Joe Biden, the US president, has signed an executive order that would make the US federal government carbon neutral by 2050 and aim for a 65% reduction by 2030, Associated Press reports. The order directs federal agencies to buy only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035 and to upgrade their buildings so they can reach zero emissions by 2045, reports Bloomberg. The New York Times says the order also directs agencies to only buy clean electricity by 2030 and to halve emissions from buildings by 2032. It notes that procurement rules can take effect almost immediately, but could be reversed by a future administration. Reuters says the federal government owns more than 650,000 vehicles and buys about 50,000 each year. It adds that the executive order requires light-duty vehicle purchases to be emission-free by 2027. Politico and the Hill also have the story.

In other US news, Bloomberg reports that the US International Trade Commission (ITC) has recommended a four-year extension to the solar import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. It notes that Biden “is under no obligation to follow the ITC’s recommendation”. The Guardian reports that new US energy standards “would force incandescent lightbulbs into retirement”. The Independent reports that New York City is to “ban gas hook-ups in new buildings”. And Associated Press reports that the incoming governor of Virginia will seek to use his executive powers to withdraw the state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative emissions trading scheme. The article notes that the Democrats, who passed state legislation joining the initiative, continue to control the Virginia Senate.

Olaf Scholz has become German chancellor as the new coalition government finally takes office, Associated Press reports: “The new government aims to step up efforts against climate change by expanding the use of renewable energy and bringing Germany’s exit from coal-fired power forward from 2038, ‘ideally’ to 2030.” It adds: “Green co-leader Robert Habeck is Scholz’s vice chancellor, heading a revamped economy and climate ministry.” [See the Carbon Brief Q&A on the coalition government’s climate plans.] Politico has a piece introducing the priorities and personnel of Germany’s new government. Separately, Reuters reports that Germany’s “gas lobby on Wednesday called for €800m ($903m) in sponsorship to build plants to turn natural gas into hydrogen”.

Mohammad Barkindo, the secretary general of oil producers’ cartel OPEC, has criticised “misguided” calls to cut investment in oil and gas to tackle climate change, Reuters reports, instead “arguing that producers have a critical role to play during the transition to cleaner fuels”. Speaking at the World Petroleum Congress via webcast, Barkindo argued that a lack of investment in fossil fuels could lead to energy shortages and higher prices, the newswire adds. It continues: “Speakers at the four-day conference this week have offered their own dire counterpoint to last month’s COP26 climate conference. Where environmentalists at COP26 warned of a climate catastrophe, oil and gas executives forecast uncertain energy security and supply without their products.” The piece notes: “OPEC’s estimates of future energy needs put the share of oil and gas in the energy mix at 52% by 2045, with renewables making up the remaining 48%, [Barkindo] said.” [The International Energy Agency 1.5C pathway sees oil and gas making up less than 20% of the energy mix in 2050, with renewables making up two-thirds of the total.]

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that the UK was “embarrassed” into supporting a gas extraction project in Mozambique, according to the legal representative of NGO Friends of the Earth, during a court challenge to the funding. Separately, Reuters reports that the government of the Canadian province of Alberta has granted relief from carbon costs to “Canada’s most emissions-intense oil sands facility”. Another Reuters article reports that the push for net-zero emissions “will lead oil refiners to overhaul future projects and spending, said analysts and executives”.

Alternative model emissions pathways released by the federal government and Labor opposition in Australia feature in the Sydney Morning Herald, which reports that nearly 40% of the country’s coal plants would close by 2030 under both plans. It says government modelling would see renewables reach a 69% share of the electricity mix by 2030, with Labor’s plan offering a higher 82%. It adds: “Opposition climate change and energy spokesman Chris Bowen has said his policy would not cause early closure of any coal plants.” An article in the Guardian says “both claim there will not be an accelerated closure of Australia’s ageing coal plants that currently provide the bulk of the power” but adds that this is “implausible”. It quotes one analyst in reporting that even if demand for electricity increases “it ‘doesn’t add up’ to suggest there will not be more early coal closures”. Another Guardian article reports that Labor leader Anthony Albanese is calling for a “grassroots mobilisation” of religious Australians to tackle climate change. It quotes him saying: “We need to make action on climate change happen…And part of what today is about is getting that grassroots mobilisation from people of faith who understand the connection of the creation.”

A comment for the Guardian by Richard Denniss, chief economist of thinktank the Australia Institute, compares the modelling approaches of the ruling coalition and the Labor opposition, noting that the latter aims for a 43% emissions cut by 2030 against the current government target of 26-28%. He says both parties are now in agreement that coal-fired power stations will close, no new ones will be built and that the country’s coal exports will steadily decline. Denniss concludes: “The Australian climate debate is moving fast as the Liberals try to avoid being wedged between the pressure from independent candidates and the petulance of their National party colleagues. This March, the NSW Liberals sacked [former prime minister] Malcolm Turnbull from a climate advisory role for admitting we don’t need to build any new coal mines. Imagine where we might be by next March?” Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that Turnbull is backing “climate-focused independents running in Liberal seats” ahead of the general election next year.

In other news from Australia, ABC News reports that flooding has closed a coal mine in Queensland. Argus Media reports that Australian firm Fortescue Future Industries “has formed a joint venture with domestic utility AGL Energy to study the feasibility of converting two coal-fired power plants to produce hydrogen”. Another ABC News feature is titled: “Nottingham’s coal industry died, so it reinvented itself in a bid to be the UK’s greenest city.” Reuters reports that commodity trading firm Trafigura plans to build a $540m hydrogen plant at its lead smelter in South Australia.

Elsewhere, Grist reports on how Greece “wants to make coal ancient history”. And the New York Times reports that opposition from coal mining unions is the “Achilles Heel” of Biden’s climate plan.

The US should study the use of methods such as cultivating seaweed or manipulating nutrients in the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide, according to a report covered by Reuters. It says the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report recommended an initial $125m research programme to explore ocean carbon removal, the newswire says. The report outlined six options for enhancing ocean carbon uptake, Associated Press says: “The scientists said the most promising possibilities include making the seas less acidic with minerals or jolts of electricity, adding phosphorous or nitrogen to spur plankton growth and creating massive seaweed farms.” It says the academy report suggested a $1bn research programme over the next decade and adds: “The report doesn’t advocate geoengineering the oceans, just exploring how it could be done.” The Hill coverage is titled: “Panel suggests US tinker with oceans to fight climate change.” MailOnline has the headline: “How we could geoengineer Earth’s oceans to combat climate change.”

An editorial in the Guardian asks how Shell “ever decide[d] that there was an economic case” for the Cambo oil field off Shetland, given its commitment to becoming a net-zero emissions company by 2050. “[L]ittle of this environmental awareness shows up in the hard numbers,” the paper notes. It continues: “The company’s latest accounts features this disclaimer: ‘Shell’s operating plans, outlooks, budgets and pricing assumptions do not reflect our net-zero emissions target.’ In other words: whatever the oil giant says is not what it thinks. This is not an accusation of corporate hypocrisy, of saying one thing and doing quite another. Here is something far more troubling: the multinational is openly admitting that its core assumptions have not changed to reflect the greatest single threat to our planet, our economy – and its business model.” The editorial adds that it is “nonsense” for Shell’s auditor, EY, to claim it cannot challenge the company’s assumptions. The piece concludes: “This isn’t to single out Shell; it is just one obvious example. In a recent review, the thinktank Carbon Tracker recently found that 70% of companies and 80% of auditors failed to disclose climate risk in their financial reports. The government is consulting on reforms to the often scandal-hit audit industry. This would seem an obvious issue for [secretary of state] Kwasi Kwarteng to take up. Let’s value companies according to hard limits being imposed on us by the planet, rather than according to the fictions dreamed up by fossil fuel industries.”

A feature in the Financial Times looks at the challenge for oil majors competing to recruit staff: “If the sector is to achieve its net-zero targets, it must persuade graduates it really is changing.”

“The world must get to work quickly on reducing emissions”, according to Patricia Espinosa, UN climate chief, in an interview with Reuters. Espinosa believes the 1.5C target remains with reach, newswire adds, quoting her saying: “We really have a very short time to produce results.” Espinosa is also quoted saying the Glasgow Climate Pact language on coal and fossil fuel subsidies “shows that there is a consensus around the notion that we need to get away from coal, and we need to get away from fossil fuels as well”.

A new paper aims to help resolve conflicting estimates of the historical sensitivity of global photosynthesis to CO2. The paper notes that estimates of how much photosynthesis increases in response to rising CO2 levels – known as “CO2 fertilisation” – differs “by an order of magnitude between long-term proxies and terrestrial biosphere models”. Using an “emergent constant” that “combines terrestrial biosphere models with global carbon budget estimates”, the study suggests that CO2 fertilisation increased global levels of photosynthesis by around 14bn tonnes of carbon per year between 1981 and 2020. This is equivalent to around 12%, an accompanying News & Views article says, adding that the findings “provide better estimates of how fertilisation affects atmosphere–land CO2 fluxes”.