Politico reports that Ursula von der Leyen has “just pulled off a delicate green balancing act” by securing a second term as European Commission president with a political programme “carefully designed to woo both conservatives and environmentalists, who united to give her a comfortable victory”. The outlet adds: “Here’s how she did it: Smuggle green policies into her programme, all framed as measures to boost the economy and security, and leave the inevitable fights for tomorrow.” It quotes her saying in a speech ahead of the vote to elect her: “The fundamentals of the global economy are changing. Those who stand still will fall behind. Those who are not competitive will be dependent. So the race is on, and I want Europe to switch gear…[That competition] will dictate who will be the first to climate neutrality and first to develop the technologies that will shape the global economy for decades to come.” Reuters says that in her efforts to get re-elected she “vowed…not weaken Europe’s efforts to tackle climate change”, including a “legally binding European Union target to cut emissions 90% by 2040”. Another Reuters article says won “with 401 votes in her favour and 284 against in a secret ballot in the 720-member chamber”, adding: “She stressed the need not to backtrack on the ‘Green Deal’ transformation of the EU economy to fight climate change – a key pledge for Green lawmakers, who joined her core coalition of centre-right, centre-left and liberal groups in supporting her.” Le Monde says: “The future of the European Green Pact will be written in the coming months. At this stage, there is no guarantee that it will enable Europeans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 as they committed to in the Paris Agreement…Von der Leyen did the bare minimum to avoid alienating the Greens, Social Democrats and Liberals of Renew Europe. She mentioned a few new features – plans for climate adaptation and a ‘pact for the ocean’, without going into further detail. She reaffirmed her determination to enshrine in law the goal of a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2040, without dwelling on the means to achieve it.” The French newspaper continues: “[Von der Leyen also announced] a ‘new pact for clean industry’ to speed up the decarbonization of industry and energy. Much to Berlin’s satisfaction, she also intends to authorise carmakers to explore other avenues besides the electric car, notably the use of synthetic fuels, in preparation for 2035, when only zero-emission vehicles will be allowed on the market.” Bloomberg says that “she won the backing of Green lawmakers, who had opposed her first term, while the 24 lawmakers in Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing party voted against her, according to people briefed on the vote who were granted anonymity to discuss internal matters”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times has published an article under the headline: “Five challenges facing EU chief Ursula von der Leyen in her second term.” It says: “Integrating EU capital markets, a decade-old project, could unleash up to €470bn in private investment annually, von der Leyen estimated. That would create much-needed private sector cash to help fund sectors such as defence, technology and the green transition. But resistance to pooling national competence such as market supervision and corporate tax and bankruptcy rules has so far proved unmovable.” An editorial in the Times says that her pledge to remain committed to the EU’s climate targets, “which has unsettled many people because of the cost, was a clear appeal to the left and to the Greens, who until the last moment were wavering and then, crucially, decided to back her”. It adds: “She also proposes a European affordable ­housing plan, setting up a commissioner for ­enlargement and sticking to the ban on sales after 2035 of cars emitting CO2. Much of this is populism.”

In a frontpage story, the Times reports that “the founder of Just Stop Oil has ­received the longest ever jail sentence for non-violent protest under laws designed to crack down on public ­disruption”. It continues: “Roger Hallam, 58, was jailed for five years for coordinating the protests that disrupted the M25 in London over four days in 2022. Forty-five protesters climbed gantries on the motorway, forcing police to stop the traffic. Daniel Shaw, 38, from Northampton, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, 35, from Derby, Louise Lancaster, 58, from ­Cambridge, and Cressida Gethin, 22, from Hereford, were each sentenced to four years after being found guilty of conspiring to cause a public nuisance. The sentences, handed down at Southwark crown court in London, were longer than those given to Just Stop Oil activists who scaled the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge over the Dartford Crossing in October 2022. They were condemned as a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’ by environmental campaigners.” The group were “sentenced under controversial legislation introduced by the previous government to get tougher on disruptive tactics used by ­environmental protesters, including blockading roads and attacks on sporting events”, the newspaper says, adding: “A 13-week campaign by Just Stop Oil last summer cost the Metropolitan Police more than £7.7m, the equivalent cost of 23,500 officer shifts. The legislation, which provides for stiffer sentences for protesters who block roads, was backed by Sir Keir Starmer, now the prime minister. But it was condemned by the UN human rights commissioner as ‘deeply troubling’ and ‘disproportionate’.” The Guardian – which also puts the story on its frontpage – says: “All five had spoken on a Zoom call trying to recruit potential volunteers for the actions, which involved activists climbing gantries at strategic points on the London orbital motorway. On the call, Hallam said they intended to cause ‘the biggest disruption in British modern history’ in an effort to force the government to meet Just Stop Oil’s core demand, an end to new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.” The Financial Times notes that Judge Christopher Hehir said that while “at least some of the concerns [of the defendants] are shared by many”, the protesters had “crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic”. The Daily Mail picks up on the judge’s comments, gleefully using them to lead its frontpage with the headline: “Judge who spoke for all of us on eco-fanatics.” The Daily Telegraph also uses the term “fanatical” in its frontpage headline. (See Comment below for more reaction.) 

While making an urgent statement in the House of Commons yesterday on Labour’s “clean energy superpower mission”, the UK’s new secretary of state for energy security and net-zero Ed Miliband said that climate change threatens the natural world more than ground-mounted solar panels do, the Press Association reports. It continues: “Miliband told MPs on Thursday: ‘The biggest threat to nature and food security, and to our rural communities, is not solar panels or onshore wind – it is the climate crisis which threatens our best farmland, food production and the livelihoods of farmers.’ On Friday last week, Miliband approved three major solar power projects: Mallard Pass; Gate Burton near Gainsborough in Lincolnshire; and Sunnica near Mildenhall in Suffolk. He said: ‘The reason we’re moving at this pace is for one overriding reason, because of the urgency of the challenges we face – the challenge of our energy insecurity laid bare by (Vladimir) Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and paid for by the British people in the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation, the challenge of an economy that doesn’t work for working people, with too few good jobs and decent wages, and the challenge of the climate crisis – not a future threat but a present reality.’ Conservative shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho described Miliband’s clean energy ambitions as the government’s ‘big test’ and also its ‘greatest liability’.” The newswire also quotes Miliband saying: “We have to make judgments as members of this House, which is: given the scale of the climate crisis we face, given the scale of energy insecurity we had and energy security threat we face, do we believe we need to build infrastructure? Now I happen to believe we do – yes with community consent, yes with community benefit, yes with the planning rules I’ve set out…Anyone who knows me, knows me as a super nerd. And that means that when it comes to all of my responsibilities, particularly my quasi-judicial responsibilities, I take them incredibly seriously.”

Meanwhile, the Times covers what Miliband told MPs about Labour’s new state-owned business, GB Energy, which “will own and manage” clean power projects: “We on this side believe in the ownership of British assets by the British people for the benefit of the British people, and I hope following the people’s verdict at the general election this is a patriotic mission that the whole House can get behind.” The newspaper adds: “Referring to ‘widespread public ownership of energy in Britain’ by foreign governments such as France, Denmark and Norway, Miliband said: ‘These governments know a publicly owned national champion is part of a modern industrial strategy and generates a return for taxpayers – crowding in, not crowding out, private investment.’” BusinessGreen notes that “Miliband describe[d] upcoming contracts for difference auction as ‘critical test’ for the new government’s climate plans”.

In other UK news, the Guardian reports that, according to Friends of the Earth analysis, “inadequate climate protections mean at least 6 million lives are at risk from extreme heat in England”. The Financial Times notes that the outgoing chief executive of the UK’s flood reinsurance scheme, Flood Re’s Andy Bord, has “urged the Labour government to step up spending on flood defences and to make sure that the 1.5m houses it has pledged to build are not ‘making the problem worse’ by adding to flood risks”.

Elsewhere, Politico reports that the new Labour government is “gearing up to appoint a climate envoy, a role which has been empty for over a year”. It adds: “Politico understands ministers will appoint an envoy to work across different departments in Whitehall, on top of the work of new ministers”. Another Politico exclusive reports that the “National Farmers Union boss Tom Bradshaw backs UK solar farms and warns MPs against making ‘sensationalist’ claims about food security. ‘It’s a small amount of land which is being taken out of production,’ he tells the outlet.” 

Reuters reports that “green groups are split over whether President Joe Biden should step aside for another Democrat in the US election, with some concerned his weakening polling against fossil-fuel booster Donald Trump could hamper turnout and jeopardise his climate wins”. The newswire continues: “Of eight national environmental groups contacted by Reuters, two want Biden to step aside, one wants him to stay, and the rest were undecided or declined to comment. ‘Joe Biden’s inability to campaign coherently and articulate an alternative to the far right will result in lower turnout among potential Democratic voters faced with a choice between two old white men clinging to power,’ said Evan Drukker-Schardl, an organiser with Climate Defiance.” The Washington Post’s Maxine Joselow has written a feature under the headline: “How a Republican election sweep could transform US climate policy.” She writes: “Defunding or dismantling federal agencies focused on the environment. Slashing regulations aimed at combating climate change and cutting deadly air pollution. Boosting the use of fossil fuels that have helped drive the US economy but also contribute to the heat waves afflicting millions of Americans this summer. These are just some of the ways Republicans could shift US climate policy if they win the White House, flip the Senate and maintain their House majority in the November election. While such a scenario seemed less likely a few weeks ago, it appears more probable in light of President Biden’s disastrous debate performance, an increasingly brutal Senate map for Democrats, and an attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump that has invigorated his base. While it is far from certain that Republicans will control all levels of government in 2025, the party’s leaders are feeling optimistic.” The article also cites Carbon Brief: “A recent analysis by Carbon Brief, a UK-based climate policy and science publication, found that a Trump win in November could cause an additional 4 billion metric tonnes of carbon emissions by 2030 – equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan. ‘A Republican sweep in November’s election would avoid congressional roadblocks to Trump rolling back all of Biden’s climate legacy,’ Simon Evans, deputy editor and senior policy editor at Carbon Brief, said in an email. ‘Under those conditions, Trump could push the US towards the extra 4bn tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2030 that we modelled – and potentially beyond.”

In other US news, the Guardian reports that “as the climate crisis causes heavier and more frequent floods across the US, one in four small businesses are one disaster away from shutting down”. And the Associated Press says that the US government has announced that “$325m in federal funds will be available for solar and battery storage installations across Puerto Rico as the US territory struggles with chronic power outages”.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says that flooding “caused by heavy rains lashing Niger since June has killed 53 people and impacted 18,000, as the west African country grapples with the effects of climate change”, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reports. The newswire adds: “Floodwaters also destroyed 1,636 homes, 29 classrooms, and killed 10,930 livestock, the agency said, citing the Niger Ministry of Humanitarian Action and Disaster Management. OCHA warned that more than 247,000 people could be affected by the floods before the end of the rainy season, which typically concludes in late September. It added that UNICEF, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration and the Red Cross will support the Nigerien government by mobilising food stocks, emergency shelter and hygiene kits in the areas most severely impacted by the worsening weather conditions. ‘Exacerbated by global climate change, flooding is a recurring threat in Niger,’ the UN agency said.”

Chinese president Xi Jinping has pledged to make “high-quality development the guiding force” of the country at the conclusion of the Chinese Communist Party’s third plenary session, Bloomberg reports. The outlet says the statement shows that China will “stay on course with Xi’s plan to use advanced manufacturing to generate growth…as consumer spending slows while exports surge and policy focuses on new green sectors such as electric cars and solar panels”. A communique from the meeting also calls for a “coordinated approach to carbon cutting, pollution reduction, green development, and economic growth”, and to “actively respond to climate change”, according to state news agency Xinhua. A commentary published in the party-affiliated People’s Daily under the nom de plume of Zhong Yin, which is widely believed to represent the views of the party leadership, says innovation and reform will allow “Chinese-style modernised development” to create “new and greater miracles that will impress the world”. Writing in finance newspaper Yicai, Wang Lingyi, a researcher at the Shanghai-based China Centre for International Economic Exchanges, says economic growth in the first half of the year shows “China’s formation of new quality productive forces, a concept of advanced productivity through tech-driven green and digital transformation, is speeding up”. (See Carbon Brief’s new article explaining the concept of “new quality productive forces”.)

Meanwhile, a report by the Sydney-based thinktank Climate Energy Finance says China is installing the equivalent of “10 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity every fortnight”, according to the Pakistani newspaper Express Tribune. Yicai quotes Lai Xiaoming, chairman of the Shanghai Environment Energy Exchange, saying that “a carbon market-centred carbon pricing mechanism is gradually taking shape” in China, which has become “the world’s largest carbon market”. State broadcaster CCTV says the voluntary carbon offset market is “another core policy tool” for the country to achieve China’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2060, adding that more than 4,500 entities have registered for the programme since its launch in January. And China has launched its “first provincial-level forestry carbon-sink trading system” in Heilongjiang as “part of the country’s broader efforts to achieve its dual carbon goals”, Xinhua reports.

Finally, the Shuang Tan newsletter notes that “China’s top energy planners unveiled [this week] a new policy for the ‘low-carbon transformation’ of coal power plants” and concludes that “new solutions distract from the energy transition; at worst, they enable greenwashing and subsidy fraud, with a high risk of abandonment midway”. The National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planner, has revised a law governing the planning and management of coal mines, requiring plans for sites to be “submitted to the commission for review”, state-run energy newspaper China Energy News says. And the New York Times has a feature headlined: “Why the era of China’s soaring carbon emissions might be ending.” The article indirectly cites recent analysis published by Carbon Brief: “A recent spate of data from China’s government, as well as reports by energy analysts, have provided positive signs that while China’s emissions may not decrease significantly, they also may not grow.” (Also see Comment below.)

Germany has “unplugged” more onshore wind farms than it has added for the first time after subsidy programmes for renewables ended, Bloomberg reports. It explains that “from January through June, 277 wind farms were taken offline, while 250 were added”. Despite this, Germany still managed to add 900 megawatts (MW) of capacity because new turbines “can generate five times more electricity than those erected 20 years ago”, notes the outlet. It also says that, although wind power in Germany accounts for 62 gigawatts (GW) of electricity production, this share is still “well short” of the country’s goal of 115GW by 2030. The outlet says that most German onshore wind farms have received subsidies as a guaranteed premium per kilowatt-hour, but those payments end after 20 years. In addition, Berliner Zeitung quotes Bärbel Heidebroek, president of the German Wind Energy Association, explaining that many construction projects could not be completed due to strong winds in April and logistical issues “caused by a highway closure”. Heidebroek is quoted in the press release as saying: “We still see a great need for action in the pace of land designations and the reduction of implementation hurdles [for wind turbine construction].” In addition, another Bloomberg article highlights that, according to a draft budget law approved this week, starting January 2025, payments for mid-size and large renewable energy projects in Germany will be cancelled if electricity prices fall below zero. Another Bloomberg article says “German year-ahead power traded near the lowest in three months as renewable energy is flooding the market and industrial demand is slow to recover”.

Meanwhile, Die Zeit reports that the European Union has approved Germany’s request for an additional €2bn from the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility, bringing the total amount of non-repayable grants from EU funds for Germany’s energy transition to €30bn. The newspaper explains that this funding is earmarked for investments in energy-efficient residential buildings, the purchase of zero-emission vehicles, the public charging network and the digital rollout of hydrogen infrastructure. Table.Media reports that the German environmental organisation Deutsche Umwelthilfe is suing the German government for “failing to submit its annual climate action report on time”, adding it is a “crucial control instrument” mandated by the country’s Climate Change Act.

Finally, Reuters has an article headlined: “How Germany aims to get to net-zero without breaking the bank.” It says: “Germany faces a tough time finding ways to pay for its efforts to become climate-neutral by 2045 given the country’s current tight budget constraints. The German cabinet passed its 2025 budget on Wednesday after months of wrangling, but this left a 17bn euro ($18.6bn) gap between projected spending and revenue still to be covered. Such funding shortfalls will make the costly task of shifting industries and agriculture to low or zero emissions more difficult and could undermine some of the coalition government’s energy projects. The costs of the energy transition, including electrification, carbon sequestration and renewable hydrogen, are difficult to calculate but will run into the low trillions of euros.”

An editorial in the Financial Times begins: “Governments across the developed world have vowed to decarbonise their economies in the next few decades. Yet many are also moving to limit imports of Chinese-made green tech, without which decarbonisation will take more time and money – if it can be achieved at all. At some point, western leaders will have to choose between their climate goals and their protectionism – and it would be better for everyone if it is protectionism that has to give. The contradiction is most glaring for electric vehicles.” The article continues: “Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have been raising their hackles against a supposed threat to their domestic industries from ultra-competitive Chinese imports. In the US, that threat is entirely imagined. The US imports hardly any Chinese EVs. Joe Biden’s recent 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs will keep things that way. In Europe, the accelerating inflow is real. Last year close to one-in-five electric vehicles sold across the EU, or 300,000 units, were made in China (some by western marques). But that remains a tiny fraction of the 10.5m cars sold in the EU in 2023 – all of which are soon supposed to be zero-emissions ones. A sense of proportion is overdue. If Europe is serious about its EV goals, the problem is not too many Chinese imports but rather too few, given how slow its own industry has been in shifting away from internal combustion technology.” 

For Reuters’ BreakingViews, Hong Kong-based global production editor Katrina Hamlin writes: “Chinese electric-car makers like BYD and Chery are charging up production in the European Union to dodge tariffs. On paper, they have an edge, but how long they keep their pole position will hinge on Brussels…The bloc could threaten fresh probes, tariffs and rules, especially if Chinese marques made in Europe fuel member states’ concerns for their legacy automakers. Evoking new regulations on sourcing and foreign subsidies would disrupt supplies of batteries or other parts, for instance. China’s upstarts are formidable rivals, but they still need to test their speed limit on European roads.”

George Monbiot focuses his latest Guardian column on the sentencing of five Just Stop Oil protesters: “Four of them received four years and one received five years for ‘conspiracy to cause a public nuisance’: they had been involved in planning to close the M25. These are sentences of the kind you might expect in Russia or Egypt.” He concludes: “Before the election, Ed Miliband, now the secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, recited the usual mantras: Just Stop Oil’s tactics were ‘alienating people’ and not helping its cause. But were it not for the alienating protest movements of the past 20 years, I doubt his job would exist. Labour once recognised that protest is the wellspring of democracy, from which has flowed all our fundamental rights: the right of women to own their lives and make their own decisions, the right to vote, to choose any religion or none, to express our sexuality as we please, to speak freely, to fair wages and working conditions, even to weekends. Effective protest is an ecosystem. It needs a moderate flank and a radical flank. It needs a wide range of skillsets and degrees of commitment. But, as hundreds of years of practice shows, the visible, noisy, disruptive, outrageous element, however much it is lambasted, is essential to its success. If we are to establish the right to a habitable planet, it is unlikely to happen in the absence of ‘alienating’ actions. As well as repealing the Tory laws, the new government should establish a positive right in law to protest peacefully. It might claim to abhor us. But it needs us.”

In stark contrast, an editorial in the Sun says: “Cult leader Roger Hallam is a sinister public menace who richly deserves his five-year jail stretch. And we applaud Judge Christopher Hehir who, unlike others, would not buckle to the facile eco propaganda of ­Hallam’s Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil and their celebrity fans. Britain has led the global charge to decarbonise. But Hallam and his dupes think their hysterical misinterpretations of climate science give them a free pass to ‘protest’ by causing hardship to people innocently going to work, to school, to hospital or to a funeral. Their ‘demands’ are irrelevant. Indeed banning new North Sea oil and gas is now Government policy. What matters is that their plot to cripple the M25 was reckless, callous and illegal. The judge told Hallam and four other idiots they ‘crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic, heedless of the rights of fellow citizens’. Quite so.”

New research finds a link between the survival rates of young migratory shorebirds and changes in sea surface temperature (SST), with warmer SSTs one year indicative of lower survival rates the following year. Researchers look at a small sandpiper species called the dunlin, comparing the sizes of pre-migration individuals across nine breeding seasons, dating back to 1978. They find that in one instance, abnormally warm SSTs one season preceded a 45% decrease in juveniles that reached their wintering grounds the next year. The authors attribute this decline to decreases in available prey, such as clams, and say that the work “illustrate[s] a general mechanism by which climate change may shape migratory shorebird populations worldwide”.