The Press Association reports that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a large system of ocean currents that helps keep temperatures in western Europe milder, “may already be on course to a tipping point”, according to a widely-covered new study. The newswire explains: “The AMOC plays a key role in regulating Earth’s climate by transporting heat from the Equator towards the poles. But as global temperatures rise due to warming, freshwater is pouring into the system from the melting ice from Antarctica, Greenland and other sources, risking disruption to the circulation patterns that drive the AMOC.” It adds: “The researchers said that while current observational records are too short to make a reliable estimation, there are early warning indicators suggesting ‘we are moving in the direction of the tipping point’.” The Associated Press reports: “An abrupt shutdown of Atlantic Ocean currents that could put large parts of Europe in a deep freeze is looking a bit more likely and closer than before as a new complex computer simulation finds a ‘cliff-like’ tipping point looming in the future.” It continues: “Studies have shown the AMOC to be slowing, but the issue is about a complete collapse or shutdown. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a group of hundreds of scientists that gives regular authoritative updates on warming, said it has medium confidence that there will not be a collapse before 2100 and generally downplayed disaster scenarios. But [lead author of the new study Rene] van Westen, several outside scientists and a study last year say that may not be right.” The Guardian reports: “Using computer models and past data, the researchers developed an early warning indicator for the breakdown of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), a vast system of ocean currents that is a key component in global climate regulation. They found AMOC is already on track towards an abrupt shift.” It adds: “AMOC has declined 15% since 1950 [according to a 2018 study] and is in its weakest state in more than a millennium, according to previous research that prompted speculation about an approaching collapse.” The Sunday Times reports: “The UN IPCC has ‘medium confidence’ the AMOC will not collapse this century, but last July researchers at the University of Copenhagen found it could collapse in the 2050s. That study used the temperature of the sea surface to deduce whether it might be heading for collapse. Many scientists believe this metric does not give a full picture of the behaviour of the AMOC, so the researchers at Utrecht University set out to find other indicators of whether it could collapse – and they found one.” However, Prof Jonathan Bamber, director of the Bristol Glaciology Centre, tells the Daily Telegraph that the study’s modelling “imposes a huge freshwater forcing to the North Atlantic that is entirely unrealistic for even the most extreme warming scenario over the next century”. CNN, USA Today, Inside Climate News and the Daily Mirror all cover the story. 

Three of the study authors write about their work for the Conversation: “In a new study using the latest generation of Earth’s climate models, we simulated the flow of fresh water until the ocean circulation reached that tipping point. The results showed that the circulation could fully shut down within a century of hitting the tipping point, and that it’s headed in that direction. If that happened, average temperatures would drop by several degrees in North America, parts of Asia and Europe, and people would see severe and cascading consequences around the world. We also discovered a physics-based early warning signal that can alert the world when the Atlantic Ocean circulation is nearing its tipping point…The big question – when will the Atlantic circulation reach a tipping point – remains unanswered.” A piece for RealClimate by climate scientist Prof Stefan Rahmstorf says the new research “confirms that the AMOC has a tipping point beyond which it breaks down”. He continues: “It confirms by using observational data that the Atlantic is “on tipping course”, i.e. moving towards this tipping point. The billion-dollar question is: how far away is this tipping point?” Rahmstorf concludes: “Given the impacts, the risk of an AMOC collapse is something to be avoided at all cost. As I’ve said before: the issue is not whether we’re sure this is going to happen. The issue is that we need to rule this out at 99.9 % probability. Once we have a definite warning signal it will be too late to do anything about it, given the inertia in the system.” In an update to his piece, Rahmstorf adds: “In the reactions to the paper, I see some misunderstand this as an unrealistic model scenario for the future. It is not…[I]t’s observational data from the South Atlantic which suggest the AMOC is on [a] tipping course. Not the model simulation, which is just there to get a better understanding of which early warning signals work, and why.” [For more on tipping points, see Carbon Brief’s explainer from 2020.]

The frontrunner to be the Republican candidate for US president, Donald Trump, has raised nearly 10 times as much money from the oil and gas industry as his rival Nikki Haley, Bloomberg reports. It continues: “And forget about President Joe Biden. Despite record oil production and profits during his White House tenure, industry donors have given very little – just $635,000 – to his re-election bid compared with the $7.37m they bestowed on Trump, according to an analysis from OpenSecrets.” The outlet adds: “Oil and gas is now one of the top industries funding Trump’s 2024 run and a critical source of cash for his White House comeback bid, as other major donors – particularly in finance, private equity and venture capital – have opted instead to back his last remaining GOP rival Haley.” An incoming Trump administration would “systemically dismantl[e]” the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Guardian reports. It says: “Donald Trump and his advisers have made campaign promises to toss crucial environmental regulations and boost the planet-heating fossil fuel sector. Those plans include systemically dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal body with the most power to take on the climate emergency and environmental justice, an array of Trump advisers and allies said.” The newspaper adds: “During his first White House stint, Trump successfully proposed cutting the EPA budget. Hundreds of scientists and other experts fled the agency as the administration dismissed scientific findings and weakened environmental regulations. The attacks on the agency could become even harsher during a second Trump term, experts and insiders say.”

In other news from the US, the Tampa Bay Times reports on its frontpage: “A bill advancing through the Florida legislature with the backing of the House speaker would delete the majority of references to climate change in state law.” The piece is headlined: “Florida could remove the majority of mentions of climate change from state law.” The paper explains that the Republican sponsor of the bill, Bobby Payne, “said the US has spent billions on ‘a climate change initiative and ideology that is unfitting for our country’ without significant results”. Separately, the Hill reports: “The cost of the Inflation Reduction Act’s energy and climate provisions is now expected to be significantly higher than previously projected, at least partially because of greater-than-anticipated investment in climate-friendly technology. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revised its projections this week, greatly increasing how much it believes the law’s energy tax credit-related provisions will cost…In total, the CBO says the law’s energy provisions will cost $428bn more than originally projected.” Finally, the Hill reports: “Attorneys general from 10 states and Washington, DC, are calling on the Biden administration to issue “emergency” protections for workers from extreme heat this summer.”

Barclays has announced it will no longer provide direct funding for new oil and gas projects, BBC News reports, and the banking giant also says it will restrict lending to energy businesses that plan to expand their fossil fuel production. The broadcaster continues: “Barclays is a major lender to the fossil fuel industry, but has been coming under mounting pressure to curb its support for the sector.” It explains: “[D]irect funding for specific projects makes up only part of Barclays’ overall lending to the sector. The bank said there would also be restrictions on new financing for energy groups themselves, although these will be stricter for new clients than existing ones…Barclays is not the first bank in Europe to introduce such commitments. HSBC, Lloyds, BNP Paribas, Societe Generale and Credit Agricole have all previously announced restrictions on funding for fossil fuels.” Reuters says Barclays is “Britain’s biggest lender to the oil and gas industry”. It says of the restrictions: “The move, part of its Transition Finance Framework (TFF), published on Friday, follows intense pressure from campaigners over its energy policy amid an increase in climate damaging emissions from the burning of fossil fuels…All Barclays corporate clients in the energy sector will be expected to present transition plans or decarbonisation strategies by January 2025, alongside 2030 methane reduction targets, and a commitment to end all non-essential venting and flaring by 2030. The clients would also need to have near-term net-zero aligned targets for Scope 1 and 2 emissions – those linked to their own operations and energy usage – by January 2026.” Bloomberg reports: “The announcement comes not long after Barclays said it was establishing an energy transition team inside its corporate and investment bank.” It adds: “Barclays’ lending to oil and gas made up about 2% of its total loan book and 2.6% of its capital markets’ business, according to its 2022 annual report. It provided $4.9bn in loans to the fossil-fuel industry in 2023, compared to an average of $7.2bn over the preceding seven years, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The UK bank has been stepping up environmental lending and underwriting faster than its peers, according to a December analysis by BloombergNEF that looked at the ratio of green finance to fossil finance. Barclays was at 1.55 at the end of 2022, meaning that for every dollar it provides to the fossil-fuel industry – either via direct loans or debt underwriting – it allocated $1.55 to green projects, the BNEF analysis showed.” The Daily Telegraph reports the news as a “victory for net-zero activists”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports: “Oxford university has come under heavy criticism after its £6bn endowment fund increased its investment in fossil fuels just a few years after making a landmark commitment to divestment. Although its investments are small, the fund’s indirect exposure to fossil fuels increased from 0.32% to 0.52% between 2021 and 2022, according to published reports. About £1 out of every £200 of the fund is now invested in fossil fuels.” Another Financial Times article says: “HSBC will start disclosing off-balance sheet emissions in its annual report later this month, after investors pressured the bank to stop leaving out swaths of data from its climate calculations. The change means the UK’s largest bank will now include emissions linked to capital raises on which it advises fossil fuel companies, an area which investors have until now seen as a climate blind-spot for banks.” Citing the FT’s story, City AM reports: “Investors have forced major multinational bank HSBC to provide greater transparency on its financing of projects for oil and gas companies moving forward, reports suggest.” The Financial Times reports In other news from the oil and gas industry, the Guardian reports: “Australia’s largest oil and gas producer, Woodside Energy, has expanded its focus on fossil fuel exploration and increased its direct greenhouse gas pollution since announcing it had an ‘aspiration’ of reaching net-zero emissions.”

The Biden administration is “considering restrictions on the imports of Chinese ‘smart cars’ and related components” extending beyond tariffs, reports Bloomberg, which would apply to “electric vehicles and parts originating from China, no matter where they are finally assembled”. Chinese newspaper Reference News covers the same news, adding that the US officials are currently “conducting comprehensive policy research, so no decisions have been made yet”, according to sources. Chinese business outlet Caixin reports that China has seen its “first month-on-month decline in vehicle sales since August”, despite “renewed efforts” by some carmakers to provide discounts, adding that “the drop was due to carmakers’ year-end promotions enticing people to place orders in December, an uptick in prices of certain car models and a reduction in local government-backed consumption stimulation schemes”. Reuters carries an exclusive report that the US utility company Duke Energy, due to pressure from the US congress, plans to stop commissioning “energy-storage batteries produced by Chinese battery maker CATL” at a US marine corps base and will “phase out CATL products at its civilian projects”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) says that China’s decision to resume exports of gallium, a mineral used to develop electric vehicles, “led to a leap in sales” after the ban “virtually chok[ed] off global shipments for months”. Another SCMP article reveals that “splits are emerging” between EU member states on China, quoting one anonymous diplomat that “there is no such thing as a Franco-German couple any more, it just doesn’t work…the division on China is typical of that”. It adds that “officials fret about Chinese retaliation and the impact of a solar trade war on its ability to hit its climate targets” and that some European governments “were angered by the conflation of national and economic security…and what one diplomat described as the ‘blind following’ of US China policy”. The Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily has published a commentary arguing that: “To steer economic globalisation on a steady course that delivers long-term benefits and better well-being to people of all nations, the international community should join hands in championing an inclusive economic globalisation that benefits all.” 

Meanwhile, another commentary by People’s Daily journalist Liu Zheng says that “against the backdrop of numerous economic challenges, China’s manufacturing of the ‘new three items’ – electric passenger vehicles, lithium-ion batteries and solar energy – has displayed impressive performances”. The Chinese finance newspaper National Business Daily reports that the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges have issued the “draft guidelines for self-discipline supervision of listed companies”, which strengthens “disclosure requirements related to carbon emissions”, while the Beijing Stock Exchange has released draft guidelines to improve sustainability reporting among its listed companies. Finally, Chinese power outlet Dalian Media says that as of the end of 2023, 29 regions in China have initiated power spot market trials, leading to “unprecedented coverage” across China. 

The UK opposition Labour Party’s scaled-back plans for insulating homes if it wins the next election “will leave millions of people on low incomes in cold, damp homes and could prevent the UK meeting its legally binding carbon targets, campaigners and housebuilders have warned”, the Guardian reports. It quotes Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, saying: “It is disappointing that the Labour party has decided to roll back its ambition to retrofit 19m homes to just 5m. Sadly, this is just one of many damaging and disjointed policy efforts over the last decade to deliver green upgrades, which every time ends up hitting the confidence of industry and consumers.” The Daily Mirror reports: “David Cameron’s cuts to ‘green crap’ cost some families as much as £1,000 in a single year, new research suggests. In all, the ex-PM’s decision to tear up plans to make all new build homes zero carbon added £2.6bn to energy bills between 2015 and 2022, according to research from the Green Britain Foundation.” The Daily Telegraph reports: “Millionaire Labour donor Dale Vince is urging Sir Keir Starmer to borrow billions of pounds to boost net-zero and rid fossil fuels from Britain’s energy infrastructure.”

Elsewhere, the Financial Times reports: “Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, has dropped plans to backdate the windfall tax on oil and gas producers to the start of 2022 if the party wins the next general election, in a further recasting of the party’s green agenda. But that limited concession to the energy sector did little to assuage anger in the industry over Starmer’s plans to instead extend the lifetime of the levy by two years until 2029. Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), the trade body, claimed that 42,000 jobs and £26bn of economic value would be ‘wiped out’ by the extension of the windfall tax and an increase in the levy from 75% to 78%.” Politico also covers OEUK’s claims. Meanwhile, the Sunday Times reports analysis produced by Treasury civil servants under instruction from Conservative special advisers, which it says shows that Labour’s windfall tax proposals would raise less money than expected. The paper quotes chancellor Jeremy Hunt saying of the figures: “Try as they might, Labour can’t get their sums to add up.” It adds: “Labour immediately hit back at the chancellor, saying the ­Treasury’s analysis was flawed.” It quotes a Labour Party spokesperson as saying: “Once again the Conservatives have costed somebody’s policy, but it is not Labour’s. This is yet another nonsense costing that fundamentally misunderstands the details of our policy.” The paper quotes the Institute for Government’s Catherine Haddon saying: “Costing opposition policies has happened since at least the 1950s. It’s very much a political tool. The Treasury only do the calculations based on assumptions about the policy which have to be given to them by ministers or special advisers.”

The Financial Times interviews the head of French oil and gas firm TotalEnergies, Patrick Pouyanné, quoting him saying: “We think that fundamentally this energy transition will mean a higher price of energy.” The paper reports: “The long-serving chief executive of France’s TotalEnergies has warned governments are mis-selling the energy transition if they fail to acknowledge the shift to a less-polluting system will to lead to higher energy costs…Policymakers and campaigners were naive, he argued, to think it will be possible to shrink oil and gas production before sufficient renewable energy is available to take its place, given continued growth in global energy demand.” The newspaper says: “Since rising to the top of TotalEnergies in 2014, Pouyanné’s strategy and messaging has been among the most consistent in the industry. While European rivals BP and Shell have vacillated over how to invest in the energy transition and how quickly to withdraw from oil and gas, Pouyanné has remained steadfast in his commitment to fossil fuel production, while still spending more than competitors on renewable energy projects in more recent years.” It adds: “Pouyanné is an unabashed defender of what he presents as a pragmatic worldview, arguing that oil demand may peak before the end of this decade but will decline slowly enough after that new production will be required. ‘There is a sort of divide today between the global south and the north on this perspective, which we have observed in Dubai as well, in the way the debate happened,’ Pouyanné said, referring to the COP28 climate talks [last] December.”

The German federal government aims to “radically overhaul” power generation, intending to replace coal with new gas power plants that “can compensate for fluctuations” in renewable energy sources, reports Der Spiegel. It also adds that these gas power plants are intended to run on hydrogen in the future. However, experts warn that the plan is “on a knife’s edge”, notes the newspaper. It continues that German economy minister Robert Habeck initially wanted to promote the construction of new power plants with almost 25 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, but now, he says, “around 10GW should be sufficient”. Whether the coal phase out by 2030 in Germany is still possible with this reduction is “a matter of varying opinions among experts”, the outlet adds. 

Meanwhile, Bloomberg carries a news article stating that “the underpinnings of Germany’s industrial machine have fallen like dominoes”, noting that the US is drifting from Europe, competing for climate investments, while China poses a growing rivalry and is “no longer an insatiable buyer of German goods”. The outlet adds that the loss of Russian “cheap natural gas” exacerbates issues for heavy manufacturers. 

Finally, Germany plans to vote in favour of EU plans to cut truck emissions, government sources said on Friday, after Berlin’s stance was unclear earlier this week following disagreement within the ruling coalition, reports Reuters. It says that last month, the European Council and parliament agreed on a provisional deal to reduce 90% in CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles by 2040 compared to 2019 levels.

Widespread commentary continues on the UK opposition Labour Party cutting back its commitment to spend £28bn a year on climate action should it win the next election. An editorial in the Observer says that in response to the “unceremonious” decision, “environmentalists have expressed concerns that it might signal a diminishing commitment to tackling the climate crisis”. It continues: “While Labour’s plans still represent a significant increase in green investment, there are certainly questions about whether it goes far enough. Moreover, the reduction leaves a big hole in the party’s plans to expand the economy by boosting lagging levels of public and private investment.” The paper adds: “Stimulating private investment through higher levels of public investment in the green transition is vital to growing the economy…Last week’s announcement to scale down its green prosperity plan means Labour has considerably more work to do on its plans for growth before an election.” An editorial in Saturday’s Times says: “The [£28bn] policy was a hostage to fortune at a time of strained public finances and widespread (and justified) suspicion that a commitment to net-zero has heavy short-term costs. But the muddle behind the policy is not unique in Labour’s approach…There is as yet no convincing answer to what [Labour leader] Sir Keir [Starmer]’s politics really amount to. Remarkably, the green plan is the only substantial spending pledge Labour has made under Sir Keir. Changing course is a belated recognition that climate policies, while urgent, are likely to be expensive and unpopular. What the party’s priorities are now that the policy has been so dramatically abridged requires guesswork.” An editorial in the Sun on Sunday says Starmer “was forced into a belated climbdown when the party’s ludicrous £28bn-a-year eco plans collided with economic inevitability”.

For the Financial Times, columnist and associated editor Stephen Bush writes under the headline: “Little good can come of Starmer’s green U-turn.” He says: “Labour’s retreat reflects a number of changing tides in politics. The first is a global backlash against climate action and with it, a heightening of the political difficulties around green measures.” For the Observer, chief political commentator Andrew Rawnsley says the decision is “bewildering”. He writes: “This sorry saga is not encouraging if it is a precedent for how Labour will handle the hard choices that it will face in government.” He says the £28bn pledge “was at the core of Labour’s ambitions to improve the miserable performance of Britain’s economy…It had the additional merit of being popular.” Rawnsley says of the £5bn a year on top of current government plans that Labour now says it will invest: “That’s a puny sum relative to the menace posed by the climate crisis and the economic opportunities offered by the green transition. It is less than small change compared with government spending of more than £1tn a year and northwards of £75bn in national borrowing to mitigate energy bills.” The Guardian carries a comment by its economics editor Larry Elliot: “Until last week’s U-turn on its pledge to spend £28bn on greening the economy, Labour had a coherent story to tell on the economy…the ditching of the £28bn pledge reveals an ideological vacuum at the heart of Labour’s economic policy and an acute lack of self-confidence. It is also storing up big problems for Starmer and Reeves once the election is won.” Also in the Guardian, columnist Polly Toynbee says: “Labour’s famous £28bn green plan has been bungled, undermining the value of having a green prosperity plan. Even if it’s now half the size it was, that’s still a greener prospect than anything the Tories will offer. But the slow-motion U-turn has been excruciating, and it would have been better from the start not to punt up a large single number. While pared down, the plan is still the only growth policy in town, with its beefed up windfall tax on oil and gas companies and £13bn borrowing to lever in private investment.”

In a letter to the Sunday Times, Prof Lord Krebs, former chair of the adaptation sub-committee of the Climate Change Committee, says the discussion around the £28bn decision “misses the key point: urgency”. He adds: “The government is legally bound to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, as well as to meet interim milestones on the way. But, in spite of these laws, the government is not taking enough action…Whoever is in charge after the next election will have to put their foot down on the accelerator.” In the Sunday Telegraph, Daily Telegraph assistant editor Jeremy Warner writes: “The climbdown on the [£28bn] green prosperity plan is plainly an embarrassment, but despite the hoopla that surrounds it, I doubt it’s going to do Labour much harm beyond the immediate environs of the Westminster village.” Warner continues: “One of the things that I suppose Labour has unconsciously recognised in scaling back its green spending plans is that net-zero is bound to come at a considerable cost. The politicians have been in a state of denial in admitting as much, deceiving themselves – and everyone else – into believing the green transition offers the prospect of both low cost energy and hundreds of thousands of jobs. For all concerned, it’s proving a rude awakening.” The Independent’s chief political commentator John Rentoul writes: “For more than a year, the party has been trapped defending a meaningless number – now it can advocate the actual policies needed to deal with climate change.” Independent political columnist Andrew Grice writes: “While reversing the decision to drop the £28bn figure may have hurt Starmer’s reputation for responsibility, there are others in the party who will use the move to consolidate their own position.” Guardian columnist Andy Beckett writes: “Abandoning its £28bn green plan betrays a lack of self-belief that has long bedevilled the party – a flaw it must address.” In the Sunday Times, climate-sceptic columnist Dominic Lawson writes: “The [Labour] party’s pledge to decarbonise [electricity supplies] by 2030 remains the entirely implausible goal.” And climate-sceptic columnist Charles Moore writes for the Daily Telegraph under the headline: “The political class is only just realising that voters prefer prosperity over climate jingoism.”

Several UK newspapers carry ongoing analysis of what the Sunday Times calls “Labour’s green U-turn”. It profiles two businesses in north-east England – a heat pump manufacturer and a building retrofit specialist – that are concerned by Labour’s decision. It quotes a manager at one of the firms saying: “It makes you feel uncertain…How can we make decisions and plan? Political moves can be the difference between whether we do it at pace or have to throttle back.” The newspaper continues: “However, not everybody in the green industry is as concerned, with larger businesses taking a more relaxed view of the climbdown.” It adds: “Labour’s U-turn is unlikely to deter investment in offshore wind, particularly as the party has committed to Britain’s entire electricity usage being generated from renewables by 2030 – an extraordinarily ambitious (many say impossible) target five years ahead of the government’s.” An article for the i newspaper is titled: “Labour must put green growth above spending rules, business insiders warn.” A BusinessGreen comment, from Beverley Cornaby of the UK Corporate Leaders Group, is titled: “Business needs a clear and consistent UK green investment plan.”

A Financial Times article on the U-turn says: “Sir Keir Starmer on Friday was accused of shredding his political credibility and his hopes of converting Britain to ‘clean power’ by 2030, after the Labour leader junked the party’s flagship £28bn green investment plan.” It quotes economist Prof Sir Dieter Helm appearing to misunderstand the way electricity sector decarbonisation is funded and saying: “Even with £28bn [of public-sector investment the target for] 2030 is not going to be achieved but, without it, this will be even more difficult…Having set an unachievable target, and then come up with an incoherent plan to achieve it, the plan has effectively been abandoned but the target remains. This is not a credible energy policy.” [Power sector investment is “largely privately funded” rather than being reliant on government spending, says the Office for Budget Responsibility.] The Sunday Telegraph carries an article on the comments. BusinessGreen has a comment by Dan McGrail, chief executive of RenewableUK, who writes: “Much has been made in recent days of Labour’s decision to row back on its commitment to spend £28bn to unlock its green prosperity plan. It is true that this fund was always envisaged to do more than invest in renewable energy, and it is of course disappointing to see this funding reduced, but it does not mean that the ambition needs to be downgraded.” An analysis article for the i newspaper says of the 2030 target: “In a plan published last October, Labour said it would ramp up the deployment of wind and solar power to meet its target of net-zero electricity by 2030. Targets include quadrupling the UK’s offshore wind capacity, doubling onshore wind, and tripling solar power. Jess Ralston, head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, told [the outlet] these targets should still be possible despite Labour’s U-turn. This is because many of the current barriers to ramping up renewable energy are not money-related, but are down to things such as planning policy, which Labour will have the power to change when in power.”

For BBC News, Laura Kuenssberg writes under the headline: “Are the politics of climate change going out of fashion?” She writes: “Politics has fashions too – what’s in and out. It’s not so long ago that world leaders were jostling to be pictured with celebs like Leonardo diCaprio, Stella McCartney or Emma Watson at the huge COP26 climate conference in Glasgow where Boris Johnson played host. Then, it was hip to be green – being at COP in 2021 was the political equivalent of the fashion week front row. But with Labour shrinking away from its big £28bn commitments this week, and the Conservatives shifting tack and rumoured to be dropping the so-called ‘boiler tax’, there’s no doubt trends have changed.” However, Kuennssberg continues: “Endless shifts in specifics of policies, or arguments about headline numbers risk missing the big picture. But with both the Conservatives and Labour grappling with the realities of what the big long-term commitments to net-zero might really mean, perhaps what we are seeing is a new phase in this argument. Polling consistently shows that action on climate change is near the top of voters’ concerns – at number three on research group More In Common’s list behind the cost of living and the health service, and not just among those on the left or the under-40s. But as we move closer to the 2050 and 2030 targets the practical realities of the move to a greener economy will hit closer to home.” She concludes: “There’s a tension between how fast our two main parties are willing to move to tackle climate change and the rules and targets they set themselves. But there is impatience in industry over how the appetite to act goes in and out of fashion, because much of the money to green the economy will come from them. Maybe our conversations about the climate are becoming less about emotion and more about the economy. The problem is real. Now the political arguments are here to stay.”

In the Observer, a feature on the “£28bn green policy climbdown” is summarised as follows: “Labour’s spending pledge war is over. Some believe the party’s election campaign will be stronger. Others wonder if [Labour leader Keir] Starmer and [shadow chancellor Rachel] Reeves now stand for anything at all.” The piece says: “[Shadow net-zero secretary Ed] Miliband told the Observer that Labour would ‘go into the next election with a world-leading climate agenda’. He added: ‘I am proud of our agenda and I relish the fight between Labour’s ambition and a Conservative party flirting with climate denial.’” The Sunday Times carries a “politics in depth” article that says: “The Labour leader and his shadow chancellor are desperate to dispel rumours of a row in the wake of their £28bn net-zero reversal. How close are they really?” Another Sunday Times feature is titled: “How Tony Blair and Sue Gray are plotting Starmer’s path to power.” It says: “The former prime minister was a key player in the internal debate that led to the party leader’s decision to ditch its £28bn eco spending pledge.”

The first article in a new series from Indian publication the Wire says: “We are facing a fundamental revision of the entire Earth system, a dramatic shift away from the state it had inhabited since long before the dawn of human civilisation toward a new and unknown state for the future.” Author Usha Alexander explains: “This is the first essay in a 12-part series on climate change. In this series, I intend to propose alternate framings or conceptions of our predicament…Our present stories – like those that reduce our world to a machine with discrete and quantifiable parameters – are not helping us to formulate apt and adequate responses to our ongoing crises…I will tell a different story about the Earth system, how our planet has shaped us as human beings, and how we, in turn, have shaped it. In a comment for the Hindu, Earth system scientist Prof Raghu Murtugudde writes under the headline: “Global warming’s patterns are more important than its levels.” He says: “Fixating on whether the planet’s surface has warmed by more than 1.5C can lead us astray.”

New research suggests that 69% of the global population would be willing to contribute 1% of their personal income towards climate action. The study authors carried out a “representative survey” across 125 counties, interviewing nearly 130,000 individuals. They find that 86% endorse “pro-climate social norms” and 89% “demand intensified political action”. The paper adds that “countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute”. However, they add that interviewees “systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act”. This indicates that “raising awareness about the broad global support for climate action becomes critically important in promoting a unified response to climate change”, the paper says.