A new report warns that it is “virtually certain” that future extreme events in Antarctica will be worse than the extraordinary changes already observed, says the Guardian. The newspaper continues: “A new review draws together evidence on the vulnerability of Antarctic systems, highlighting recent extremes such as record low sea ice levels, the collapse of ice shelves, and surface temperatures up to 38.5C above average over East Antarctica in 2022 – the world’s largest ever recorded heatwave.” Sea ice extent in July 2022 hit a record low for that time of year, but was surpassed by a new record this July – one that was “three times further away from the average than what we’ve seen previously”, study co-author Dr Caroline Holmes told the paper. The rate of land-ice loss “matches the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] worst case”, said Dr Anna Hogg, another author, noting: “The observations show we’re tracking [along] the most extreme prediction of what might happen.” The Independent also reports comments from Hogg, who said: “As somebody who watches this happen on a day-to-day basis, I’m finding it really surprising and staggering to see the changes occur at the scale that they are already.” Sky News notes that the report into Antarctica’s “unprecedented” changes was commissioned by the UK Foreign Office. Lead author Prof Martin Siegert tells the Financial Times that “by continuing to explore, extract and burn fossil fuels anywhere in the world, the environment of Antarctica will become ever more affected in ways inconsistent” with the Antarctic Treaty. The FT notes: “Under the obligations of the pledge that came into force in 1961 and its subsequent 1998 protocol on environmental protection, signatories must protect the region from the ‘considerable stress and damage’ it faces from accelerating ice melting and rising temperatures, the scientists said.” Siegart warned that “I’m staggered by the amount of change we’ve seen already in the past few years”. The i newspaper and MailOnline also have the story.

There is continuing coverage of the expected €4.5bn annual loss at Germany’s Siemens Energy, one of the world’s biggest wind turbine makers. The Times says that the company has said it was “booking €1.6bn of charges related to ‘quality problems’ with two models of onshore wind turbine, which it first flagged in June. It also announced a further €600m of charges related to problems expanding its offshore wind turbine factories and ‘higher product costs’. It said that ‘projects already committed to contractually cannot be completed profitably if implemented by the customer’.” The paper quotes Jochen Eickholt, chief executive of the company’s wind turbine division, who says: “We sold turbines too quickly. They had not been sufficiently tested.” He said the company had installed about 2,900 of the affected “4X” and “5X” turbine models, but that “only a limited number” were affected, the paper reports. The Daily Telegraph notes that “wrinkles in rotor blades and faulty gears are among the problems uncovered, which have led to operating issues and warranty claims from buyers” and “inflation has only added to headaches”. The paper adds: “The admissions of failures wiped as much as €6bn off the value of Siemens [yesterday].” Meanwhile, The Financial Times reports on how “soaring costs” are threatening offshore wind farm projects.

Continuous heavy rainfall and floods in China’s “leading” grain-producing area in the northeast has killed another 14 people and caused worries about food security as “floodwater inundated farmland”, reports the CNN. Bloomberg writes that the flooding in China this year has so far affected a “minimum of 30 million individuals”, including “at least 20 deaths”. Hongzhang Xu, a researcher at the Australian National University, is quoted by the outlet saying China’s “sponge city” strategy – which uses rooftop gardens, permeable pavements, and other sponge-like features to soak up heavy precipitation – “ignores the extreme events and disasters like the flash flood.” The Chinese financial outlet Caixin has a “cover story”, titled: “How a 140-year flood caught Beijing and nearby cities off guard.”

Meanwhile, the state-owned newspaper Economic Daily quotes Li Cheng from China’s Water Conservancy Hydropower Planning Design General Institute, who says that there are challenges that need to be addressed “urgently to achieve large-scale substitution of ‘green electricity’”. The state news agency Xinhua reports that northwest China’s Qinghai province on Sunday started constructing a “pumped-storage power station with a maximum energy storage capacity of about 20m terawatts-hours”. The Chinese financial outlet Yicai writes that geothermal power has a “much smaller” installed capacity in China compared to other renewable sources, such as wind and solar energy, primarily due to its “higher production and transportation costs”. The Global Times, a state-supporting newspaper, says that the “strong momentum” of increasing sales of China-produced new-energy vehicles (NEVs) will “persist for the rest of the year”. 

In other news, National Business Daily, a Chinese financial newspaper, has an “exclusive interview” with Li Junfeng, the inaugural director of the National Centre for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation. Li says that China’s speed in reducing energy intensity has been “one of the fastest” globally, with the world’s “largest carbon market” and a “clean power generation system”. The Hill carries a comment piece by Li Shuo, global policy advisor for Greenpeace East Asia, under the title: “Xi will not be pushed on climate by Biden, but a deal is possible.” He writes that “China has never been an ATM for withdrawing quick US diplomatic wins and this is even truer today than in the past as the Chinese domestic view toward the US hardens”. The state-run newspaper China Daily has published a comment piece by Lin Boqiang, dean of the China institute for energy policy studies at Xiamen University. He writes: “Technology exchanges and talent development can also help promote the formulation of international standards in the new energy sector…and enhance China’s participation.”

At a two-day Amazon summit in Brazil, which brings together the eight Amazon nations and begins today, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva “is looking to corral countries to speed up efforts to stop deforestation and decide on a common strategy to save the rainforest”, reports Politico. The outlet notes that “it’s likely to be an uphill climb, with countries disagreeing on whether they should commit to a zero deforestation goal and on whether oil and gas drilling should be banned in the region”. Lula “isn’t pushing to phase out fossil fuels domestically, highlighting a tension between conservation efforts and ensuring economies stay on track”, the outlet says: “The Brazilian leader told local media ahead of the summit he wants to ‘keep dreaming’ about drilling in the region. His comments come as Brazilian oil major Petrobras is looking to open new fields near the mouth of the Amazon River despite receiving a negative opinion from the national institute for the environment.” The summit comes as the EU is rolling out new rules to ban commodities’ imports driving deforestation abroad and is asking countries to police their supply chains against environmental and human rights violations, Politico explains: “That’s increasing pressure on the Amazon region – and particularly on Brazil, one of the largest exporters of agri-food products to the EU and home to 60% of the rainforest – to commit to ambitious action at this week’s meet-up.” Brazil’s agriculture minister Carlos Favaro said yesterday that EU rules banning products coming from areas of deforestation are “an affront” of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, Reuters reports: “Favaro said records show only 2% of Brazilian farmers commit environmental crimes while the reminder abide with the rules and should be recognized. He said that if the EU continues not to recognize Brazil’s efforts to protect the environment, Brazil should boost trade relations with other partners.” BBC News notes that the summit is “the first time in 45 years that there’s been a meeting like this, ensuring a regional response to combat crime and deforestation as well as climate change”. The article focuses on the “burgeoning forest industry” of carbon credits, asking whether they are a “land grab or the Amazon’s future?”. Al Jazeera has “what you need to know about the summit”, while Reuters also has a preview piece.

France has become Europe’s top energy exporter amid a surge in UK demand, reports the Daily Telegraph, “after the country’s state-backed nuclear power operator finally fixed cracks in its ageing fleet of reactors”. New data analysis shows that France’s total net exports stood at 17.6 terawatt hours (TWh) in the first six months of 2023, roughly enough energy to power 5m homes for a year, the paper says, noting that “most of this flowed to Italy and Britain, which were the two largest importers of energy in Europe over the same period”. Jean-Paul Harreman, director of data analysis company Enappsys, which produced the figures, said that “the cause for the increase of exports in France versus the previous year was an increased availability of the country’s nuclear assets”. A surge in hydropower production due to heavy rain also boosted exports, Harreman added: “As cheaper generation became available to the French market, it started exporting to the UK again. The price differential ensured that cheaper power flowed from France to Britain.”

Meanwhile, a new report says that the UK’s energy price cap and other interventions in the retail market are harming competition and keeping prices high, reports the Times. The report, by right-leaning thinktank the Centre for Policy Studies, finds that the cap, which limits tariffs for most UK households, was “preventing customers from accessing lower energy tariffs, contributing to inflation and should be abolished”, the paper reports, adding: “It said it should be replaced with a ‘social tariff’ to provide lower prices to the poorest consumers, as well as alternative measures to prevent loyal customers being ripped off.” The Press Association, Sky News, Daily Telegraph, Independent and the Sun all have the story, while Alistair Osborne – chief business commentator of the Times – writes that the “energy cap no longer offers protection”.

In a frontpage story, the Daily Telegraph reports that UK prime minister Rishi Sunak “is being urged to scrap a net-zero ban on new oil boilers, with senior Tories warning it will cost votes in rural communities”. It continues: “New oil boilers will be banned in off-grid homes within three years, with households encouraged to switch to heat pumps under government proposals to help cut heating emissions. George Eustice, who was environment secretary in Boris Johnson’s government, is now calling for the ban to be dropped – describing the policy as ‘a Ulez for rural communities’. The ban will affect 1.7m mostly rural households that are not connected to the gas grid and would come in at least a decade before similar restrictions on other homes.” Eustice has “drafted an amendment to the Energy Bill, which is understood to have the backing of at least a dozen Tory MPs, introducing effective subsidies on such oil”, the paper says, adding that “more than 30 Tory MPs have already written to the prime minister to raise the issue, amid concern it could disproportionately affect rural Conservative communities”. The Energy Bill is expected to return to parliament for final sign-off in the autumn. In a comment article for the newspaper, Eustice argues that “to pick winners today is to shut down all the other innovation”. Rather than heat pumps, he suggests that “great progress has been made improving the performance and expanding the supply of renewable liquid fuels. For just a couple of hundred pounds, an existing kerosene boiler can be converted to run on hydrotreated vegetable oil made from waste cooking oil or vegetable waste”. The Daily Telegraph also has an article explaining the “pitfalls of the government’s net-zero boiler ban”.

In related news, the Times reports on new polling that suggests “public support for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars has fallen by almost a third in two years”. It says: “In a sign of increased concern about the cost of the UK’s climate change ambitions during the cost of living crisis, a YouGov poll for the Times shows that only 36% of voters back the 2030 ban. This compares with more than half (51%) of voters who backed the move in the run-up to the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow in 2021. The fall is particularly acute among potential Tory voters.” However, Politico reports on new polling that “shows that voters planning to support the Conservative party at the next election overwhelmingly back the government’s target of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”. The outlet says: “Around two-thirds of all voters support the 2050 deadline, with support among Conservative voters slightly higher at 73%”.

No 10 has said that the UK’s government departments should cut ties with Greenpeace in the wake of last week’s protest at Rishi Sunak’s house, reports BBC News. Activists from the group scaled the prime minister’s home in his North Yorkshire constituency last Thursday during an anti-oil demonstration, the outlet explains. The PM’s spokesperson said engagement with the group was no longer “appropriate”, adding: “We obviously don’t think that people who are accused of breaking the law should have a seat at the table in discussions with government.” In the aftermath of the protext, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) cut contact with the group. Speaking to reporters, the spokesperson said: “I don’t think it’s unusual for Defra or other agencies to engage with climate action groups – that’s taken place for a number of years…But clearly given their actions and the arrests last week we don’t think it’s appropriate to engage with them.” Will McCallum, UK co-executive director of Greenpeace, responded that “it’s precisely because the government has effectively shut the door to civil society groups, like Greenpeace, as well as ignoring warnings from the UN, its own advisers and the International Energy Agency, that we need to protest in the way that we do”, reports the Press Association. In a letter to the Times, Lord Carlile of Berriew – the government’s former counter terrorism advisor – argues that “Greenpeace’s trustees should reflect on what occurred, not least because I assume that they do not wish to imperil the organisation’s charitable status.” The Times also reports on the letter. 

Meanwhile, in the right-leaning press, a frontpage story in the Sun says it has “unmasked” a Labour by-election candidate “as a Greenpeace zealot”. The paper carried photos of Alistair Strathern, who “posed as a zombie for an eco stunt” outside the Home Office in November last year. A Sun editorial says: “Labour’s decision to choose a known Greenpeace activist and eco-warrior as their candidate to take on the Tories in Nadine Dorries’ seat shows that, underneath their leader’s chameleon colours, the party of opposition hasn’t really changed.” A Daily Telegraph editorial says that while Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has “emphatically distanced” himself from protest group Just Stop Oil, his “own policy remains mired in obfuscation and confusion”. A Daily Mail editorial described Starmer as a “mealy-mouthed mugwump” who should “get off the fence and tell us which side he’s really on”. Daily Telegraph columnist Michael Deacon says: “For a sizeable number of voters, net-zero is basically like housebuilding. They think it’s very important, and they absolutely want it to happen. Just not in their own local area, that’s all. In short: they’re net-zero Nimbys. So, if Sir Keir is after their votes, he’d better promise not to give them what they want.” Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Gordon Hughes – who has written briefings for the climate-sceptic lobby group known as the Global Warming Policy Foundation – says the Starmer is “right” for calling Just Stop Oil’s demands “contemptible”. And in the Daily Express, Stephen Pollard writes that Labour’s “plan to end new oil licences would be a disaster”.

Writing in the Financial Times, Prof Piers Forster – climate scientist and acting chair of the UK’s Climate Change Committee – warns that “net-zero is not a slogan or a nice-to-have, but a necessity”. He notes that the “UK’s evidence-led approach to policy has helped ensure strong cross-party support for net-zero measures”. However, Forster and his fellow committee members are “concerned to see steps that undermine incentives for innovation and investment for net- zero”. Scaling up climate action “relies on private-sector investment”, Forster writes, adding: “Businesses tell us that investment requires consistency: long-term policies and firm deadlines. They already want to get out in front in the transition…The role of the private sector in the transition is also to reduce costs to households and consumers. This is a key part of our committee’s analysis on plausible pathways to meeting the targets. Innovation in electric car technologies means prices are falling – they are already cheaper than petrol and diesel vehicles over their lifetime. Delaying the ban of petrol and diesel cars by five years would add more than £6bn to household costs.” On new oil and gas licensing in the North Sea, Forster notes that the net effect on global emissions “is unclear and UK production emissions are marginally lower than in many other countries”. But, he adds, “without strong international controls, extra UK production may increase global demand. It is our job to remain evidence-led on this highly contentious issue.” Forster concludes that “this is precisely the wrong time to lose the UK’s informed political consensus on tackling climate change”. Rather, he says, “by hitting our targets, we will provide a template for all developed economies”.

Meanwhile, a Daily Telegraph editorial says that it is time to “slam the brakes” on net-zero. Citing low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and London’s ultra low emission zone (Ulez) scheme, the paper says that “net-zero fanaticism is in danger of creating widespread misery and frustration, while acutely impacting the elderly and vulnerable”. It concludes that the “drive to net-zero may be worthy, but it must still allow people to drive to the shops”. 

In contrast, Sam Freedman, senior fellow at the Institute for Government, writes in a blog for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) that “the public know that climate change is a major long-term risk to their family and community and are waiting for leadership”. Commenting on the recent Uxbridge by-election, in which the Labour Party lost narrowly to the Conservatives, Freedman says the result is “on its way to being the most over-interpreted event in British political history” because the expansion of Ulez was “one factor (we don’t know how large)”. He writes: “The political difficulties of imposing specific costs on voters can’t be ignored and challenges with Ulez are a good reminder that environmental policies still need to be well designed with targeted support for those who can afford the least. The far bigger political danger, though, is being caught on the wrong side of a visibly growing problem and looking complacent or blind to the risk. It’s true that it’s not a problem Britain can solve by itself, but politicians giving the impression of helplessness rarely plays well.”

The Times economics editor Mehreen Khan writes that “the summer of 2023 will come to be remembered as the start of an era in which western governments began to back away from their commitments to tackle climate change”. She says: “Backtracking from governments that previously had championed the shift towards net-zero emissions is a frustrating, but predictable delayed reaction to the era of global energy politics unleashed by the war in Ukraine.” She notes that “climate change is a lightning-rod for ‘anti-woke’ forces, alongside migration and trans-gender rights”. But “a far less noticed retreat is occurring inside central banks”, Khan says, noting that they are “quietly…jettisoning their erstwhile pledges to support the net-zero agenda”. This is as a result of the “recent shift in the political winds” and the “economic environment”, Khan explains. She concludes: “Modern central banks repeatedly have shown that they can walk and chew gum at the same time. Thirty years ago, ratesetters were given singular control over interest rates to strip politicians of the power to manipulate economic cycles to suit their electoral interests. The same may have to become true of net-zero policies already at risk of being sacrificed at the altar of electorability.”

Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist, writes that climate change “is now a culture war issue”. He says: “Understanding climate denial used to seem easy: it was all about greed. Delve into the background of a researcher challenging the scientific consensus, a thinktank trying to block climate action or a politician pronouncing climate change a hoax and you would almost always find major financial backing from the fossil fuel industry. Those were simpler, more innocent times, and I miss them.” While “greed is still a major factor in anti-environmentalism”, climate scepticism “has also become a front in the culture wars, with right-wingers rejecting the science in part because they dislike science in general and opposing action against emissions out of visceral opposition to anything liberals support”, he says. The shift “worries me, a lot”, says Krugman: “Special interests can do a great deal of damage, but they can be bought off or counterbalanced with other special interests…But such rational if self-interested considerations won’t do much to persuade people who believe that green energy is a conspiracy against the American way of life. So the culture war has become a major problem for climate action – a problem we really, really don’t need right now.”

New research finds that all of the most severe extreme weather events from the past two years were exacerbated by “existing vulnerabilities and compounding stresses on social systems”, as well as climate change. The authors explain: “Climate change often made the hazard worse, but much of the damage could have been prevented. We emphasise that the reporting of disasters should routinely address not only the weather-related hazards and humans’ role in changing the odds, but also vulnerability in order to guide disaster risk reduction and avoid risk creation processes.”