Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below. By entering your email address you agree for your data to be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
TODAY'S CLIMATE AND ENERGY HEADLINES
Expert analysis direct to your inbox.
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Sign up here.
The UK’s outgoing Prime minister Boris Johnson has pledged £700m for a new nuclear power plant on the Suffolk coast, reports BBC News, with a call to “go nuclear and go large and go with Sizewell C”. In a speech at Sizewell, he said he was “confident” the £20bn plant – which is being developed by French energy company EDF – would go ahead, the outlet says. Reuters reports the story as Johnson “go[ing] nuclear with swansong energy investment”. The Press Association reports further parts of Johnson’s speech. He said: “That’s why we’re putting £700 million into the deal, just part of the £1.7bn of government funding available for developing a large-scale nuclear project to final investment stage FID (final investment decision) in this parliament. And in the course of the next few weeks, I am absolutely confident that it will get over the line, and we will get it over the line because it would be absolute madness not to.” The Press Association also reports that protestors “lined the road leading to the entrance to the Sizewell nuclear site in Suffolk as Johnson was driven past”. And BusinessGreen reports the comments of Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, who argued the money invested in the plant “could insulate huge numbers of draughty homes, and cut next year’s bills, instead of being thrown onto the slow-burning financial bonfire that is EDF, to increase our bills for decades”.
Johnson also took a “swipe” at Liz Truss – his likely successor – over her support for restarting fracking in the UK, reports the Times. It says Johnson said fracking was “not going to be the panacea that some people suggest” and that Britain should not “put all our eggs in that particular basket”. Quoting analysis by Carbon Brief from July, Johnson added: “I tell everybody who thinks hydrocarbons are the only answer, we should get fracking and all that: offshore wind is now the cheapest form of electricity in this country. Offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas.” The Daily Express leads with the same statistic, noting Johnson’s comments that “we’re now racing towards our target of 50GW of offshore wind by 2030″ and that “50GW is probably half the electricity consumption of the country from offshore wind”. Johnson added: “That way it entirely makes sense for us to be more self reliant. It is also entirely clean and green…Renewables are not only important for us to defeat climate change, they’re helping keep bills lower now.”
California embarked this week on its “most aggressive effort yet to confront climate change”, reports the New York Times, “after lawmakers passed a flurry of bills designed to cut emissions and speed away from fossil fuels”. Legislators “approved a record $54bn in climate spending and passed sweeping new restrictions on oil and gas drilling as well as a mandate that California stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere by 2045”, the paper explains, adding: “The bills, passed late Wednesday night at the end of a frenzied two-year legislative session in Sacramento, marked a victory for governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has sought to portray himself as a climate leader as he has raised his national profile and begun drawing speculation about a possible White House run.” Under new legislation, the state “will now have to cut emissions at least 85% by 2045 while offsetting any remaining emissions by planting more trees or using still-costly technologies like direct air capture”, the paper says, noting that “lawmakers had previously set a legally binding goal for California to slash its greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030”. Inside Climate News reports that the state also passed legislation prohibiting new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of residences, schools, nursing homes and other so-called “sensitive receptors”.
Among the new bills, lawmakers voted to extend the life of the state’s only nuclear power plant by five years, reports Reuters. It explains: “California’s lawmakers reversed the state’s 2016 decision to retire PG&E Corp’s Diablo Canyon power plant by 2025 and approved a $1.4bn government loan to extend its operation to 2030. The measure will help keep emission-free power on line in the midst of ongoing tight supply that has threatened blackouts.” However, the Guardian notes, PG&E “needs to obtain permission from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue making electricity when its license expires”, while “PG&E also will seek a share of the $6bn the Biden administration has set aside to rescue nuclear plants at risk of closing”. The paper says that “if that federal money doesn’t come through – and some critics believe the plant will not qualify – the state could back out of the deal”.
Meanwhile, Newsom declared a state of emergency on Wednesday in response to the heatwave in the US west that could see parts of California reach up to 46C (115F) over the Labor Day weekend, the Independent reports. As of yesterday afternoon, “about 46 million were under heat warnings, advisories and watches across a five-state region in the west”, says Axios. In response to demand for air conditioning, the state’s power grid asked California’s residents to voluntarily reduce their electricity use, reports New York Times. The request included asking “electric vehicle owners this week to limit when they plugged in to charge”, the paper says. The paper’s California Today newsletter notes that “California’s climate makes it especially vulnerable to global warming”. The Guardian reports that “firefighters in California are battling several new blazes that ignited as the state is sweltering under a gruelling heatwave”. The paper adds: “Flames burned through bone-dry brush in rural areas north of Los Angeles and east of San Diego on Thursday, forcing the closure of a major interstate and prompting evacuations of schools and care facilities.” The Independent also reports on the fires.
Finally in California news, Reuters reports that Exxon Mobil and Shell yesterday confirmed the sale of their California oil joint-venture Aera to German asset manager IKAV for $4bn, ending a 25-year-long partnership that was one of the state’s largest oil producers.
The UK chancellor, Nadhim Zahawi, has said households should not be cut off if they cannot afford their energy bills, reports the Guardian. Speaking to Sky News, Zahawi said he was “deeply concerned” about vulnerable people this winter if they cannot afford to turn their heating on, the paper reports. He said a fresh package of support would “go beyond” the existing £37bn package “because we know we need to send the message to [Russian president Vladimir] Putin that this strategy is not going to work, which is why we have to target help to the most vulnerable to allow us to stretch that help as far as we can”. Zahawi said there were “no easy options” to tackle the crisis, but the Treasury was “preparing all the options”, the paper reports. He added: “I’m working with the Bank of England to look at how we can provide better liquidity in the wholesale market for energy. They tell me that would actually help with about £400 to £500 of reduction in the energy price cap.” Zahawi also said he was looking at trying to enter an agreement with companies developing power from other sources such as renewables for “a voluntary contract for difference…at a lower price”, but added that it would “not be ready until next winter”, the paper says.
The Guardian also reports on the idea, saying that the energy industry “has thrown its weight behind a plan it says could save homes and businesses up to £18bn a year, by reducing the prices charged for electricity generated from sources other than gas”. It explains: “Energy UK, the trade body for the sector, said its proposals could cut £18bn a year from energy bills, including £11bn for businesses. This could deliver a saving for households of between £150 and £250 a year. The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, is understood to have met members of Energy UK to discuss the proposal and is said to be considering it seriously as an option to present to the next prime minister.” The Daily Telegraph reports the same story leading with the claim that “outdated clean energy rules” mean households are paying “up to £250 per year too much for electricity”. It says that “under historic arrangements, wind and solar farms built before 2014 can sell electricity at the market rate and benefit from government subsidies” and Kwarteng “is holding talks with generators over proposals that would see more wind farms put onto fixed-price contracts backed by the government”. This arrangement “would see more power sold at a lower price and should help to bring bills down”, the paper says.
Meanwhile, the Press Association reports on polling that suggests almost nine in 10 UK adults (88%) say they are worried about the rise in energy prices after the announcement of Ofgem’s latest price cap. The survey by Opinium found that nearly half (45%) say they will not be able to cope financially when the price cap increases to £3,549 from 1 October, the newswire reports, adding: “To mitigate rising costs, almost two in five (37%) have already cut back spending on food and groceries – up from 28% since March.” Finally, the Guardian has an explainer looking at what Liz Truss might do “about soaring energy bills”.
Met Office data shows that England has had its joint hottest summer on record, reports BBC News. The provisional figures show the summer of 2022 – covering June, July and August – had an average temperature of 17.1C, the outlet explains. This puts it tied with 2018 for the warmest summer, according to records stretching back to 1884. The data confirms that “four of the five warmest summers on record have happened since 2003, as the effects of climate change are felt on the nation’s summer temperature”, the outlet says. England also had its sixth driest summer on record, and the driest since 1995, reports the Guardian, while “the UK as a whole saw 62% of its usual summer rainfall”. The Met Office said that 2022 has been the hottest on record for the UK for the eight months of the year so far, reports the Independent – “with every month warmer than average”. The outlet quotes Dr Mark McCarthy, of the National Climate Information Centre, saying: “It is too early to speculate on how the year overall will finish, but the persistent warm conditions are certainly notable and have certainly been made more likely by climate change.” The Evening Standard, Sky News, i newspaper, Bloomberg, the Daily Mail and Reuters all have the story.
COP26 President Alok Sharma has warned that some of the world’s major economies are “backsliding” on their emissions commitments, reports Reuters. This week at a G20 meeting in Bali, nations failed to adopt a joint communique on climate talks, the newswire says, noting that “objections to language on climate targets and the war in Ukraine prevented a joint communique from being issued”. Sharma, who led the British delegation in Bali, told Reuters the response from the G20 that accounts for 80% of global emissions was “incredibly worrying”. In an interview, he said: “It is certainly the case that what we did see was a number of countries backsliding on the commitments that they made in Paris and in Glasgow…Unless the G20 are willing to act on the commitments they have made in Glasgow I am afraid the prospect of keeping 1.5C within reach is going to slip away very, very fast.” Sharma did not single out any countries, the newswire says, “but sources on Wednesday said some members, including China, had objected to previously agreed upon language in COP26 and past G20 agreements on efforts to limit global temperature rises from reaching 1.5C”.
Climate Home News reports that the climate credentials of Indonesia – which is currently holding the presidency of the G20 – “have been questioned” by campaigners. And a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) says that Indonesia needs to ensure policy reforms to pave the way for renewable power and to reduce reliance on coal, as part of a goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060, reports Reuters.
The Energy Saving Ordinance, which was approved in Germany to combat high energy prices, comes into force today for six months, reports Deutsche Welle. The article lists the main measures Germans will have to face, including switching off illuminated advertising after 10pm, no heating for halls and corridors in public buildings and for private pools, the temperature in offices will be limited to a maximum of 19C, and warm water will be cut back. The second set of rules “will come into force in October, apply for two years, and stipulate longer-term energy-saving measures”, adds DW. The German economy minister Robert Habeck is quoted saying he expects the measures to reduce gas consumption “by around two, two and a half percent” and calls it a “small but indispensable contribution”. However, without further relief and with the same heating or lighting behaviour, experts have calculated that household bills will rise by €2,000 for a small apartment and by €5,000 for a house, according to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Habeck said on Thursday that “Germany should not rely on gas being delivered through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline from Russia over the winter”, reports Reuters. And German chancellor Olaf Scholz said that Germany will “probably get through the winter even if it gets tight”, says another Reuters report.
Meanwhile, Der Spiegel reports that Germany is to get a fifth state-rented terminal for landing liquefied “natural” gas (LNG), located in Wilhelmshaven and scheduled to start in late 2023. “Although it will be chartered for five years, it will only be operated until a hydrogen terminal is launched”, said economy minister Robert Habeck, according to the newspaper. However, “it will take until 2025 before hydrogen can really be delivered to Wilhelmshaven”, notes the outlet. “By importing liquefied natural gas, we are making ourselves less dependent on imports of Russian pipeline gas”, Habeck said in a news release, but “at the same time, we are accelerating the import of green hydrogen in parallel”, reports the New York Times.
Elsewhere in German news, Handelsblatt reports that Habeck’s stress test on security of supply has delivered the first results, which show the relevance of the continued operation of two of the three remaining German nuclear power plants. To this end, the Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim 2 nuclear power plants are not to be taken off the grid at the end of the year, as initially planned, says the outlet. However, it adds, “there was no official confirmation from the ministry for the time being”. Reuters also has a story adding that the Greens “have resisted extending the lifespan of the nuclear reactors”, with Habeck saying that extension would save at most 2% of gas use, unlike the Free Democrats who have said, “it is better to extend the lifespans for a limited time than to bring coal plants back online”.
Finally, Die Zeit reports that a broad alliance of social and climate organisations is demanding a “fair and climate-friendly relief package” with a socially structured heating cost subsidy instead of a gas price cap, as well as a €29 ticket and a mobility allowance instead of the commuter allowance. Malte Hentschke-Kemper, deputy managing director of Climate Alliance Germany, is quoted as saying: “The acute political answers to the energy crisis must be designed in such a way that climate protection, security of supply and social justice are taken into account in a balanced manner”. Poor people are “much more affected by fossil fuel inflation”, said the president of the German Caritas Association, Eva Maria Welskop-Deffaa, according to the article.
United Nations nuclear experts who crossed into Russian-held territory in Ukraine to assess the safety of Europe’s biggest atomic energy plant have been seeking to assess physical damage to the facility, reports Reuters, “where both sides warn of possible disaster”. The newswire continues: “An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection team braved intense shelling to reach the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on Thursday. Russia and Ukraine say they fear a Chernobyl-like catastrophe due to shelling they blame on each other…The inspectors will assess physical damage to the plant, ensure its safety and security systems are functional and evaluate the conditions of the facility’s staff.” Separately, Reuters reports that Petro Kotin – chief of Energoatom, the Ukrainian operator of the facility – said that Ukrainian authorities were making “all efforts” to switch back on the plant’s fifth reactor after it shut down due to shelling early yesterday. IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi promised to maintain a “continued presence” at the site, reports Politico. They have left five inspectors at the site, according to Energoatom, reports the Financial Times. The FT’s Europe Express newsletter explains that the biggest fear around the plant is that “the water-cooling system that stops the sole operating nuclear reactor from overheating will be destroyed or damaged in the conflict’s crossfire”. During his nightly address, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said he hoped the inspectors would “draw objective conclusions”, but lamented the absence of international journalists among the delegation, reports BBC News. Zelensky added: “We have clear evidence that Russia did a lot of cynical things to deceive the mission…The occupiers forced people to lie to the IAEA representatives – to hand over some papers, sign something, say something.”
Elsewhere, the Financial Times reports that Russian president Vladimir Putin “has called Ukraine ‘an anti-Russian enclave’ as Moscow delivered a fresh threat to western efforts to curb surging energy prices”.
A new study has warned that the US government is drastically underestimating the social cost of CO2 emissions, reports Reuters, estimating that it is 3.6 times higher than the estimate currently used to inform many of Washington’s key climate policies. The “social cost of carbon” considers the “repercussions” of climate impacts, the outlet explains, “such as changes in agricultural productivity, damages from sea level rise and worsening human health”. It continues: “The US currently puts that cost at around $51 per metric tonne – a figure which dates back to the Obama administration, adjusted for inflation. But in research published Thursday in the journal Nature, a team of American scientists say the reality of such damages is likely far greater, at $185 per tonne.” A co-author on the paper tells the Washington Post: “The bottom line is that our results show that when you fully update the social cost of carbon methodology to the state of the science, it suggests that the existing estimates that are in use by the federal government are vastly underestimating the harm.“ The New York Times has a piece on how economists “underestimated the impact of global warming” and that their preferred policy solution of a carbon tax has “floundered in the US”.
Reuters reports that after a “record heatwave parched large areas” of the Yangtze basin, Chinese provinces are “planning to spend billions of dollars on new water infrastructure as they try to fend off the growing impact of extreme weather on agriculture and hydropower”. The newswire adds that drought-hit regions have been “digging emergency wells and deploying firefighters and cloud-seeding rockets to irrigate crops, but governments are also turning to larger, long-term water infrastructure”. Mao Liuxi, an expert with the China Meteorological Administration, is quoted saying that “because of the strong extremes and the worsening of both floods and droughts, the ability to store and transfer water becomes very important”. Reuters writes that “the construction of giant water projects has already severely disrupted the Yangtze’s natural habitats and hydrological functions”, quoting Zhou Jinfeng, secretary general of the China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation, an environmental group.
Meanwhile, China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) has stressed that nuclear power is an “important support for achieving the carbon-neutral goal and an important option for green and low-carbon energy transition”, China Energy News reports. The MEE says that China should develop nuclear power in an “orderly” way under the “premise of strict supervision and ensuring absolute safety”, the state-run industry newspaper notes. Separately, the outlet reports that, according to the Ministry of Transportation, the government will “study and develop action plans for green and low-carbon development of transportation”.
Finally, citing “officials” and “industry participants” at an annual services trade fair in Beijing, state-run newspaper Global Times writes that China and Europe – two “major stakeholders” in global climate actions – share “sufficient common ground ecologically” to “forge closer partnerships in green growth”, especially as global climate efforts have been “disrupted by several factors, including rising geopolitical tensions stirred up by the US”.
In an editorial, the Economist looks at the “lessons for the future” from the floods in Pakistan. It says that “it is clear that Pakistan has failed to take fully on board the lessons on offer” on reducing flood risk from neighbouring Bangladesh, adding: “One reason is a reluctance to heed sufficiently the threat posed by climate change, a failure that afflicts rich countries too. The weather patterns behind the latest disaster are consistent with what is expected in a warming world. As they become more common and affect areas not used to such extremes, more people will have to be better prepared.” However, “the bigger reason is politics”, it continues: “Pakistan’s have been a mess, distracting from the sort of patient planning needed to build resilience against floods. The floods have hit a country already reeling from economic and political instability. Imran Khan, who was ousted as prime minister in April and is keen to do the same to his successor, is exploiting the disaster to score political points, which may end up jeopardising the government’s relief efforts.” The plight of Pakistan also “provides a different sort of warning, about the broader impact of global warming”, the article concludes: “As climate conditions grow more extreme round the world, they are likely to produce more political instability. Shockingly large numbers of people may be forced to leave their homes in the coming decades as climate change renders their cities and villages uninhabitable. Calls to compensate poorer, worse-affected countries for climate changes they did not cause are likely to grow louder. All the preparation in the world may not be enough to contain the fallout.”
Elsewhere, Climate Home News publishes a comment piece by Dr Fahad Saeed – a climate impacts scientist at Climate Analytics, based in Islamabad – who writes: “This flooding must also be a wakeup call for the global community to speed up its efforts towards climate action. Pakistan emits less than 1% of global greenhouse emissions, but it is bearing a massive burden from climate change. And the large majority of the people affected are the poorest of the poor.” And Reuters reports that “southern Pakistan braced for yet more flooding [yesterday] as a surge of water flowed down the Indus river
In an editorial, the Daily Telegraph says that “while it is encouraging that Britain is embracing nuclear power after decades of nonsensical neglect, there remains the glaring problem…of politicians only turning their attention to long-term strategic thinking when their time in office is practically up”. If Liz Truss succeeds Johnson as prime minister, “this is a trap into which she cannot afford to fall”, the paper urges. It continues: “The urgent priority will be to address soaring energy bills, but this should not preclude medium and long-term strategies to guarantee energy self-sufficiency. It is essential to start maximising our existing infrastructure and resources. The Rough gas storage facility in the North Sea – closed amid a wave of criticism in 2017, when Russian gas was plentiful – has been given approval to reopen, but talks with the government are ongoing and it is unclear when pumping will begin. Why the delay?” The paper also asks how soon the UK will get fracking if Truss overturns the current ban, and whether Truss will “legislate to ensure Britain can rebuild industrial capability in the energy sector, rather than relying on state-run French and Chinese companies”. An editorial in the Sun makes a similar point, noting that “damningly, it took until Boris’s final speech as PM to fund a nuclear plant”. It says: “His replacement MUST do better. That means more nuclear, more wind, more solar…and fracking for shale gas.” And Alistair Osborne – chief business commentator of the Times – says that Johnson’s announcement on nuclear power “is hardly going large”. He adds: “Typically, no one at Sizewell or the government seems to know what the £700m is for. Is it a down payment on a bigger equity cheque, a lever to lure in investors, or cash to be spent on getting the site development ready? Or is it just a pricey soundbite? Even if Sizewell goes ahead, it won’t be on stream for more than a decade – far too late for the present crisis. Investors have been badly burnt before on the industry’s guaranteed cost overruns and delays. And wind, solar and other non-toxic renewables keep getting cheaper. Johnson may have gone nuclear, but Sizewell’s still far from a properly financed project.”
In the Times, James Forsyth – political editor of the Spectator – warns that the “energy bill crisis could finish this Tory era”. He writes: “If the new prime minister cannot solve the energy bills problem, then their premiership could be over before it has really begun. But while fuel bills are the biggest driver of public concern, there is a broader problem with dismal regulation of energy and water turning the public against privatisation, and against market economics more broadly. A great many voters may be open to the idea that nationalisation is the answer.” However, he says, “as the experience of the 1970s shows, nationalisation seldom solves any problems”, adding: “It wouldn’t bring down global energy prices. It wouldn’t go back in time and fix the poor decisions by successive governments that have bedevilled UK energy policy for the past 20 years and left this country with inadequate gas storage, poorly insulated homes and insufficient nuclear power.”
In the Guardian, columnist Owen Jones criticises Liz Truss for her pledge to expand oil and gas drilling in the North Sea if she becomes prime minister. The energy crisis means “the need for drastic, swift action could not be more obvious, yet our soon-to-be prime minister has nothing meaningful to offer”, he writes. Citing Carbon Brief analysis several times, Jones asks: “What possible reason is there not to make wind and solar the central pillars of an effective strategy to build energy independence and help stop millions being plunged into destitution?” He concludes: “As things stand, Truss only serves up a tray of niche hard-right poison pills that do nothing to address the three intersecting crises – living standards, energy independence and climate. And, yes, Truss may crave the disgust of those lefty do-gooders, but come winter, many of the Tories’ own true believers will be shivering in their homes, too.”
Also in the Guardian, an editorial says that “the UK’s old and leaky housing stock needs an upgrade, and has done for years”, adding: “That millions of UK households now face an even more difficult winter than will be experienced elsewhere is down to years of poor government.” And the paper‘s financial editor Nils Pratley looks at solutions to the problem that “electricity in the UK is tied to global gas prices”. Finally, in the Times Red Box, Andrea Leadsom – who was business secretary from July 2019 to February 2020 – looks at how energy efficiency measures “can help reduce bills and keep them low”.
New research shows that although CO2 emissions from global reservoirs peaked in 1987, radiative forcing due to those reservoirs has continued to increase, due to increasing methane emissions. Scientists model global reservoir area and the associated emissions over the period 1900-2020, then project how emissions will continue to evolve through 2060. They estimate that in 2020, reservoirs were responsible for over 1bn tonnes of equivalent CO2 emissions and more than 5% of all global methane emissions. They also estimate that the fraction of reservoirs’ radiative forcing due to methane will continue to increase through mid-century and point out the need for improved understanding of these emissions fluxes.
A new study finds that keeping CO2 emissions to moderate levels could allow parts of the Mediterranean Sea to begin to return towards its state from the beginning of the 21st century. Using a model that combines ocean physics and biological nutrient cycling, researchers model the impact of both moderate and extremely high emissions on the Mediterranean Sea. They find that there is widespread oxygen loss from the surface ocean in both scenarios, but under a more moderate scenario, ocean acidification is “almost stable” past mid-century. The authors conclude that “policies for reducing CO2 emission could indeed be effective and could contribute to the foundation of ocean sustainability”.
Expert analysis direct to your inbox.
Get a round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email. Find out more about our newsletters here. By entering your email address you agree for your data to be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Your data will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Published under a CC license. You are welcome to reproduce unadapted material in full for non-commercial use, credited ‘Carbon Brief’ with a link to the article. Please contact us for commercial use.