The International Energy Agency says in a new report that global demand for oil will grow more than expected to hit a record this year and keep rising until at least 2028, reports the Times. The newspaper continues: “The world is now expected to use 102.3m barrels of oil a day this year, 2.4m barrels a day more than last year, and above pre-pandemic levels for the first time. Global demand will continue to rise but that growth is forecast to slow to just 400,000 barrels a day in 2028, which the IEA said would put ‘a peak in demand in sight’ this decade…In its monthly report on the oil market, the agency said: ‘Global oil demand continues to defy the challenging macroeconomic climate.’ China is expected to account for 60% of this year’s growth, with ‘soaring transport and petrochemical use’ driving the country’s oil demand to an all-time high in April.” Reuters says that the boost to oil demand from the post-pandemic recovery is set to end this year “with a slowing economy and the transition to cleaner fuels sapping growth from 2024”. The newswire adds: “The agency did not expressly reiterate a projection from 2021 that investors should not fund new oil, gas and coal supply projects for the world to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. It said however that current investment ‘exceeds the amount that would be needed in a world that gets on track for net-zero emissions’.” Axios headlines its own coverage of the IEA report: “Peak oil demand ‘on the horizon’.” It adds: “Take all this with a grain – or boulder – of salt! Supply and demand are notoriously hard to game out. And what happens after a peak – a plateau, a gradual decline, or a steep one – matters even more.” Semafor carries a very short interview with IEA chief executive Fatih Birol in which he is asked if he would invest his own personal pension in fossil fuel firms: “I, myself, wouldn’t do it.” Meanwhile, the Hindustan Times notes that speaking at a G20 event in New Delhi yesterday, Birol called on multilateral banks and international financial institutions to facilitate clean energy investments in emerging economies.

Politico carries an interview with Lord Deben, the outgoing chair of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, in which he says the nation would undermine its international reputation as a climate leader if it goes ahead with a major new oil and gas field in the North Sea called Rosebank. The outlet continues: “[Deben] said that his committee had concluded that new exploration and exploitation of fossil fuels in the UK was ‘not only unnecessary, but sets a bad example to the world’. Energy secretary Grant Shapps is expected to receive a report on Rosebank from the UK’s offshore oil and gas environmental regulator later this month. Asked what he would advise Shapps to do when the report lands on his desk, [Deben] said: ‘I’d say to him that if you go around the world, we have had a real reputation of leading in this area…[but] since there was any question of extending new exploitation of oil, we have perfectly properly been called hypocrites. We can’t ask other people to restrain their production if we don’t do it ourselves…There are no two ways about it.’”

Meanwhile, in other UK news, the Guardian says that “National Grid has held talks with Drax over bringing two coal-fired units at its vast power plant in North Yorkshire out of retirement to prevent power cuts this winter”. BusinessGreen reports that Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow climate and energy secretary, will use a speech today to reiterate that ramping up “clean, affordable, homegrown power” offers the only viable path to UK energy security. The outlet adds: “Labour’s plan to more than quadruple the UK’s offshore wind capacity by the end of the decade could support up to 120,000 green jobs…Moreover, he is expected to highlight a new report by the Offshore Wind Industry Council (OWIC) which shows scaling up UK offshore and floating wind capacity to 55GW and 5GW, respectively, by 2030 – as Labour has proposed – could support close to 120,000 jobs across the nation, up from 32,000 in 2023.” The Financial Times reports that “more than 100 companies in the UK property industry, including Landsec, Grosvenor Property and Rockwool, have urged Rishi Sunak to make planning decisions take account of climate change by law”. According to the paper, the companies argue that  the “levelling up and regeneration bill”, which is currently moving through parliament, should be “amended to include a new, clear legal duty for planning decisions to explicitly align with the UK’s carbon budget…and adaptation goals”.

Separately, the Daily Telegraph covers new forecasts by Carbon Tracker which the newspaper says shows that “energy bills will rise £200 a year within a decade to pay for wasted wind power as new turbines in Scotland are paid to switch off”. [The Carbon Tracker report says costs would reach this level if no action is taken to reinforce grid infrastructure.] The paper adds: “Poor electricity grid infrastructure means energy created by turbines in Scotland cannot reach homes in England on very windy days. Last year Britain wasted enough wind power for a million homes, but new turbines built over the next decade would see that figure grow fivefold by 2030, according to thinktank Carbon Tracker…The problem has been blamed on bottlenecks in the planning process which can take up to seven years for major new electricity cable projects.” BBC News carries a factcheck following false claims by some right-wing politicians and media allies that solar panels in the UK have been “taken offline” due to the heatwave. Similarly, Euronews has an article under the headline: “Do solar panels break in heatwaves? Experts explain why UK return to coal wasn’t due to wilting tech.”

A vote by the European Council to formally approve the Renewable Energy Directive (REDIII) has been delayed again by the current holder of the presidency, Sweden, as it “tries to resolve a French-led feud among countries over the role of nuclear energy”, reports Politico. The outlet adds: “EU ambassadors on Wednesday were due to sign off on REDIII, an integral part of the bloc’s flagship Fit for 55 climate package that aims to slash emissions by 55% by 2030 and ramp up the share of renewables in the EU’s energy mix to 42.5%. But the vote was postponed until Friday to give EU countries time to digest a last-minute proposal by the Swedish presidency circulated late Tuesday meant to placate France, according to two diplomats, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly about country dynamics. EU capitals and the Parliament reached a provisional deal on the text in March, but Paris has been pushing for a greater role for its atomic sector. Those efforts have riled nuclear-sceptic countries including Luxembourg and Germany, as well as countries previously sympathetic to France’s views. Earlier this month, 10 EU countries told the Swedish presidency to find a deal ‘as soon as possible’. The Swedish presidency already pushed back approval of its compromise text last month out of concern that France could torpedo the process.” Reuters explains that “EU countries are split over whether to add a loophole allowing nuclear power to be used in ammonia production to a landmark law on expanding renewable energy, diplomatic sources said, after pressure from states including France”.

Meanwhile, a separate Politico article says: “Brussels is coming for the bloc’s last largely unregulated polluter – farms – and that’s unleashed a toxic mud fight. The European Commission’s ambition to green the bloc’s agricultural model will be put to a decisive test Thursday when the European Parliament’s environment committee holds a vote that could kill off a major plank of the EU’s Green Deal. The conservative European People’s Party is going all-in to sink the bill that’s meant to restore 20% of degraded land to a good natural state by 2030; the group claims that threatens farmers’ livelihoods by potentially taking their land away and undermining food security. The campaign could derail Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s Green Deal project – the bloc’s grand plan for climate neutrality by mid-century. After fighting off resistance to measures aimed at cutting emissions from energy, transport and industry, the EU wants to do the same to farms – but that’s proving to be even more explosive.”

Separately, Bloomberg covers new recommendations by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change which argues that the EU should reduce greenhouse gases by as much as 95% by 2040 to achieve its objective of reaching climate neutrality 10 years later. Reuters quotes Ottmar Edenhofer, who chairs the 15-member board of independent scientific experts: “The pathways and other analysis indicate numerous potential benefits to climate action – better air quality, better health outcomes, [becoming] less dependent on imported fossil fuels, less water stress.” The newswire adds: “The advisers assessed more than 1,000 emissions scenarios, to make a recommendation consistent with the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit global warming to 1.5C.”

The Financial Times has published a news feature on how China’s “hallmark climate commitments” – which include a promise for China to hit “peak carbon” before 2030 – are “once again making the news”. It says: “Many environmentalists believe a renewed coal frenzy threatens to undermine Xi’s ambitions. Other analysts, however, claim unprecedented investments and technological advances in renewable energy mean China is on track to hit [Chinese president Xi Jinping’s] targets, possibly even ahead of time…The consensus view among experts in Beijing is that anxiety over energy security continues to outweigh the climate crisis, says Li Shuo, a Beijing-based senior global policy adviser at Greenpeace. That is despite the negative impact new coal will have on China’s emissions profile and its decarbonisation agenda.” It quotes Li saying: “The rhetoric from the energy regulators [and] policymakers has not changed. There is still a very strong push for energy security, pivoting coal back to centre stage. It is, of course, not good news…it makes getting rid of them at a later stage much more difficult.” The newspaper continues: “There are also worries that new coal-fired plants will result in stranded assets, creating more problems for the Chinese economy in the future. However, Li points out that, in provincial leaders’ political calculus, a power blackout, even of just one or two hours, ‘is far more costly’ than billions of dollars in stranded assets.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that the current domestic production of coal in China is nearly 5% higher than the previous year’s record. Imports have experienced anincrease of 90%, with shipments “pouring in” from distant locations such as South Africa and Colombia, the outlet adds. “Given the geopolitical tensions and extreme weather conditions, the government is not taking any risks with the supply”, it says. Chinese online news site IN-EN.com, citing a report by China Energy News, says that thermal power enterprises undergoing low-carbon transformation are “not only the mainstay of electricity supply but also the pioneers of low-carbon transformation”.

Separately, Xinhua reports that Zhang Jun, China’s permanent representative to the UN, says that developed countries have a “historical responsibility” for global climate change and should “take the lead in significant emissions reduction”. He adds that these countries should also promptly fill the annual funding gap of $100bn for climate financing, and “caution should be exercised” regarding developed countries’ “green protectionism”. A Chinese website Enorth.com, citing a report by China News Service, quotes Lin Wei, PwC China’s head of environmental, social and governance (ESG), saying that the EU’s “carbon border tax” (CBAM) could cost the Chinese steel and aluminium industry 25bn yuan. After the transition period, if CBAM applies to all the industries in the EU’s “carbon market”, more than 250bn yuan worth of trade between China and EU could be affected.

Finally, the China Meteorological Administration says that El Niño is anticipated to “result in heightened extreme weather conditions” in China, reports the state media outlet Global Times. As El Niño develops, China, located in the upper regions of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, will experience “certain aspects of the global climate pattern associated with it”, the newspaper highlights. It adds that this includes an increase in rainfall in the southern part of China and a warm winter. Agence France-Presse writes that the US has officially confirmed that secretary of state Antony Blinken will visit Beijing this weekend, marking the first visit by a US diplomat in five years. The FT has a piece headlined: “China edges closer to embracing green hydrogen.” And Climate Home News carries a piece by a factchecker based in Hong Kong who says that “China has been quick to take down some climate disinformation recently, but posts criticising Greta Thunberg have remained up”.

Four of the US’s largest environmental organisations have said they are endorsing Joe Biden’s bid for re-election in 2024, “despite anger from activists over his approval of a string of fossil fuel projects, including an enormous oil drilling plan in Alaska and a natural gas pipeline from West Virginia through Virginia”, reports the New York Times. It adds: “The League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and NextGen America said they were setting aside their concerns over those projects – and the planet-warming emissions they will release. The endorsements are some of the earliest by major environmental groups in a presidential contest. It is also the first time the four groups have made a joint endorsement.”

An editorial in the FT says the world cannot afford this year’s UN climate summit to be a “washout”. It continues: “The depth of discontent over the UAE’s handling of COP28 is raising questions about whether it is up to the job…After a dismal COP27 last year in Egypt, the UAE started well. It hired a clutch of western climate experts and consultants to work on COP28. It championed the important agenda item of a ‘global stocktake’ of progress towards Paris targets aimed at triggering fresh climate action. It arranged to host the meeting and its 70,000 expected attendees in one huge Dubai convention centre…Optimists saw a chance for [Sultan al-Jaber, the oil executive picked to COP28 president] to use the heft of [state-owned oil firm which he leads] Adnoc to prod all oil producers towards meaningful decarbonisation. Likewise, there were hopes he could chart a path to bolster climate finance. But this required significant diplomatic skills on the part of the demanding Jaber, whose COP28 team has parted ways with at least three international communications agencies over the past year. He also alarmed some climate diplomats last month by speaking of the need to cut fossil fuel emissions, not use. This echoes longstanding oil and gas industry calls to bolster carbon capture tech that in reality must play a bit-part, not a starring role, in immediate efforts to tame emissions. Fresh concern arose when the UAE invited Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to a COP already strained by geopolitical tensions. Though Jaber told pre-COP28 discussions in Bonn last week that ‘the phase-down of fossil fuels is inevitable’, he failed to spell out a timeline. Most importantly, he did not explain the UAE’s plan for ensuring the Dubai COP makes the headway that eluded so many of its predecessors. That plan needs to drastically accelerate an orderly, fair and – above all – rapid global shift away from the fossil fuels at the heart of the climate problem, and not just their emissions. It must be made public as soon as possible.” On the same theme, the New York Times has a news feature under the headline: “Battle lines harden over Big Oil’s role at climate talks in Dubai.”

In other comment, Bloomberg’s Javer Blas says: “In the European oil industry, green is out of fashion and black is making a comeback. The trend has been months in the making, but it reached a high point on Wednesday when Shell Plc announced what amounts to a pivot back into hydrocarbons and a promise to deliver higher returns to shareholders…Is the latest swing in the European Big Oil industry’s strategy truly the last? Unlikely. But for now, at least, in large part because European governments have woken up to the dangers of reducing investment in fossil fuels in the wake of Russia’s isolation, the ESG trend has lost momentum.” (Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans has been interviewed about Shell’s new position by AFP, in which he says that it is “very clear that we are not on the right track to limit global warming to 1.5C”, but that the European oil companies remain “ahead of the others” and, in particular, their US rivals, in terms of investment in low-carbon energies.) David Wallace-Wells in his New York Times newsletter argues that “even in Texas, you can’t stop the green revolution”. And the Guardian’s Adam Morton says: “From the oceans to ‘net-zero’ targets, we’re in denial about the climate crisis.”

Finally, the Guardian’s George Monbiot explains how the “hard right and climate catastrophe are intimately linked”. He says: “Round the cycle turns. As millions are driven from their homes by climate disasters, the extreme right exploits their misery to extend its reach. As the extreme right gains power, climate programmes are shut down, heating accelerates and more people are driven from their homes. If we don’t break this cycle soon, it will become the dominant story of our times.”

Writing for CapX, former Conservative minister Simon Clark argues that, “for too long, England has been missing out on a potentially abundant source of cheap energy: onshore wind power”. He continues: “Quick to build, these turbines can cut electricity bills and carbon, delivering on our climate targets and aiding the government’s goals to reduce inflation and grow the economy. But six months after the prime minister agreed to lift the ban, the government still needs to agree on new planning rules to put the wind back into the sails of onshore renewable projects in England. We need to get the rules right; communities deserve a genuine say on projects and the right to say no. The trouble with the existing rules is that they allow only one or two objections to effectively veto otherwise popular proposals…With an election expected next year, we must deliver on our pledge to unleash onshore wind. With so much hanging in the balance – high energy bills, national energy security, and local investment – it’s time the government delivers on its commitment to give communities a genuine say on local renewables.” In the FT’s Lex column, Nathalie Thomas argues that “Rishi Sunak should power up [the UK’s] gigafactory plan”. She adds: “Clarifying Britain’s industrial strategy would help. A cluster of former business secretaries claim that the plans of [Sunak] are neither visible nor effective. If investors do not know what race they are running, it will be much harder to persuade them to join the starting line.” In the Guardian, Hannah Fearn argues that, while it “may be hot…most British homes don’t need aircon”. She continues: “At between £300 and £1,000 a pop, they’re not cheap – but they certainly make three or four weeks of good UK weather each year easier to handle. At what cost? This week National Grid readied another coal-fired power station to cope with the extra demand placed on the energy networks by offices and homes switching on air-conditioning units. Greenpeace UK shared its outrage at this request: ‘We’re using MORE coal to cool down the effects of the coal we’re using. It makes no sense.’ And I agree.”

Meanwhile, the UK’s right-leaning newspapers continue to publish a steady stream of commentary attacking action on climate change. An editorial in the Daily Telegraph says “the genesis of the £13bn utility metering mess can be traced to EU efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. An editorial in the Sun – the 11th anti-climate action editorial in 13 days – attacks Just Stop Oil describing them variously as “loons”, “numbskulls” and a “brainwashed left-wing apocalypse cult”. Separately, the Daily Telegraph has three comment pieces: Ben Marlow arguing that “Britain’s green energy dream has ended in dismal failure”; Tom Harris arguing that “Scotland’s net-zero nightmare is coming to England”; and Michael Deacon arguing that “it is working-class people who are bearing the brunt of Just Stop Oil’s protests”.

A new study suggests that, “in natural ecosystems, warmer temperatures can erode ecosystem stability, while biodiversity changes may not have consistent effects”. The authors assess the impact of temperature and biodiversity changes on the structural and temporal stability of 19 “planktonic food webs” – defined as food webs in which plankton form the bottom few levels. The authors find that species richness is linked to lower structural stability but higher temporal stability in the food webs. They add that structural stability is disproportionately determined by predators and consumers, while temporal stability is linked to all species in the food web.