A frontpage story in the Sunday Telegraph reports that Boris Johnson is “privately frustrated” with the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, over his “apparent resistance” to the prime minister’s plans to boost new nuclear power in the UK. Sunak is due to deliver his spring statement on Wednesday, where he is expected to announce new measures to ease the cost-of-living crisis, including potential cuts to fuel duty. Johnson, meanwhile, is due to publish his new energy strategy in response to the global crisis, which is likely to be published “at the end of this week, or early next week”, a source tells the Sunday Telegraph. It reports: “Government sources said Sunak’s refusal to endorse the prime minister’s ‘big bet’ on a radical expansion of the government’s plans for nuclear power risked derailing a key element of the energy security strategy promised by Johnson earlier this month.” However, a report in today’s Times says: “Boris Johnson will host a meeting with leaders from the nuclear power industry today as part of efforts to boost domestic energy supplies…Today’s meeting with nuclear industry bosses will inform the prime minister’s British Energy Security Strategy, which has been hit by delays. It is unlikely to be unveiled until early next week because of tensions with the Treasury and the prime minister’s travel arrangements, which include a trip this week to a Nato summit in Brussels. A government source said that the Treasury had delayed Johnson’s plans for a significant increase in the number of nuclear power plants out of concern about the feasibility and cost…The source denied claims that the prime minister is frustrated with Rishi Sunak, insisting it was the Treasury’s long-standing reluctance rather than a personal disagreement.”

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Johnson said the government was “taking a lot of steps” to create an energy strategy that “relieves the pressure on UK consumers”. He tells the newspaper: “We’ve got to accelerate the drive for renewables and go twice as fast as we possibly can on wind. On nuclear, we need to think again on that and invest in small reactors as well as the bigger projects. We need to be doing solar and make better use of hydrocarbons and we need to make sure that we’ve got the rest of the world helping to move beyond the dependence on Putin’s oil and gas.” The Guardian and Press Association join the Times in reporting that Johnson will chair a meeting on how to increase the UK’s nuclear power output today. And the Sunday Times reports that ministers are exploring the “creation of a state-owned nuclear company that would take stakes in future power stations”. Separately, the Sunday Times reports that Johnson has approached Dieter Helm, an energy consultant and professor of energy policy, to advise the government in drawing up a new long-term energy strategy.

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Sunak says easing the cost-of-living crisis is his “number one priority” for his spring statement. On fuel duty, he tells the paper: “We have frozen fuel duty for over a decade. That’s a tax cut that will be worth billions of pounds over the next few years. So we have got a pretty good track record in easing the burden of fuel taxes.” The Mail on Sunday reports that Sunak “has told colleagues that he is alarmed by the cost” of the UK’s net zero target. He tells the paper: “In the short term we need to make sure we are helping people with the cost of energy but also recognising that things like natural gas have a role to play in our transition. We are going to get to net zero over decades, not over days and weeks.” On fracking, he says: “If there’s a safe way to do it, then it’s definitely something we should be exploring.” But the Mail on Sunday says “he swerves the vexed issue of the green levies which have been applied to energy bills”. Sunak admits: “They’re not the huge reason that the bills are going up.” The Times reports that green groups are calling on Sunak “to move environmental levies off household bills and into general taxation to help ease the pain of soaring gas prices”. BBC News reports the comments a chief executive of an energy supply firm, who said ministers should “insulate the hell out of Britain”. The Financial Times reports that “Tory MPs expect” Sunak will use his statement to cut fuel duty. The Sun reports that MPs are pressurising Sunak to slash fuel duty. The Press Association reports, as do most tabloids, that Sunak is “reportedly gearing up” to cut fuel duty.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times reports that Sunak has “insisted that Johnson should delay publication” of his energy strategy “to give him more time to assess the costs of plans to develop nuclear and green power”. It adds: “Separately, Sunak is being lobbied by the net-zero support group of pro-green Tory MPs, who have written to urge him not to abandon the government’s commitment to environmental policies.”

Elsewhere in UK politics, the Daily Mail reports that ministers are “poised to relax rules for onshore wind farms”. It claims that this could start a “rural backlash”. The Daily Telegraph reports that Jacob Rees-Mogg, now minister for government efficiency, wants to reduce focus on the “social value” of new government contracts”. “The measure currently encompasses a wide range of non-financial metrics including carbon emissions, jobs and the impact on local communities,” the newspaper says. The Daily Express reports that Nigel Farage has been snubbed by Brexit-backing Labour MP Graham Stringer, who abandoned support for Farage’s campaign against net-zero after pressure from party whips.

Several publications report on the International Energy Agency’s warning late last week that nations should conserve fuel amid the worldwide energy crisis. The Times reports that, according to the IEA, “working from home, lower speed limits and car-free Sundays in cities should be adopted as ‘emergency measures’ to cut oil demand”. The Times adds that the IEA’s 10-point says: “Business flights should be curbed, public transport made cheaper or free and motorists should set their cars’ air conditioning systems 3C warmer this summer to cut fuel usage.” In response to the story, the UK government tells the Times: “There is absolutely no need to apply this guidance in the UK, and the recommendations are not under consideration. We have no issues with either gas or oil supply and unlike Europe we are not dependent on Russian energy imports.” The New York Times and the Financial Times also report on the IEA’s 10-point plan.

Deutsche Welle reports that Germany has agreed a long-term energy partnership with Qatar to help cut its reliance on Russian gas, German economics minister Robert Habeck said on Sunday. Habeck is on a two-nation visit to the Arabian Gulf. Habeck said Qatar had pledged more support than Germany had expected, adding: “Although we might still need Russian gas this year, in the future it won’t be so anymore. And this is only the start.” Qatar is the world’s third largest exporter of LNG. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that, according to Habeck, Germany’s gas supply for the coming winter has not yet been fully secured. He says: “This means that if we don’t get more gas by next winter, and supplies from Russia are interrupted, we won’t have enough gas to heat all the houses and start the entire industry.” The Financial Times also covers the story.

Meanwhile, in Austria, Salzburger Nachrichten reports that Austrian finance minister Magnus Brunner has announced another 2bn euros to relieve taxpayers, with one of the reasons given being to reduce the nation’s reliance on Russian gas. Brunner adds that this will include a “fresh” 250m euros for renewable energy. Austrian environment and energy minister Leonore Gewessler adds that this “record budget” will promote solar and wind energy: “Sun and wind don’t send us an invoice, but Gazprom does. It is about freeing yourself from the stranglehold and dependence on Russian gas. The bitter truth is that Austria transfers money to Russia every day, which is also used for the war against Ukraine.”

Separately, Agence France-Presse reports that Belgium has delayed its planned exit from nuclear power by 10 years in response to the crisis. Politico notes that Bulgaria is planning a new gas pipeline to Greece in a “historic shift” away from Russian fossil fuels. And Climate Home News reports that Russia has claimed that international sanctions will stop it from being able to reach its climate goals.

Finally, Reuters reports that European Union governments “will consider whether to impose an oil embargo on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine as they gather this week with US president Joe Biden for a series of summits designed to harden the West’s response to Moscow”.

Saudi Aramco has pledged to boost spending on oil production amid the energy crisis, the Financial Times reports, with chief executive Amin Nasser labelling plans to transition away from fossil fuels as “totally unrealistic”. The FT says: “The world’s biggest oil exporter said years of under-investment in the oil industry was threatening global energy security even as the company cashed in on rising prices, reporting its highest annual earnings since an initial public offering in 2019.”

Several publications report on dramatic heat anomalies in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Guardian reports that temperatures in Antarctica reached 40C above normal in places, while some weather stations in the Arctic hit temperatures 30C above normal. Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Pennsylvania State University, tells the Guardian the heating is “cause for concern”. Reporting on the Antarctic heating, the Washington Post carries a comment from Jonathan Wille, a researcher studying polar meteorology at Université Grenoble Alpes in France, who says: “This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system.” Associated Press also has the story. Elsewhere, BBC News reports on research finding wildfire smoke could be contributing to Arctic ice melt.

Oil major Shell has submitted a revised plan for a North Sea gasfield that was rejected by regulators over climate concerns last year. Shell is seeking to develop Jackdaw, an oil field about 155 miles east of Aberdeen, which it says could produce up to 6.5% of UK domestic gas output. The Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning rejected plans in October because of concerns about how much CO2, which occurs alongside the gas, would be vented into the atmosphere. Jackdaw is one of 46 upcoming oil and gas projects that are not subject to the government’s new climate test under its current form, according to analysis for Carbon Brief published last month. The Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times also have the story. Elsewhere, the Press Association reports that 200 church leaders have called on Boris Johnson to rule out new oil and gas developments.

China’s highest-altitude dam started full operations last Friday, reports the state-controlled newswire Xinhua. The 3 gigawatt Lianghekou hydropower plant is situated on the Yalong River in the Tibetan autonomous prefecture of Garze, Sichuan province, at an average of 3,000m above sea level. “Construction of the project, with an approved investment of 66.5bn yuan ($10.5bn), started in October 2014 and is expected to be fully completed by 2023,” says the newswire.

Elsewhere, the lead author of a new study has identified a “missed opportunity” in China’s reforestation program. Hua Fangyuan, a researcher at Peking University’s Institute of Ecology, said that “many” of China’s reforestation programs are characterised by fast-growing trees planted in monoculture, according to Sixth Tone. The study found that planting diverse native trees provides greater ecological benefits, including carbon storage. According to official data, China has 220m hectares of forests, with “artificial forests” (plantations) accounting for 36% of the total share.

Carbon Brief analysis published in the Observer finds the decision by David Cameron’s government in the early 2010s to cut what he denounced as “green crap” policies will cost every UK household up to £150 a year by the autumn. Dr Simon Evans, Carbon Brief’s policy editor, tells the Observer: “Cutting the so-called ‘green crap’ has left UK households highly exposed to soaring global gas prices and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Energy efficiency and cheap renewables are the fastest and most effective ways to cut gas imports – and household bills.“

The Guardian’s environment correspondent Fiona Harvey examines whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could boost efforts to move away from fossil fuels in western countries. She says: “In an optimistic analysis, if the Ukraine war accelerates the shift to renewable energy in the EU, the UK and the US, it could mark a turning point for the world’s efforts to decarbonise. Campaigners warn the opposite could also be true, and an expanded role for fossil fuels could push the goal of staying within 1.5C of global heating out of reach.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times publishes a long read on whether Europe can wean itself off Russian fossil fuels. The Daily Telegraph carries a comment piece from Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom on her “five ideas for solving the energy crisis” (which include fracking for shale gas). And the Mail on Sunday carries a comment from shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves, who calls on Sunak to implement a “one-off windfall tax on profits of oil and gas producers”.

A series of editorials in the Daily Telegraph and its sister Sunday edition comment on the UK’s future energy supply. An editorial published today says failing to invest in nuclear is the UK’s “greatest mistake” when it comes to energy. It says that investment in the North Sea “neglect the one source of power that would help create self-sufficiency, reduce reliance on other countries and meet low-carbon objectives”. [It fails to adds that renewables also meet this criterion.] A second editorial takes aim at climate policy, saying: “Energy policy remains a mess, with a continued fixation on net-zero, albeit with a greater appreciation of the need for a less disruptive and costly transition. The government has not moved anywhere near quickly enough to progress the renewed exploitation of North Sea oil and gas, and it is still unclear whether ministers have changed their minds about fracking.” An editorial in the Sunday Telegraph also backs a “massive nuclear roll-out”. It says: “The Treasury has been dragging its feet on this for years…Johnson is rightly running out of patience on this, though he should also take heed of Oliver Dowden’s advice no longer to allow net-zero dogma to dictate policy. We need a dramatic acceleration in the provision of nuclear energy in the UK: it is the only way we will address the question of energy security while also ensuring that the lights (and electric cars) don’t go out when the wind fails to blow and the sun forgets to shine.” Meanwhile, an editorial in the Daily Mail says that onshore wind “destroy our beautiful landscapes”. It adds: “Britain has vast unexploited oil and gas reserves. We sit on layers of shale gas. Nuclear too should be an indispensable part of any future power equation.”

The Daily Telegraph also publishes a comment piece by columnist Matthew Lynn with the headline: “Going full ‘Extinction Rebellion’ will not defeat Vladimir Putin.” And a second Daily Telegraph comment by the climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark says: “The government’s absurd commitment to net-zero is impoverishing the nation.”

Writing in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung‘s “klimablog” (climate blog), Lilly Bittner says that Germany’s post-Covid support for economic recovery is increasing CO2 emissions, despite the fact that “many countries have promised to link pandemic-related economic stimulus packages to climate protection”. She says that Germany has only linked about 20% to subsidising energy-efficient heating systems and expanding infrastructure for electric vehicles.

The warming effect of “brown” carbon – an aerosol derived from biomass and fossil fuel burning – in the Arctic is around 30% that of “black” carbon (soot), new research suggests. The authors took measurements of atmospheric brown carbon and quantified its “light-absorbing properties” during a two-month Arctic cruise in the summer of 2017. The study finds that around 60% of brown carbon in the Arctic comes from biomass burning in the mid-to-high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Meanwhile, around 30% comes from fossil fuel consumption and 10% from biogenic secondary organic aerosols. “As climate change is projected to increase the frequency, intensity, and spread of wildfires, we expect brown carbon to play an increasing role in Arctic warming in the future,” the authors warn.