Vermont has become the first US state to enact a law requiring fossil-fuel companies to pay a share of the damage caused by climate change, reports the Associated Press. The move comes after the state suffered catastrophic flooding last summer and damage from other extreme weather, the newswire says. Under the legislation, the Vermont state treasurer would provide a report in January 2026 on the total cost to the state’s residents from the emission of greenhouse gases over 1995-2024, the article says: “The assessment would look at the effects on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing and other areas. The state would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company.” The state’s Republican governor Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law without his signature on Thursday, the article says, while noting he was very concerned about the costs and outcome of the small state taking on “big oil” alone in what will likely be a gruelling legal fight. Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and California have all pursued similar bills this year, but none have yet succeeded in passing their state legislatures, notes the Financial Times. It adds: “ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to a request for comment while Chevron declined to comment. The American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobby group, said Vermont’s law represented ‘yet another step in a coordinated campaign to undermine America’s energy advantage’.” The New York Times says the legislation “was inspired by the 1980 federal superfund law, under which polluters can be forced to pay for environmental cleanup costs”. Some observers, it says, estimate that “it’s possible that companies could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars” under the law. The Guardian and the Hill also have the story.

In related news, the Hill reports on a survey that suggests “a majority of American voters support litigation against oil companies for the effects of climate change”.

At least 85 people died of suspected heat stress and related issues across the states of  Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh of northern India in just 24 hours at the end of last week, reports the Hindustan Times. The “unforgiving heat spell…pushed temperatures to unprecedented levels in many of these regions”, the newspaper says. Odisha was worst affected, it continues, where “a total of 46 people died of suspected heat stress in a span of 24 hours, prompting the state government to call for an inquiry by senior officials in the health department”. The searing heat comes as India is holding its general election, the results of which will be declared on 4 June, BBC News says. It reports that three election officers and a policeman died in Bihar on Thursday due to heat stroke. India’s heatwaves are “attributed to a combination of short-term weather patterns and long-term warming trends fuelled by human-caused climate change”, says the Washington Post. It adds that forecasters expected the severe heat to start to abate over the weekend. The Associated Press, CNN, Le Monde and CBS News also cover the extreme heat, while Reuters looks at why temperatures have been so high.

Meanwhile, the Indian government has confirmed that the provisional record temperature of 52.9C registered last week in New Delhi was incorrect due to a sensor error, the Guardian reports. Earth sciences minister Kiren Rijiju said the reading – from a weather station at Mungeshpur, a densely packed corner of New Delhi – was 3C too high, the newspaper notes. Rijiju added that “corrective measures are now in place”. However, the article says that New Delhi ’s record for heat “still appears to have been broken” as “two weather stations in the capital reported temperatures of 49C (120.2F) and 49.1C (120.38F)”. The Hindustan Times, CNN and Reuters also have the story, while a Reuters commentary by senior market analyst John Kemp says that India has been running its “power plants flat out to keep cool in heatwave and election”.

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that authorities in neighbouring Pakistan have “battled forest fires in multiple areas”, including the capital Islamabad, “as the country grappled with heatwaves and dry weather”. And the Associated Press reports on new research by the UN children’s agency that shows how “developing resilient energy systems to power health facilities in Pakistan could avert over 175,000 deaths in the country by 2030”. 

The Japanese economic news outlet Nikkei Asia reports that the overcapacity issue in China’s solar panel industry has “led European manufacturers to shut down factories and seek support from policymakers” as the solar panel prices dropped by 50% in the past year. Bloomberg reports that “public support for the EU’s Green Deal, aimed at eliminating carbon emissions by 2050, is under threat” with concerns over “a flood of incentives for clean technologies unleashed by the US and China” making local products less competitive. Another Nikkei Asia report says that Chinese “new energy” vehicle (NEV) manufacturers, such as Great Wall Motor and BYD, are experiencing disappointment in their poor sales in Germany, with Great Wall Motor now shutting its headquarters in Europe and firing all its staff. Economic news outlet Caixin reports that the establishment of China’s own carbon footprint database is the key path to dealing with barriers to the country’s lithium-ion battery exports, such as the EU’s new battery bill and other carbon tariffs, as it can help reduce the overestimation of the carbon footprints caused by lack of data.

Meanwhile, state news agency Xinhua reports that, as the world “strives for a greener future”, Chinese companies building factories overseas will “bring more opportunities for the local economy and the global clean energy agenda”. Xinhua carries an analysis of the overcapacity claim on China, arguing that the allegation from the US is “distorting the facts and laws of economics” and an “another example of US economic coercion and bullying”. The Financial Times quotes Zhiwei Zhang, an economist, saying that China “cannot depend only on exports to drive its economy”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that analysts have said that the US “should manage competition and communicate clearly with Beijing to prevent conflicts from escalating”, responding to an article criticising the Biden administration’s China policy. A Forbes article says that Chinese manufacturers in the NEV industry have a cost advantage because of “lower labour costs and strong government support”, which has resulted in the current global trade tensions. 

In other China stories, the Financial Times reports that “Russia’s attempts to conclude a major gas pipeline deal with China have run aground over what Moscow sees as Beijing’s unreasonable demands on price and supply levels”. Energy news outlet BJX News reports that the latest data from China’s National New Energy Consumption Monitoring and Early Warning Center shows that from January to April this year, the utilisation rate of solar power generation is 96.3%, and that of wind power is 96.1%. SCMP reports that hydrogen-powered “easy-to-ride” bikes were recently recalled from the streets in China, with the country’s “hankering to harness the power of hydrogen”. China Daily covers a report on “consumption-based carbon emissions” from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The report finds that, based on data from 1990 to 2019, “developed countries tend to have higher consumption-based carbon emissions than production-based emissions, while developing countries exhibit the opposite pattern”.

Green groups have urged TV networks to include climate change as a key priority in the pre-election debates between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, reports the Guardian. In a letter to the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky and Global, the group of NGOs note that “support for climate action remains overwhelmingly high among all demographics of the UK public”, adding: “As broadcasters you have a duty to ensure that general election coverage reflects the public’s desire to see strong and serious leadership on climate and nature recovery – and a genuine debate about the solutions.” The letter asks that the networks “make a commitment to ensure that the main parties’ plans to meet our legal climate and nature targets are properly examined during the course of this campaign and communicated to the public”. Signatories on the letter include WWF, Greenpeace UK and the RSPB, the article notes. In related news, the i newspaper reports on new polling that suggests “MPs are vastly under-estimating public support for solar and wind farms in their local area”. The results show that “nearly two thirds of the British public believe that reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing renewable energy generation is the best way to ensure energy security in the UK”, the outlet says, a view shared by less than half of MPs and just 28% of Conservatives. A Politico news feature explores how “the UK’s relative wealth and extensive flood defences do not make it immune to climate risk”. It says: “Rising sea levels, increased winter precipitation, and more regular, more intense rainstorms are all now priced into the country’s future. And Whitehall isn’t prepared – at least not yet.”

Meanwhile, there is continued coverage of the Labour party’s announcements on clean power late last week. The Financial Times reports on Keir Starmer’s speech in Greenock, near Glasgow, in which he pledged that Labour would “bring a huge number of jobs and billions of pounds worth of investment to Scotland through its plans for a state-owned energy-generation company”. The Labour leader described renewable energy as the “best opportunity we’ve had in a generation” for job creation and energy security, but he warned of competition from other countries in Europe and the US, the newspaper says. The publicly owned Great British Energy would fund the company through a windfall tax on oil and gas firms, which Labour said would raise £8.3bn over the next five years, says BBC News. It adds that the company “would invest in wind and solar projects, as well as new technologies including floating offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage”. On oil and gas, Starmer noted that “we’re not turning off the taps, we’re not revoking the licences, and then oil and gas is part of the mix for decades to come”, reports the Independent. In subsequent comments to BBC Radio Scotland, Starmer rejected claims that his plans would cost jobs in the North Sea, reports another Independent article. Claire Countinho, energy secretary in the Conservative government, tells the Daily Express that Labour’s plans are “mad” and could leave oil and gas workers “stranded” before the next generation of jobs is created. The Daily Telegraph says Starmer has been “mocked” for flying to Scotland on a private jet to launch his plan. Starmer said he took the jet as “we did need to get very quickly to Scotland from Wales”, reports the Guardian. Starmer added that “we offset the carbon, we always do when we use transport in the air, but it is a practical situation because I need to get across the country to speak to as many people as possible”, the newspaper notes. The Times, Herald and Sky News all report the private jet story. (See the Comment section below for more reaction to Labour’s plans.)

Elsewhere, the Times reports that the Scottish National party (SNP) “has signalled it is ready to drop its opposition to new oil and gas developments as it ditches longstanding green stances”. It continues: “John Swinney, the first minister, said on Sunday that he had launched an ‘exploration’ of the North Sea policy he had inherited from his predecessors Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf.” Swinney added that “we need the oil and gas sector to contribute to the transition to net-zero, so it has to be strong enough and robust enough to do that”, the paper says. The story also makes the frontpage of the Scottish edition of the Mail on Sunday, which says the SNP is “poised to perform an embarrassing climbdown over its plans to oppose new oil and gas fields”.

Finally, the Daily Telegraph reports that a group of Tory MPs – including short-lived prime minister Liz Truss and former business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg – have called for scrapping the 2050 net-zero target to be part of the Conservative party manifesto to avoid electoral “oblivion”. The so-called “Popular Conservatives” (PopCon) faction issued a five-point plan for the Tories, which they say could stop the party from being “a shadow of itself” after the general election, the newspaper notes. Annunziata Rees-Mogg, PopCon’s head of communications and Jacob’s sister, outlines the plan in the Mail on Sunday.

A fast-spreading wildfire east of San Francisco has burned about 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares), prompting an evacuation order and the shutting down major highways, the New York Times reports. The blaze, named the Corral Fire, began Saturday afternoon outside Tracy in California, and was 50% contained by yesterday evening, the newspaper says, adding: “The fire is the largest so far in this year’s California wildfire season, which typically runs from April to October.” CNN says that officials had recently warned that “gusty winds, hotter temperatures and dried out grass could create dangerous fire conducive conditions”. The Guardian quotes one fire chief who says: “We had an extremely wet couple of years, which allowed the grass to grow really tall, really thick. We call it a light, flashy fuel because it is so fine. It’s very receptive to the fire.” The Daily Mail also covers the fires.

The fire comes as “a significant early-season heatwave headed for western North America”, which is “threatening to deliver stifling temperatures that could break records, prime the landscape for wildfires and kick off a sizzling summer”, says the Los Angeles Times. A second article in the same outlet says that climate change is “transforming the character” of the hottest periods in the western US, “making them more frequent, more persistent and more lethal”. Bloomberg columnist Brooke Sample writes that Phoenix in Arizona “is hot and only getting hotter”. Analysis by the Associated Press finds that 2023 set a new record for US heat deaths.

Finally, the Associated Press reports that Oregon regulators have rejected a request from utility firm PacifiCorp that sought to limit its liability in wildfire lawsuits. The newswire explains: “Under the proposal, PacifiCorp would only have been responsible for paying out actual economic damages in lawsuit awards. The company submitted the request in November, months after an Oregon jury found it was liable for causing deadly and destructive fires over Labor Day weekend in 2020.” Over the past year, Oregon juries in multiple verdicts have ordered PacifiCorp to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to victims, the article says, adding: “Ongoing litigation could leave it on the hook for billions.”

The opposition Labour party is doing a “disservice to public debate” by “skat[ing] over the means of achieving” its plans to decarbonise the UK’s power grid by 2030, says an editorial in the Times. The newspaper says that while the plan is “possible in principle”, there are “reasonable concerns about the cost and coherence”. The plan “would require extensively marshalling the resources of the state and planning for the transition”, the editorial says: “There would be costs and trade-offs involved, and the record of indicative planning by the state (as evidenced by the failures of industrial strategy under governments of both parties in the 1970s) in ‘picking winners’ shows that some wasteful investment is inescapable.” What is missing “is any acknowledgement of the costs of a rapid decarbonisation of the grid”, the newspaper says: “The mundane reality is that the costs to consumers will rise if there is an accelerated switch to electric cars and domestic heat pumps. There would also be supply chain constraints and the costs of training workers in new technologies.” 

A Daily Mail editorial accuses Labour of “self-delusion” and says the party’s claims on clean energy are “truly fantastic”. The outlet confuses the plan to decarbonise the grid with the UK’s overall net-zero target for 2050, saying: “The government hopes to reach net-zero by 2035. This is the sensible course. Racing to that target by 2030 would create genuine hardship and almost certainly crash the economy. It is simply untenable.” Sunday Times columnist Robert Colville says that both parties’ plans are “unrealistic”, while Daily Telegraph climate-sceptic columnist Matthew Lynn describes the clean power plan as “emblematic of the folly of the entire net-zero project”.

Will Dunn, business editor of the New Statesman, writes that Labour’s plans are “either too much (if you’re a Tory) or too little (if you’re a Green). In reality it is a decent chunk of change.” There are “good reasons” for the state to invest in renewables, Dunn says, “the main one being that the government can always borrow more cheaply than anyone else”. He adds: “Almost half of the UK’s offshore wind is already publicly owned, just not by the British public: state-owned companies such as Denmark’s Ørsted and France’s EDF. Governments are good at investing in renewables because they are less concerned by the risks (volatile prices, less reliable supply) and more concerned by externalities (all the other costs caused by the climate crisis) than a fossil fuel company.” Ben Chu from the BBC News “verify” team looks into whether Labour’s plan is realistic and whether it would push up energy bills. The article’s conclusions can be summed up as “it depends” on both counts. An academic writes in the Conversation that “only by investing collectively in the future of energy can the UK reap the benefits from it. Otherwise, the country will remain at the mercy of events out of our control, such as war and the whims of faraway dictatorships”. The i newspaper also has an explainer on the plan.

A new paper demonstrates how state-of-the-art operational weather prediction systems can be used to attribute the impact of human-caused climate change on an extreme weather event. Using the case of the 2021 Pacific north-west heatwave, the researchers show that human influence on the climate made the event at least eight times more likely. At the current rate of global warming, the likelihood of such an event is doubling every 20 years, the authors add. They note that were their methods to be developed as a routine service in forecasting centres, they “could provide reliable estimates of human influence on extreme weather risk, which is critical to supporting effective adaptation planning”.