As the ramifications of last Thursday’s vote by the UK to leave the EU begin to sink in, there has been much speculation about what it could mean for energy and climate policies. The Guardian says that the UK’s future participation in the Paris Agreement is now in doubt. “More importantly, for the rest of the world, the Leave campaign’s victory provides a fillip globally for groups opposed to climate action, and if it causes delays to the Paris accord coming into effect, it could provide an opening for aspiring right-wing leaders – including Donald Trump – to try to unpick the pact.” Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability at PwC, tells the paper: “There is a risk that this could kick EU ratification of the Paris agreement into the long grass.” The wider implications, the paper adds, “will take time to work out, but it is already clear that the Brexit vote will be used as a rallying cry for an agenda that frequently includes climate scepticism among its tenets”. This theme is developed further by the Australian, which reports the views of Benny Peiser, who runs the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK-based climate sceptic lobby group with close ties to the Brexit campaigners: “It is highly unlikely that the party-political green consensus that has existed in parliament for the last 10 years will survive the seismic changes that are now ­unfolding after Britain’s independence day…The decision by the British people to leave the European Union will have significant and long-term implications for energy and climate policies.” ClimateWire also looks at the wider implications for global climate policy. It reports the views of Nick Mabey, chief executive of E3G: “In the political and economic chaos we will now see, it is important to remember the U.K. has strong national climate laws, and there is no mandate or majority from this vote to unpick them. The UK will ratify the Paris Agreement.” ClimateHome, the Independent andGrist also report a variety of views. BusinessGreen and Energy Live News carry views on how the vote might affect the energy sector.

To say scientists have reacted with dismay to the vote would be an understatement. A range of publications carry the view of scientists, but National Geographic reports the specific reaction of leading climate scientists. “It’s depressing, but the uncertainty doesn’t help,” says Philip Jones, research director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, England. “I just hope that science doesn’t get forgotten in all of this.” Many scientists fear a “brain drain” says the publication, “either because their funding suffers or because the loss of the EU guarantee of free movement across member states causes scientists to lose their status in the U.K., or to not feel welcome”. Prof Myles Allen of the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute says: “My main concern in the big picture is potential damage to the UK’s reputation as a destination for top-flight researchers. Researchers put a lot of emphasis on the ability to recruit and ability to travel, and if these changes affect our ability to recruit the best and brightest of the world’s academics, then we’re in trouble.” Nature also reports the views of scientists.

Two of Britain’s biggest infrastructure projects — a third runway at Heathrow and an £18bn nuclear power plant in Somerset — have been thrown into serious doubt by the decision to leave the EU, says the Sunday Times. It was also claimed this weekend that the £50bn HS2 rail project could be pared back to reduce costs. On Hinkley, a source involved in the negotiations told the Sunday Times: “This [scheme] was already looking so challenged. The vote is the perfect excuse for the French to walk away.” Meanwhile, Reuters reports that EDF says it is committed to Hinkley following the Brexit vote.

German politicians have approved a law that bans fracking, ending years of dispute over the controversial technology to release oil and gas locked deep underground. The law does not outlaw conventional drilling for oil and gas, leaving it to state governments to decide on individual cases. But fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, which blasts a mixture of water, sand and chemicals underground to release shale oil and gas, will be banned.

Premature deaths from air pollution will continue to rise to 2040 unless changes are made to the way the world uses and produces energy, the International Energy Agency said on Monday. Around 6.5 million deaths globally are attributed each year to poor air quality inside and outside, making it the world’s fourth-largest threat to human health, behind high blood pressure, dietary risks and smoking. The release of particulate pollutants is mainly due to the unregulated or inefficient production and use of energy, the IEA said in a special report on energy and air pollution. The New York Times also covers the story.

The costs of managing the UK’s electricity supplies could double to £2bn a year within five years due to the growth of renewable technologies, a senior National Grid official has forecast. The Telegraph reports: “The company already spends just over £1bn a year on ‘balancing services’ to ensure power supply and demand are matched, that the grid is not overloaded, and that supplies are at the correct voltage and frequency across the network.” Julian Leslie, head of electricity network development at National Grid, said: “At the moment we are spending around £1bn a year and ever-increasing, and I think personally by the next five years or so that will be £2bn a year. This market of flexibility, providing these services to us, is only ever going to increase as we get to a more and more complex network with more distributed generation.”

Energy companies will be able to market domestic supply deals directly to rivals’ customers, the UK competition watchdog has confirmed, in an bid to encourage more consumers to switch provider and save money. On Friday, the Competition and Markets Authority published the final results of its two-year long investigation into energy prices, outlining how it thinks customers can best be protected from high prices. It said it would make suppliers hand over details of any customer who has been on an expensive default tariff for three years or more, so that rivals could get in touch to encourage them to switch. But the CMA stopped short of a more widespread price cap, as it had suggested a year ago — a decision that prompted a formal dissent from one of the panel members. The Daily Telegraph and Times also reported the story.

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres plans to announce her candidacy to be the next UN secretary-general, E&E says it has learned. Figueres, who orchestrated a historic global climate change accord in Paris last year, steps down next month as head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. She declined through a spokesman to comment, but multiple sources confirmed that Figueres intends to formally declare her interest in replacing Ban Ki-moon on July 7. “She is definitely throwing her hat in the ring for secretary-general,” one person with direct knowledge of Figueres’ plans said.

Scientists have sent a letter to Australian officials calling for action to save the world’s reefs, which are being rapidly damaged. The letter was sent on Saturday to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull imploring his government to do more to conserve the nation’s reefs and curb fossil fuel consumption. The letter, signed by past and present presidents of the International Society for Reef Studies on behalf of the 2,000 attendees of the International Coral Reef Symposium that was held in Honolulu this week, urged the Australian government to prioritise its Great Barrier Reef.

A post-Brexit UK will still have energy ties to the EU, says Politico, but there will be big changes. “Britain’s departure from the EU will force broad changes to the bloc’s energy and climate policies, and remove a crucial ally for Central Europeans — but it will also give London far more freedom to pursue nuclear projects. The UK has often been an energy outlier in the EU, advocating nuclear power and shale gas sources shunned by others. Its alliances tend to shift, always with the aim of keeping interference from Brussels to a minimum and taking an ambitious yet financially minded approach to tackling climate change.” Meanwhile, Climate Home carries the view of Barry Gardiner , Labour’s climate envoy, who says he has “huge concerns” over the future of the UK’s fifth carbon budget, which was already delayed because of the vote: “It would be extraordinary and quite disingenuous if the government do not bring that [policy response proposal] forward.” Separately in Climate Home, its editor Ed King sets out six questions for UK and EU low carbon ambitions. He, like many others, fears the rise of the pro-Brexit climate sceptic: “With the prospect of an economic slump looming as a result of the referendum, climate and environment regulations could be in the firing line in the name of ‘competitiveness’.”

Mooney looks at Boris Johnson, the favourite to now take over as prime minister: “The former London mayor who was a key leader of the Brexit campaign has drawn criticism from climate scientists for his writings about climate change, the weather and the influence of the sun on the climate. But the bigger problem, advocates say, is how this affects the E.U., which, when taken as a whole, is the third largest global greenhouse-gas emitter. One oft-voiced concern is that the departure of Britain — which has been a climate leader within the bloc — could weaken the E.U.’s climate ambitions, on top of the general chaos expected to ensue as Brexit now unfolds (which will surely distract all parties from climate policy).” Meanwhile, Andy Revkin in his New York Times Dot Earth blog, says the vote highlights “from Brexit to climate” how “most young people are deeply disengaged”. Damian Carrington in in the Guardian says the vote is a “red alert” for the environment: “The short answer to what happens next with pollution, wildlife, farming, green energy, climate change and more is we don’t know – we are in uncharted territory.”

A new study examines how the behaviour of clouds in spring can precondition the atmosphere in a way that helps scientists predict whether the following Autumn will see high or low sea ice extent. Using surface observations in Barrow, Alaska, the study finds that increased cloud cover in April alters surface radiative fluxes in a way that decreases cover in May and June and, ultimately, ends up in a low ice year. The opposite is true in high sea ice years, the researchers find.