Many outlets cover the news that the US Supreme Court has overturned the principle, known as the Chevron doctrine, that has guided US regulatory law for the past 40 years. Inside Climate News sets out what the ruling means for climate policy in the US: “[The] principle held that a federal agency’s interpretation of the law should be honoured, as long as it is reasonable, in cases where there is any question about the law’s meaning. Now, the so-called Chevron doctrine has been swept aside by a 6-3 court split along ideological lines. Chief justice John Roberts, who two years ago authored a major opinion limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, wrote the majority opinion, reining in the power of all federal agencies. The court ‘gravely erred’ in 1984 when it gave the regulators deference to decide what the laws they implement mean, he wrote. ‘Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities,’ Roberts wrote. ‘Courts do.’” The outlet adds: “The decision to overturn Chevron fulfils a long-held wish of conservative groups that seek a smaller role for the federal government. They are led by a network funded by the Koch family, which made its billions in the petrochemical industry…When it comes to president Joe Biden’s effort to put a national climate policy in place, the most important things may well be the outcomes of a slew of lawsuits filed against the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies in the past year. These lawsuits, most of them in the names of Republican-led states that have been joined by fossil fuel industries, essentially accuse the agencies of overstepping their legal authority with regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise address climate change…Now that Chevron has been overturned, the Supreme Court has placed the onus squarely on judges to interpret regulatory law, which typically involves application of science and knowledge of the latest technological advances.”

The Washington Post says the ruling will “probably” affect US efforts to tackle climate change. The outlet adds: “David Doniger, senior strategic director of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, [said the ruling] could prevent agencies from using older environmental laws to tackle newer environmental problems – such as climate change – as they arise. ‘The real goal of the interest groups on the right that are backing this litigation is to enfeeble the federal government’s ability to deal with the problems that the modern world throws at us,’ Doniger said. ‘We could end up with a weaker federal government, and that would mean that interest groups would be freer to pollute without restraint.’ Still, President Biden’s signature climate law gave the EPA more authority to curb planet-warming emissions, Doniger said. For the first time, the climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, defined greenhouse gases as air pollutants that the EPA can regulate under the Clean Air Act.” The New York Times says Democrats had long anticipated Chevron’s “demise” and had already given the EPA “more power” in climate law-making: “Climate change rules could be particularly vulnerable to legal attack in a post-Chevron world. That’s because the EPA. wrote them under the authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act, a sweeping law that directs the agency to regulate all pollutants that endanger human health.

But the legislators of 1970 did not specify anywhere in the law that carbon dioxide emissions, the chief cause of climate change, should be regulated. It doesn’t even mention climate change. Democrats changed that in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, a law chiefly focused on spending billions of dollars on clean energy technology to fight climate change. But the law amends the Clean Air Act to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an ‘air pollutant’. That language, according to legal experts as well as the Democrats who worked it into the legislation, explicitly gives the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to use its power to push the adoption of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. The specificity of that legal language should protect EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide pollution by limiting their emission from tailpipes and smokestacks.” Business Insider says the ruling risks “unleashing a threat to Biden’s climate policies”. Jon McGowan, an attorney who writes about ESG policy, laws and regulations, argues in Forbes that the ruling puts in “peril” the US Securities and Exchange Commission climate-related disclosure rule that it adopted in March.

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage of the TV debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump last Thursday. E&E News says: “Climate and energy played a small part in the 90-minute debate that featured extensive personal attacks between the two men and offered little new information about either candidates’ views on policies. Climate was no exception.” Inside Climate News says: “Trump said he had ‘the best environmental numbers ever’ without giving any specifics, while Biden lambasted his predecessor for his environmental claims and for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, but failed to detail many of his own administration’s efforts to confront climate change.” Scientific American notes that Trump “went on an incoherent rant about ‘H2O’”.

Separately, the Washington Post reports that the Biden administration “moved Friday to protect 28m acres of public lands in Alaska from oil and gas drilling, mining and other industrial activities that could threaten Alaska Native communities, vulnerable wildlife and pristine ecosystems”.

“Ferocious storms and torrential rains that lashed France, Switzerland and Italy this weekend have left seven people dead”, reports Agence France-Presse. The newswire adds that “several hundred” people were evacuated in the Swiss canton of Valais and roads closed after the Rhone and its tributaries overflowed in different locations. It continues: “Scientists say climate change driven by human activity is increasing the severity, frequency and length of extreme weather events such as floods and storms. The poor weather was making rescue work particularly difficult, police had said earlier, with several valleys inaccessible and cut off from the electricity network. The federal alert system also said part of the canton was without drinking water.”

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage of the extreme weather that has affected large areas across South Asia. The Independent reports: “The death toll from the abrupt heavy rains in the Indian capital has now reached 11, with hundreds more affected by the downpour. New Delhi experienced record-breaking rainfall last week, with precipitation levels in a single day surpassing the city’s entire month’s average…Heavy rainfall is also predicted for the next four to five days in the north Indian states of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The intense rainfall in Delhi has led to at least 11 deaths, including the death of a cab driver waiting for passengers due to a roof collapse at Delhi’s main airport.” The Assam Tribune says that “the flood situation [in the Indian state] has worsened, raising the death toll from 32 to 34”. 

Separately, in other extreme weather news, the Washington Post reports that “three Mexican migrants have died in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona near the US-Mexico border as high temperatures soar well into the triple digits across parts of the Southwest”. And CNN reports that Hurricane Beryl has “intensified” into an “extremely dangerous” Category 4 storm as it approaches the Caribbean. It adds: “Beryl is now the earliest Category 4 hurricane on record in the Atlantic Ocean and the only Category 4 storm ever recorded in the month of June.”

Finally, the Independent covers new analysis published by Climate Central revealing that “more than 60% of the world’s population endured extreme heat driven by the climate crisis over nine days in mid-June”. It adds: “Approximately 5 billion people lived in extreme temperatures that were made at least three times more likely due to the climate crisis.” Scroll in India notes that “around 619 million persons in India bore the brunt of climate change-induced extreme heat between 16 June and 24 June…This is more than any other country. China came in second with 579 million individuals exposed to climate change-related heat conditions during the same nine-day period, followed by 231 million in Indonesia, 206 million in Nigeria and 176 million in Brazil.” And the Guardian has a feature looking at the drought in southern Italy where “rainfall is down 40% since 2003 and experts predict a third of Sicily will be desert by 2030”. 

BBC News reports the last coal delivery has been made to Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire, which is the UK’s last remaining coal-fired power station and is set to shut at the end of September. The outlet continues: “The 1,650 tonnes of coal delivered on Friday is expected to be the last ever fuel shipment sent there…The site, operated by international energy firm Uniper, has produced electricity for 57 years. Its final delivery of fuel is enough to generate power for approximately 500,000 homes over eight hours. Mike Lockett, of Uniper, said: ‘[This] is a significant moment and one that heralds the end of the story for the power station. However, it’s not the end for the site as we look towards a future where it could become a zero-carbon technology and energy hub for the East Midlands.’ Uniper says it is exploring the potential for hydrogen production.”

In other UK news, the Financial Times reports that “members of the Unite union met Tata Steel executives on Friday in a push to avert Britain’s biggest steel producer from bringing forward the closure of its two blast furnaces in south Wales to as early as next week over planned strike action”. The newspaper continues: “The company has been planning to close one of the furnaces by the end of June and the second by September as part of a deal with the Conservative government to switch to a greener form of steelmaking. That deal, which has yet to be signed off, has caused controversy because it would result in up to 2,800 job losses – a prospect that has precipitated the imminent Unite strikes. Labour, which according to polls is on track to win the general election on 4 July, has urged Tata to reconsider. The party has suggested it could draw up a more generous offer than the current government in return for fewer job losses. But the company has expressed little interest so far in changing course, arguing that retaining the second blast furnace until a less carbon-intensive electric arc furnace is up and running would not be operationally feasible or affordable.”

Meanwhile, the Times reports that, “for the first time, UK households are facing higher electricity prices than those anywhere in the EU”. It adds: “Experts warned the high price of electricity relative to gas is ­deterring consumers from switching to cleaner technologies, such as ditching gas boilers for heat pumps…’The UK is starting to look like the sick man of Europe with its stubbornly high electricity prices,’ said Madeleine Gabriel, director of sustainable future at the innovation charity Nesta. The group said that closing the gap in UK electricity and gas prices would be ‘one of the most important things’ the next government could do. One reason UK domestic electricity prices are so high is gas. Wholesale electricity prices in the UK are set by the most expensive way of meeting ­demand, which is usually burning gas.” The Times also reports that Ineos Energy will “look elsewhere” as the UK “puts pain” on the oil sector. The Independent covers new research by Global Witness revealing that the “UK government met representatives from the oil and gas sector an average of 1.4 times per working day in 2023”.

Separately, the Guardian has published its own analysis showing that “at least 30 Reform UK candidates have posted material or made statements that cast doubt on the validity of human-induced global heating”. Another Guardian article highlights a warning by outgoing Green MP Caroline Lucas in which she says “Labour must combine tackling the climate crisis with pursuing social justice, if elected, to show that achieving net-zero will not be done ‘on the backs of the poor’”. The Times has a new feature headlined: “Voters are polarised on green issues – if they care at all. Whoever forms the next government will have work to do to bring the public with them on environmental policies such as net-zero.” [On Twitter, Luke Tryl, the UK director of pollster More in Common, said: “the write up framing of voters being polarised or not caring is very far from the breadth of public opinion evidence on the degree of consensus for climate action and public interest in it”.] The Press Association reports that CBI chief Rain Newton-Smith will tell a conference in London later today that there is a risk in trying to “separate the economy from net-zero”. The Daily Telegraph says that “Labour’s plan for a net-zero economy powered by wind turbines and electric vehicles (EVs) risks being thwarted by a huge drop in factory apprenticeships, British manufacturers have warned”. The Daily Express reports that Vauxhall-owner Stellantis has been urged by campaigners to “stop sabre rattling” over its threat to shut its £100m EV factory. The Daily Mail reports, under a misleading headline which asks, “Are electric cars responsible for Britain’s pothole problem?”, that the Asphalt Group – one of the UK’s largest road surface treatment companies – has made it “categorically clear that the switch to electric [vehicles] is not responsible for the poor quality of our roads”.

China has announced new regulations governing rare-earth resources, including mining, processing and circulation, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily reports, adding that the rules “make clear that rare-earth resources belong to the state [and] that no organisation or individual shall encroach on or destroy rare-earth resources”. The rules will come into effect from 1 October, the newspaper adds. Reuters says that the regulations state “that the government will oversee the development of the industry around rare earths…[which are] crucial in the green transition…due to their use in permanent magnets that power motors in EVs and wind energy”. The newswire adds that China will “establish a rare-earth product traceability information system”, with enterprises “truthfully” recording their handling of rare-earth resources. The rules intend to “protect and rationally develop rare-earth resources while safeguarding the environment and securing the country’s resources”, according to the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP). Chinese finance newspaper Yicai quotes a government representative explaining that the regulations aim to “strengthen planning and leadership…boost scientific and technological innovation…[and] realise green development and safe production [in the industry]”. Bloomberg, Singaporean newspaper Lianhe Zaobao and state-run newspaper Science and Technology Daily also cover the news.

Separately, industry newspaper International Energy Net, citing the National Energy Administration (NEA), reports that, in the first five months of 2024, China added 79.25 gigawatts of solar capacity, up 23% year-on-year. SCMP says that “power abandonment” [curtailment] continues to be a problem with China’s “leading position at the global forefront of renewable-energy installations”, adding that “power reform is widely believed [to be] on the cards, as it was mentioned at a symposium hosted by president Xi Jinping last month”. The state-run newspaper China Daily reports that the world’s “first wind-fishery integrated floating platform” has been put into operation in China. Power-sector newspaper BJX News reports that China has developed an “offshore wind turbine with the capacity of 18 megawatts” [which would be the world’s largest], adding that the unit has “an average annual power generation capacity of up to 72 gigawatt-hours”. [Implying a “load factor” of 46%.]

Meanwhile, SCMP reports that China’s commerce ministry is “reviewing complaints” from Chinese machinery industry players against what they have called “biased practices” from the EU regarding electric vehicles. China Daily quotes commerce ministry spokesperson He Yadong saying that China and the EU are “expediting” negotiations on the anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese EVs. Chinese outlet Caixin says that the sales of electric-powered heavy-duty trucks increased “139% year-on-year” from January to May 2024.

The construction of Germany’s first onshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, located in Stade, Lower Saxony, has officially begun, with operations scheduled to start in 2027, reports Die Zeit. The outlet adds that the estimated construction costs are around €1bn. The Czech industry minister, Jozef Síkela, who was present at the official ceremony, is quoted saying: “Every cubic metre of gas we do not have to import from Russia is a step towards weakening Russian influence in Europe.” In total, Germany plans to place three onshore LNG terminals into operation by 2028, including those in Wilhelmshaven and Brunsbüttel, notes the outlet. However, it says that environmental organisations have criticised the construction of the terminal in Stade due to the “CO2 emissions associated with the transport and combustion” of LNG and have filed a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel reports that the first five tonnes of “climate neutral” aviation fuel  have been produced at a German facility in Werlte by the company Atmosfair. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) also covers the story, adding that the plant aims to produce 250 tonnes of synthetic kerosene annually by using electricity, water and CO2 extracted from the air, “nearly eliminating CO2 emissions in the process”.

Finally, Reuters reports that Germany and Morocco have formed “a climate and energy alliance” to support renewables expansion and hydrogen production in the north African country. Since 2012, Germany has pledged more than €1bn in subsidised loans for renewable energy projects in Morocco, including the construction of the world’s largest solar thermal power plant in Ouarzazate, which is expected to produce around 10,000 tonnes of hydrogen annually, notes the newswire. 

EU motorists are set to pay “at least an extra 50 [euro] cents a litre on diesel from 2031 to cover carbon costs, according to new analysis which raises fears of fresh protests against climate laws”, reports the FT. The newspaper adds: “Fuel suppliers will be required to buy allowances from 2027 to cover their carbon dioxide emissions and are expected to pass that cost to consumers. Veyt, a carbon market analytics firm, expects the scheme will add 14 cents to a litre of diesel in 2027, with the premium reaching 54 cents per litre in 2031 as more measures are phased in. Emissions from fuel for heating buildings will also need to be paid for, pushing prices of coal up 68 cents per kg by 2031, Veyt found…Pascal Canfin, the French chair of the European parliament’s environment committee, warned that if the carbon price went too high ‘it would obviously be unacceptable to all Europeans’.”

Various UK national newspapers have published editorials laying out which party they think their readers should vote for in Thursday’s UK general election. The Financial Times says: “The Conservatives have run out of road. Labour must be given a chance to govern.” It adds: “The pledges to reform the planning system and devolve more powers to the regions target important constraints on growth and the ability to build the homes and infrastructure the economy needs. The commitment to fighting climate change and investing in the opportunities of green energy contrasts sharply with Conservative efforts to turn the green transition into a wedge issue.” An editorial in the Economist is titled “Keir Starmer should be Britain’s next prime minister”, even though it says: “The Economist disagrees with the [Labour] party on many things, such as its plan to create a publicly owned energy provider.” The editorial adds: “[The Conservatives] have become increasingly hostile to policies designed to combat climate change. Above all, they have failed to build. Housing supply lags behind demand, and grid connections take years to materialise.” An editorial in the Guardian says: “Sir Keir Starmer must win. Only his government can shape the future we want to see.” It adds: “Throttling green investment with austerity won’t meet the challenge of global heating: the world beyond the goals of the Paris Agreement looks frightening. There is very little time left to avoid a climate catastrophe. Unlike the Tories, Labour understands that an accelerated green transition is a necessary act of shifting from the past towards the future.” Similarly, an editorial in the Observer says: “Overhanging [a range of issues] is the climate crisis and the fact that without immediate international action the world will become increasingly uninhabitable…only a Labour government can begin to deliver the real change that Britain so desperately needs.” An editorial in the Sunday Times, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, also comes out for Labour, adding: “They should seek out innovative answers to plug the energy gap, be transparent about the costs of net-zero and not tie the country to an arbitrary deadline.” The Daily Mirror says in its editorial: “Starmer may not have the flourish of [former Labour prime minister Tony] Blair but we are now in choppier waters and the ship of state needs a sensible hand on the tiller to steer us through. Sound administration will be the watchwords, not flash oratory. Change means throwing off the despair of the past and putting hope in the future. It means 650,000 more jobs in green industries opening the door to overseas contracts worth £1n to British business. That will not just ensure we meet our 2050 net-zero target but also create a growing economy.” In contrast, an editorial in the Daily Mail warns that to realise its “green revolution”, Labour will “need to carpet over huge areas of the countryside with inshore wind turbines, solar farms, and a plethora of pylons”.

Meanwhile, in other UK comment, Jill Rutter, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government thinktank, writes in the FT in support of Labour’s “mission-driven government”. However, she says: “‘[Labour’s] climate mission focuses on energy decarbonisation to ‘accelerate to net zero’ rather than on the wider changes needed to get there, with little focus on climate change adaptation or more general environmental improvement. That means there is less requirement for collaboration – but there is also less for departments beyond the leads to feel enthused about.” The Daily Mail gives space to the climate-sceptic commentator Andrew Neil to claim that “Labour’s net-zero policy is fantasy piled upon stupidity”. The Sun’s climate-sceptic contrarian columnist Jeremy Clarkson writes: “Eco-loonies mangle facts and skew stats to prove that climate is changing…what we need are scientific solutions.” The Sunday Times has a “debate” between climate sceptic Dominic Lawson and eco entrepreneur Dale Vince headlined: “Are we moving too fast towards net-zero?” Finally, writing on LinkedIn, Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, says: “Confessions from a lifelong Petrol Head. I love electric vehicles and it has nothing to do with politics.”

In the Guardian, Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans examines a claim made by the UK prime minister during the final TV debate last week in which he tried to come up with a new attack line over the cost of Labour’s net-zero climate plans. Evans writes: “Will Labour’s plans really cost ‘hundreds of billions of pounds’? Sunak’s statement is misleading on several levels. While the government’s advisory Climate Change Committee (CCC) has estimated net investment needs of £321bn for the UK to reach net zero by 2050, it was a Conservative government that put this target into law in 2019. The Conservative election manifesto continues to back the 2050 target. As such, it was a bit rich for Sunak to describe the 2050 target as Labour’s plan.” The article follows a more detailed factcheck published by Carbon Brief last week headlined: “How ‘scary-sounding numbers’ are being used to mislead the UK about net-zero.”

The 2023 Canadian wildfires emitted nearly 3bn tonnes of CO2, about 25% more than the CO2 released from all primary tropical tree cover loss that year, a new study estimates. The authors analyse data on fire-driven tree cover loss and forest carbon fluxes. They estimate that the 2023 Canadian fires burned nearly 7.8m hectares of forest, accounting for more than one quarter of all tree cover loss globally in 2023. The paper adds that “these results have important implications for global carbon budgets because emissions from these wildfires will largely be excluded from official greenhouse gas reporting”.