, with the US election approaching, “the devastation wrought by Helene and Milton could shake up priorities and bring the climate crisis more to the fore”. It continues: “The Environmental Voter Project, a non-partisan group that seeks to drive turnout among people who care about the environment but who didn’t vote in the 2020 election or since then, estimates there are 230,000 such ‘climate voters’ in Arizona and 250,000 in Pennsylvania, both crucial swing states decided by just a few thousand votes last time around.” 

Florida’s Palm Beach Post has published an editorial arguing that, in the aftermath of Helene and Milton, “Florida needs to take climate change more seriously”. It says: “Beyond recovery, the focus should be on change, a different way local and state leaders approach storm preparation, resiliency and the redevelopment of coastal and low-lying areas that are consistently vulnerable to flooding…Is it, for example, time to rethink and craft state laws that would limit development so close to Florida’s coasts and in areas that have consistently been prone to flooding?” And journalist David Wallace Wells writes in the New York Times that Helene has “broken our shared sense of reality and ushered in a catastrophic new low for information pollution”.

In response to “increasing extreme weather events and natural disasters” in recent years, China has “reinforced its emergency food supply”, Liu Huanxin, head of China’s National Food and Strategic Reserves Administration, says in an interview with state newswire Xinhua. Liu says that China has “made food security one of its top priorities”, adds the agency. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that, according to researchers, “small areas of the Tibetan Plateau may have an outsize influence on East Asia’s climate by increasing spring rainfall by up to a quarter”. 

Meanwhile, Dianwang Toutiao, a Chinese industry news outlet, reports that China’s “inter-provincial electricity spot market” has started operation, adding that it “marks another step forward in building a unified national electricity market system”. Chinese auto manufacturers say that they are not “seeking to ‘overthrow’ Europe’s legacy manufacturers with cheaper electric vehicles (EVs), in an attempt to allay fears among European rivals over their aggressive international expansion”, the Financial Times reports. SCMP says that, while “broadly in step with the west politically”, Australia has “remained open to Chinese-made EVs and other products aiding in its green transition”. The Wall Street Journal reports that the US is encouraging companies to purchase cobalt-producer Chemaf in the Democratic Republic of Congo, after blocking its sale to a Chinese firm, as Washington aims to “loosen Beijing’s global grip on a metal”.

Elsewhere, Yao Zhe, global policy advisor with Greenpeace East Asia, has written a comment piece about biodiversity for state-run newspaper China Daily ahead of COP16. She says only a few countries, including China, “scored high on [biodiversity] ambition”, adding around 85% of countries have failed to submit updated plans. (See the joint analysis by the Carbon Brief and the Guardian revealing this fact.) She continues that the “implementation challenges” of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework “will be front and centre” in Cali. Xinhua publishes a “commentary” arguing that western countries’ “green double standards”, which expect China to “take greater responsibility in addressing climate change” while criticising it for “excessive green capacity”, is “hindering” global green transition efforts.

Amazon has announced that it is investing in small nuclear reactors (SMRs) to meet “surging demand from data centres and artificial intelligence”, the Associated Press reports. The newswire says that Google made a similar announcement two days ago, while “the owner of the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear power plant said last month it plans to restart the reactor so tech giant Microsoft can buy the power to supply its data centres”. These three announcements “could account for more than 5,000 megawatts of power by the late 2030s with the possibility of more”, according to the newswire. The New York Times reports that SMRs have “not yet been successfully commercialised, but energy experts say it might be cheaper and easier to build than the large nuclear reactors that the US has built since the 1950s”. It continues: “Big technology companies, which previously invested a lot in wind and solar energy, are now gravitating toward nuclear energy because they want power that is available around the clock while producing no greenhouse gas emissions.” The Daily Telegraph reports that Amazon will use nuclear energy “to power a growing fleet of electric trucks and data centres”. Reuters, CNBC and GeekWire also cover the story.

In an interview with Politico, Ukraine’s EU ambassador, Vsevolod Chentsov, has “pressed allies to skip the Azerbaijan-hosted [COP29] event if it welcomes the Russian leader”. The outlet continues: “Chentsov’s call comes after the Kremlin said Tuesday that Putin was considering attending the annual UN-backed climate gathering, which 11 begins November in Baku, Azerbaijan’s capital…On Monday, Ukraine urged Brazil, which will host the G20 summit next month, to arrest the Russian president if he shows up at the meeting.”

Elsewhere, the Associated Press has published a preview piece for COP16 – the biodiversity COP set to begin in Cali, Colombia, on Monday. It says: “The two-week meeting…will also focus on efforts to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to protect nature by 2030 – with the payment of $20bn for developing countries due next year. Twenty-three targets will be discussed including cutting food waste and preventing the introduction of invasive species.” A Guardian exclusive says that a proposal will be submitted at COP16, suggesting that “fungi should be placed alongside animals and plants as a separate realm for environmental protection”. And Guardian analysis asks whether “pacesetting Colombian president Gustavo Petro” and “the more cautious and contradictory Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva” have the “chance of a lifetime to save the Amazon”. The piece says: “The South American leaders are in the spotlight as they prepare to host this week’s COP16 biodiversity summit, November’s G20 meeting and next year’s COP30 climate summit…But these leftwing leaders need to align differing views on oil exploration and the speed of change if they are to sway global environmental priorities. On this, there are genuine hopes, but also causes for scepticism.”

The Washington Post has published an editorial arguing that choosing Azerbaijan to host COP29 is another instance of “‘greenwashing’ some of the world’s most repressive rulers and most enthusiastic extractors of fossil fuels”. The newspaper notes that “this is the third in a row in a dictatorship and the second in a row in a petrostate”, adding that “Azerbaijan seeks prestige by playing host in the capital, Baku, for a conference that is expected to focus on setting new finance goals for battling climate change”. However, it says Azerbaijan has a “sordid record of human rights violations”, and outlines some key examples. The editorial concludes: “Yes, this is a climate conference, and global warming is a problem that affects all countries and demands common effort, regardless of politics. But these facts do not require lending prestige and legitimacy to unsavoury regimes on an annual basis. A better approach might be picking a permanent host country with strong environmental credentials and democratic commitments – Costa Rica, say – and ending this cycle once and for all.”  Separately, Harriet Bulkeley, a professor of geography at Durham University, writes in the Conversation about the upcoming biodiversity summit in Cali, COP16. Citing analysis by Carbon Brief and the Guardian, she says: “Initial signs are not promising. For starters, no international targets for biodiversity have ever been met. Only a handful of countries, including China, Canada and France, have submitted new national biodiversity plans demonstrating how they will implement the promises made two years ago. Most countries, including the UK, (that’s more than 80% in total) haven’t submitted their full plans.” And Jack Marley, the Conversation’s UK environment and energy editor, outlines three international conferences coming up this year, on biodiversity loss, climate change and plastic pollution. 

Elsewhere, an editorial in the Daily Mail comments on yesterday’s Financial Times story showing that the biomass power station Drax was “highly likely” to have burnt wood sourced from old forest areas in Canada deemed to be environmentally important. The editorial says: “As eco-schemes go, it defies common sense…It’s time to reappraise this woolly-brained policy. Has it any benefit other than to make ministers feel virtuous over climate change?”

New research explores the human contribution to the severe drought that hit south-west China between the winter of 2022 and the spring of 2023. Using data from the CMIP6 Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP), the researchers find that human-caused climate change increased the likelihood of high potential evapotranspiration in such a drought “by about 133 times”. In contrast, the study finds that “anthropogenic forcings may have [had] little impact” on the low rainfall seen over the eight-month period. The authors add that the extreme drought “also increased the risk of fires, with the fire weather index reaching its second-highest value since 1950 and abnormally high burned areas observed by satellites”.

Many people in the US are experiencing “psychological distress” from climate change, a new study says, but those who do are more involved in collective climate action. Using two nationally representative surveys of US adults across 2022-23, the researchers show that 16% report at least one feature of climate change psychological distress and that “certain groups have higher levels of distress than others (eg, Hispanic/Latinos, lower income adults, younger adults)”. The surveys also show that people experiencing distress are more likely to engage in collective action on climate change or express a willingness to do so, the study finds – even when accounting for other factors, such as political views.