There is widespread coverage of the speech given by UK prime minister Boris Johnson at the UN general assembly in New York. BBC News, in the lead article online, quotes him saying that countries must take responsibility for “the destruction we are inflicting, not just upon our planet but ourselves”. Johnson said the COP26 climate summit in 40 days will be a “turning point for humanity”, the broadcaster reports. It adds: “Johnson praised China’s president Xi Jinping for his recent pledge to stop building new coal-fire energy plants abroad. But he called on the country – which produces 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions – to go further and end its domestic use of coal, saying the UK was proof that it could be done.” According to BBC News, Johnson called for a global ban on combustion engine vehicle sales by 2040, an end to coal power by 2030 in developed countries and the same for developing countries by 2040. Reuters reports that Johnson used his speech to “contradict[] Muppets character Kermit the Frog by saying, ‘it is easy to be green’”. The newswire adds that he said: “We have an awesome power to change things and to change things for the better, and an awesome power to save ourselves.” Politico reports that Johnson “claims his time as London’s mayor changed his mind about the need to act on climate change”. It adds: “The Johnson skeptics remain skeptical, and mull whether his new climate zeal is motivated more by electoral politics than science.” Last night, the Press Association previewed the expected contents of the speech under the headline: “Johnson: Grandchildren will blame us for climate destruction if we don’t act now.” The Financial Times leads its preview by saying that Johnson was expected to use the speech “call on China to ditch domestic coal-fired power”. Associated Press also previewed the speech.

In related comment, Times columnist David Aaronovitch says Johnson “should explain his climate conversion”, adding: “A personal account of why he changed his mind about global warming would help win sceptics to the cause of COP26.” An editorial in the Evening Standard reflects on Johnson’s “White House climate challenge”. It says: “Hosting COP26 places a tremendous responsibility on Britain. [Johnson] will want to demonstrate that our influence abroad has not been diminished by Brexit. The prime minister needs to construct a sense of momentum leading up to the Glasgow summit, and that will require US support.” An editorial in the Daily Mirror is titled: “PM all hot air.” It says Johnson is “right to champion this cause” and adds: “But he does himself no favours by lecturing other states about backing developing nations when his own government has cut its ­international aid budget. Britain is also failing to meet its own targets on cutting carbon output. The prime minister needs to start practising what he preaches.” Elsewhere, the Independent reports that Dominic Raab, the UK’s deputy prime minister, has “confirmed” that “[c]ash to help poor countries meet climate emergency is taken from aid budget”, despite the requirement under the Paris Agreement for climate finance to be “new and additional”.

Finally, the Press Association reports that “nearly 200 police dogs” will be deployed to “sniff out trouble at COP26”.

New climate announcements made by the US and China at this week’s UN general assembly have “left climate negotiators more hopeful for the COP26 summit”, the Financial Times reports. It explains: “A surprise announcement from President Xi Jinping that China would end funding for international coal power plants, combined with a fresh pledge from President Joe Biden to double US climate aid, have injected a rare note of optimism into fraught climate negotiations, just five weeks ahead of the Glasgow summit.” The i newspaper reports that Biden’s pledge “means developed nations [are] set to hit crucial funding target ahead of COP26”, albeit by 2025 rather than 2020 as they had promised in 2009. It says the extra money “puts rich nations on track” to meet the $100bn target, citing Oxfam analysis: “That means current pledges and plans from rich nations total $98.7bn-$100.7bn a year of climate finance, according to Oxfam analysis, pushing them past a crucial $100bn a year threshold set back in 2009.” But the paper adds: “But some experts warn developing nations are unlikely to be satisfied. Rich nations had promised to deliver $100bn a year every year between 2020 and 2025. Hitting that threshold five years’ late will leave poorer countries short of the billions they were promised, experts warn.” The Guardian reports that China’s pledge on overseas coal finance “could buy the world about three more months in the race to keep global heating to a relatively safe level of 1.5C, experts say”. It adds: “Although the impact will depend on implementation, China’s declaration should also help to kill off coal, which has been humanity’s primary power source for most of the last 200 years.” A piece by thinktank E3G says the pledge “can turbocharge the existing global transformation away from coal power”. In a comment for Reuters, columnist Clyde Russell describes the overseas coal pledge as “low-hanging coal fruit” and adds that the “real challenge is at home”. Energy Monitor reports: “China is failing to advance renewable energy installations while boosting its pipeline of polluting [coal and steel] projects, reveals a report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.” BusinessGreen reports the US and Chinese pledges under a headline that says the “writing is on the wall for coal power”.

John Kerry, US president Joe Biden’s climate envoy, has said that he will return to China in the coming weeks to follow up on Biden and China’s President Xi’s phone call earlier this month, reports Bloomberg. It cites Kerry’s comments during an interview with MSNBC. “I’m confident President Xi [and] President Biden will meet at some point, I don’t know when, but I’m going to be going back to China somewhere in the next weeks to follow up on the conversation with President Xi and President Biden,” Kerry is quoted saying. Last week’s China Briefing reported on the phone call between the two leaders. Separately, Bloomberg reports Kerry saying China should start cutting emissions sooner, while a Guardian editorial reflects on Biden’s UN speech, arguing that the challenge of climate change “require[s] international cooperation”, adding: “The US president is right to say he does not want a cold war with China.”

Meanwhile, there is more coverage on President Xi’s pledge that China “will not build new coal-fired power projects abroad”. A report by the Daily Telegraph’s China correspondent, Sophia Yan, calls the announcement “an important boost in tackling climate change if fully realised”. But the piece also says that “the announcement so far seems more form than substance”, adding “Mr Xi didn’t provide a timeframe or a roadmap for how to accomplish this in his remarks”. Newsweek writes: “Xi’s passing mention of overseas coal projects has won early praise, but analysts say more information is needed regarding its domestic plants and those already underway in other nations.” In Chinese state media, Dr Ruan Zongze, executive vice president of the China Institute of International Studies, tells Xinhua that Xi’s pledge is “another remarkable step taken by China on its own initiative to cope with the global climate change”. Global Times, a state-run tabloid, says in an editorial that Xi’s announcement “is widely regarded as China’s latest significant promise”.

Elsewhere, China News Service reports that Tsinghua University in Beijing has established a Carbon Neutrality Research Institute. The state-run newswire says that the institute will strive to build a technology centre, a thinktank and strategic centre, a talent base and a communication platform. Finally, according to China Daily, Xiamen University has released a “carbon neutrality development index” to assess various regions’ “implementation, development condition and policy deployment” under the country’s 2060 climate goal.

The costs of cutting emissions are “far less” than the impacts of climate change on European companies, banks and economy, according to analysis by the European Central Bank reported by the Financial Times. The paper explains: “The ECB reached its conclusion after calculating the potential impact of climate change on 4m companies and 1,600 banks in Europe over the next 30 years, for which it published results on Wednesday. Its findings come as surging European energy prices intensify a political backlash against Brussels’ plans to extend carbon taxes, a central policy of the EU’s drive to hit net-zero emissions by 2050.” It adds that the ECB found climate impacts “could knock 10% off European GDP”. The New York Times also covers the ECB report under the headline: “A low-carbon economy is cheaper than the costs of climate change, a report says.” It quotes the report saying: “The short-term costs of transition pale in comparison with the costs of unfettered climate change in the medium to long term.”

In other EU news, the Bloomberg reports that the bloc’s “Fit for 55” climate package is “likely [to] avoid drastic changes in [the European] Parliament”, according to MEP Pascal Canfin. However, the Financial Times reports: “Surging gas and electricity prices in Europe have intensified the political backlash against Brussels’ plans to extend carbon taxes on petrol and heating bills.” It adds: “The price squeeze has emboldened countries such as Spain and France that are firmly opposed to the planned revamp of the EU’s carbon pricing system.” Bloomberg reports: “The Greek government suggested creating a European Union-funded mechanism that could use revenue from extra sales of carbon permits to limit the impact of soaring energy costs on consumers and companies.” Reuters reports on a proposal from the European Commission on Wednesday, that would tie trade access to the bloc to “environmental and governance standards”. It continues: “The European Union has run its ‘generalised scheme of preferences’ (GSP) for five decades and for its latest update, to run from 2024, wants a greater stress on its own Green Deal strategy and goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.” Another Reuters article says EU countries have extended their deadline to study the bloc’s proposed rules on green investment, known as the sustainable finance taxonomy.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has cut its recommended limits for air pollution, reports the Guardian, and urged nations to tackle “dirty air and save millions of lives”. The newspaper adds: “In the first update for 16 years, the guideline limit for the most damaging pollution – tiny particles from burning fossil fuels – has been halved…Air pollution kills at least 7 million people a year, the WHO said, while a recent study estimated 8.7 million early deaths a year from coal, oil and gas burning – 20% of all deaths.” Bloomberg headlines its coverage: “WHO toughens air quality standards as climate link strengthens.” It says: “Activities that produce fine particulate matter also emit the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. The two problems can be tackled at the same time, using similar tools, the UN agency said.” Reuters says the UN hopes the new guidelines will “spur countries toward clean energy and prevent deaths and illness caused by air pollution”. Roger Harrabin, BBC News’s environment analyst, notes: “The changes to the guidelines mean the UK’s legal limits for the most harmful pollutants are now four times higher than the maximum levels recommended by the WHO.”

There is continuing UK media coverage of the “Insulate Britain” climate protests, which have continued on the M25 motorway circling London. The Guardian reports that the campaigners have “vowed to continue” after National Highways was granted an injunction against their protests. The newspaper adds: “At least 270 people have been arrested following five protests…On Wednesday, the government successfully applied to the high court for an order which prohibits anyone from blocking the M25. Anyone who breaks the injunction could be found to be in contempt of court, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison or an unlimited fine.” BBC News says the protesters have been warned by police that their tactics may cause “serious injury or death”. Insulate Britain protester Dr Bing Jones, who has been arrested four times in the last eight days, told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme: “I really think it is worth it. I’m willing to go to prison over this.” The Daily Telegraph and Reuters are among many outlets covering the story.

Meanwhile, an editorial in the Daily Telegraph says: “It is bizarre that activists should imagine that cavorting on the M25 will make any difference to the countries responsible for most emissions, like China. Many people worry about climate change and seek to make a contribution to mitigation efforts. The activities of groups like these help no-one.” An editorial in the Daily Mail says: “As ever, [the protestors] epitomise hypocrisy. By forcing vehicles to sit in tailbacks they increase pollution.” An editorial in the Evening Standard says: “Putting lives at risk does not advance the cause of combating climate change. Eye-catching protests may capture attention, but lasting change requires bringing people with you. The frontpage of the Daily Star mocks the protestors as “thick as custard”.

The cabinet of South Africa has approved a more stringent cap on the country’s emissions in 2030, Reuters reports, with a range of 350m-420m tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) instead of its previous draft target of 398-440MtCO2. The newswire says a climate commission established by president Cyril Ramaphosa had recommended that the previous draft should be improved. It adds that the target will form part of an updated nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement, which will be submitted ahead of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow at the start of November. Another Reuters article says oil and chemical firm Sasol, has raised its emissions target for 2030 to a 30% reduction on current levels, up from an earlier goal of a 10% cut. The newswire reports that the firm “aims to become a net-zero carbon emitter by 2050, its chief executive said on Wednesday”. It adds: “The company has come under pressure from investors and environmentalists to take decisive steps to clean up its heavily polluting plants, often described as amongst Africa’s worst greenhouse gas emitters (GHG).”

The European energy crunch precipitated by high gas prices continues to dominate newspaper frontpages in the UK. In a frontpage story, the Guardian reports that companies profiting from the crisis could face a one-off windfall tax “to help ease the burden on household bills”, with business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng telling MPs yesterday the idea was among the options on the table. The Guardian continues: “Kwarteng said safeguarding energy consumers was a government priority in its plans to tackle the deepening gas crisis, which has caused UK gas markets to climb more than fourfold in the last year after a global boom in gas demand. The minister downplayed the role of Britain’s meagre gas storage facilities as a cause for the UK’s record gas market prices, saying the issue was ‘a red herring’.” The paper adds that two more energy firms, Avro and Green, “went bust” yesterday, adding to five other small suppliers that have already ceased trading. A frontpage story for the Daily Mail reports: “Fat cat energy firms profiteering from the gas price crisis could face a windfall tax, with ministers ‘looking at all options’ to help households facing rocketing bills.” The Daily Telegraph also covers Kwarteng’s comments on the frontpage of its business section. The Financial Times reports that power company Drax has said it could keep its coal units operating beyond their planned closure date next year. The paper reports: “[Drax chief executive Will] Gardiner stopped short of saying the company would run its coal plants at full capacity throughout winter, a move that would help preserve gas supplies for home heating, but he indicated it was considering all options and could respond to government requests.” The Press Association reports that UK “taxpayer[s] could pay tens of millions of pounds to subsidise a major US-owned fertiliser manufacturer to ensure the supply of CO2 for the food sector continues amid the energy crisis”. Meanwhile, the Times reports that French utility firm EDF has “insisted [its nuclear reactors in the UK] had enough CO2 to last the winter, amid fears they might have to be shut if supplies were not restored”. Elsewhere, Reuters reports: “Global record high natural gas prices are pushing some energy-intensive companies to curtail production in a trend that is adding to disruptions to global supply chains in some sectors such as food and could result in higher costs being passed on to their customers.”

Separately, the Press Association reports that the government was warned “at least two years ago” that the energy sector retail market was fragile. In related comment and analysis, an article in the Times says the current crisis was “years in the making”. It adds: “It is unfair to put all blame on ‘badly run’ firms: regulatory failings and flawed competition incentives are just as much at fault.”

For the Guardian, economics editor Larry Elliott writes that the UK faces a “triple crunch” adding: “The combined challenges of an economic slowdown, rising energy costs and the transition to net-zero loom over this government.” A Daily Mail editorial and the lead comment for the Daily Mail, by columnist Alex Brummer, call for fracking for shale gas – and small modular nuclear reactors – as the solution to the current crisis, which is being caused by high gas prices. Brummer concludes: “The nation is engaged in a monstrous act of self-harm. To avoid prolonging this crisis, we should consider urgently giving the fracking pioneers and North Sea drillers the only ‘green’ light that matters: the one that says ‘Go’.” In the Sun, Rod Liddle writes under the headline: “Windfarms only give a fraction of the power we need – we should have been investing in nuclear power.” [Bloomberg reports: “UK wind power generation climbed to the highest level in more than a month on Wednesday, easing the country’s reliance on expensive natural gas.”] Also writing in the Sun, climate sceptic Bjorn Lomborg says that he is being “censored” over his claims, which he repeats in his article, that global warming will “save lives”. In the Daily Telegraph, Iain Dale writes: “Our failure to invest in new nuclear infrastructure over the last 30 years is catching up with us.”

New York Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman has an in-depth feature on John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate. Kerry is “under mounting pressure”, she writes: “His trip last week ended without a commitment from India, the world’s third largest greenhouse gas emitting country, that it would raise its ambitions to fight climate change. He ended a recent trip to China, the top emitter, similarly empty-handed. Brazil, which plans to continue burning coal for the next 30 years and where deforestation of the Amazon is a major contributor to climate change, skipped a virtual climate meeting convened by Mr Biden last week.” In many ways, Kerry’s career “has been building to this moment”, says Friedman, with former aides and colleagues telling her that “Kerry’s approach to diplomacy remains largely the same today: optimistic and relentless”. She continues: “Aides say he is focused on details, texting his staff late into the night to seek a country’s solar capacity statistics or economic data or with more obscure questions.” Despite the challenges, Kerry and his 35-strong team of policy experts “have had some success”, notes Friedman: “On Tuesday, President Xi Jinping announced at the United Nations that China will stop financing overseas coal projects, an issue that Mr. Kerry had made a priority during his discussions with Chinese leaders. Earlier this year Canada, South Korea and Japan raised their climate targets, all in large part because of prodding from the US.” And, she adds, Biden’s announcement this week on doubling aid on climate change to developing countries “was a result of direct conversations with Mr Kerry who argued that increasing climate finance will be critical to the success of the Glasgow summit”.

New research explores how the risks of “compound extremes” – the co-occurrence of climate extremes such as floods, droughts and heatwaves – could change across the population of India. Using CMIP6 climate model output, the researchers assess five compound extremes under three scenarios (SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5). The findings show that “all the compound extremes are expected to increase in future under all the emission scenarios”. The authors add that “the total exposure in central northeast India is projected to be the highest while Hilly Regions are likely to have the lowest exposure in future”.

A new study estimates that crop yield failures across “global breakbaskets” will increase by up to 4.5 times by 2030 and up to 25 times by 2050. The authors use an ensemble of models to project the likelihood of rice, soybean, maize and wheat yield failures across global and national breadbaskets. The analysis highlights top producing agricultural regions that will “face challenges” in continuing to provide the global food system with large quantities of one or more major crops as the climate warms. It also “reveals high water scarcity across crop breadbaskets in India, China, and the United States”.