Cambridge University has announced it will cease investments in fossil fuels by 2030 and “ramp up” investments in renewable energy, BBC News reports. It explains: “The university plans to withdraw investments with conventional energy-focused public equity managers by December 2020, build up significant investments in renewable energy by 2025 and divest from all meaningful exposure in fossil fuels by 2030.” Vice-chanceller Prof Stephen J Toope said there was an “environmental and moral need for action” to find “solutions to the climate crisis”, the outlet reports. At £3.5bn, Cambridge has one of the biggest endowment funds of any European university, notes the Guardian, and “students and environmental campaigners have been engaged in a fight to force it to stop funding global polluters”. (Reuters notes that “in February, Extinction Rebellion climate protesters dug up the lawn of Cambridge’s Trinity College as part of a week-long series of demonstrations in the town”.) The Cambridge Zero Carbon Campaign welcomed the announcement as a “historic victory for the divestment movement”, the Guardian reports. In a statement, the group said: “After decades of close collaboration with the fossil fuel industry, Cambridge University has been forced to concede to divestment demands put forward by student and staff campaigners.“ The university’s decision comes after “similar, but less comprehensive commitments by other major universities”, notes Bloomberg: “In April, Oxford University committed to divest its £3bn endowment from fossil fuels in the form of directly held investments and ended further investment in funds that primarily hold stocks of extractive companies.” However, Oxford “did not set a deadline”, says the Financial Times. Cambridge has also said that going forward, research funding and other donations will be reviewed to ensure donors can show “compatibility with the university’s objectives on cutting greenhouse gas emissions before any funding is accepted”, adds Axios. While the Times says academics will “face permanent restrictions on flying to conferences”.

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that the National Health Service (NHS) in England is committing to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2040. The paper continues: “The health service in England, which is responsible for 4% of the country’s climate pollution, said it would cut emissions under its direct control to zero by 2040, and those which include its wider supply chain to zero overall by 2045.” To reach the goal, the NHS set out a series of measures, explains BusinessGreen, including “developing new ways of delivering care at or closer to home; greening the NHS fleet, including road-testing a net-zero emissions ambulance by 2022; reducing waste of consumable products; making sure new hospitals and buildings are built to be net-zero emissions; and building energy conservation into staff training and education”. The move could “put significant pressure” on thousands of suppliers to decarbonise their operations too, notes Reuters. BusinessGreen also reports that the UK National Grid has “unveiled a raft of new science-based climate commitments covering emissions from its core business and value chain as well as air travel and fleet electrification”.

And in related news, the Guardian reports that UK MPs have called on the government to legalise e-scooters in the UK and advertise them to car drivers as a greener alternative for short journeys.

The UK’s first new deep coal mine for 30 years is likely to be given planning permission today, says the Financial Times, in a move that “threatens to undermine the government’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2050”. A council meeting is expected to approve the project in Cumbria, north-west England, the paper explains: “Planning officers at Cumbria county council have recommended giving the go-ahead to the mine, near Whitehaven, which would create 500 jobs in an area reliant on the nuclear and seasonal tourism industries. The council has already approved the pit twice, but after a judicial review brought by campaign groups the application was amended. The £160m mine must now shut by 2049 to meet environmental objectives.” The developer, West Cumbria Mining, said it would extract specialist “coking coal” used in steel and chemical works, not fuel for power stations, the FT adds: “WCM has argued that the coal will displace imports, not add to emissions.” Matthew Pennycook, shadow business secretary, said the government should “call-in” the application “on the grounds of compliance with national net-zero commitments” and make the decision itself.

Meanwhile, the Economist reports on two companies aiming to mine for lithium in Cornwall. Lithium is “an essential component of the batteries that drive electric cars, and deposits across Cornwall are attracting prospectors”, the outlet says: “Global demand for lithium is expected to increase five-fold in the next 15 years, as petrol and diesel cars give way to electric ones. At present most of it comes from Chile, Argentina and Australia. A lot of it must pass through China for processing.”

In other exploration news, Climate Home News reports that Australian energy company Santos has won approval to develop a gas field in Narrabri, New South Wales, “despite major environmental objections”. A Sydney Morning Herald editorial says: “In the next decade Australia will have to impose much tighter controls, such as a carbon tax, on greenhouse gas emissions, including from gas. There is no case to put even one cent of taxpayers’ money into this project. It is up to Santos to decide whether it wants to take the risk.”

A “handful of technocrats” are considering an extension to a UN-led carbon market, reports Climate Home News, in a move “experts warn would undermine the Paris Agreement”. It explains: “The executive board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) could decide by Monday, in a closed-door meeting, whether to keep the market alive beyond 31 December 2020, when its mandate runs out. Established under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the CDM allowed rich countries to meet some of their climate obligations by funding carbon-cutting projects in the developing world. That protocol has been superseded by the Paris regime, which requires every country to contribute climate targets.” Industry is “lobbying the CDM board to keep registering projects and issuing carbon credits until countries strike a deal on new carbon market rules”, says CHN – the earliest that can happen is at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021. But “campaigners argue the board has no mandate to extend the market’s activities and risks prejudicing ongoing negotiations on the future of carbon trading”, the outlet adds. Talks will resume at COP26 on establishing new rules for a global carbon market, known as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, CHN says: “Negotiators could decide to give the CDM a new mandate under this new carbon trading system, but the issue is highly contentious.” For more on the complex issues around Article 6, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth Q&A.

In other COP26 news, the Guardian reports that “fossil fuel firms have held a series of private meetings with UK government officials in an attempt to be part of next year’s crucial global climate talks”. Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that “some of the world’s biggest polluting corporations have been lobbying the government, offering money in return for exposure at COP26 and in one case saying they could act as an intermediary between UK officials and other governments around the world”, the paper says. The government has not yet decided on any sponsors for COP26, but has set out criteria for such sponsors and is inviting offers, the Guardian notes: “The documents show that three companies – BP, Shell and Equinor – have discussed COP regularly with ministers and officials in the past 12 months.” Also reporting on the story, DeSmog says the documents show that oil majors have “consistently been vying for government attention through a steady stream of correspondence”. In one example, it says: “One email from [an Equinor] employee to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in October 2019 asks outright: ‘If I was to ask you – ball park – how much money you would like from us, for what, and with what visibility for us, what would you say?’”

In other news on international climate agreements, Politico reports that documents signed by leaders from Jamaica and two other countries must reach New York by midnight today “to avoid a global climate treaty becoming an orphan”. The story refers to the “Doha amendment”, which created the second phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, under which 37 industrialised countries committed to emissions cuts between 2013 and 2020, the outlet explains: “To enter legal force, the Doha Amendment needs to be ratified by 144 out of 192 signatories – 143 have done so, but the EU’s ratification doesn’t count, so two more are needed. Despite the race to New York, the outcome is largely symbolic. If the documents are delivered to the UN by Friday, the first attempt to legally bind countries to emissions cuts will enter into legal force on December 31, one day before the treaty expires.” (There are reports today that Jamaica might have ratified meaning, if true, the threshold will have been reached.)

Paraguay declared a national emergency yesterday in response to forest fires that are burning “vast swaths of the Chaco dry forest, home to sprawling cattle ranches, jaguars and many indigenous tribes”, reports Reuters. The emergency declaration “boosts funds for fire-fighting and opens the door to requesting international aid to tame the blazes, which have sprouted up throughout the country”, the outlet says, adding: “Regional neighbours Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil are also struggling to contain fires that threaten to reach historic levels amid drought and dry weather.”

Meanwhile, in California, “firefighters coping with limited resources and worsening weather struggled for a fifth day on Thursday to subdue flames menacing the famed Napa Valley wine region”, reports another Reuters piece. The fast-spreading blaze, named the “Glass Fire”, erupted on Sunday “near the Napa Valley resort of Calistoga, some 75 miles (120km) north of San Francisco, then spread into neighbouring Sonoma County”, the newswire says. It adds: “After a brief respite from fierce gusts that had fanned early growth of the blaze, fire crews on Thursday faced a return of strong winds, combined with above-normal heat and very low humidity, prompting red-flag warnings of heightened wildfire risks.” The Washington Post says: “The heat, associated with an unseasonably intense and stubborn area of high pressure parked over the region, is sending temperatures soaring up to 30F [17C] above average for this time of year in some areas.” The Los Angeles Times reports that the “nearly 59,000-acre blaze remains largely uncontrolled”, with just 5% contained – “up a bit overnight, but still too low for comfort”. A second piece in the LA Times notes that northern California – which “is faring so much worse than southern California in this year’s terrible fire season” – has seen “dramatically less rain” than the south over the last 12 months. Axios reports on new data that shows “pollution from California’s dreadful wildfires has substantially curtailed solar power generation in the state”. And the New York Times reports that the historic year for wildfires and hurricanes means that “Americans have spent far more time in emergency housing than in any year during the past decade, smashing 2017’s full-year record with three months left to go”.

In further wildfire news, Reuters reports that “fires in Brazil’s Amazon increased 13% in the first nine months of the year compared with a year ago, as the rainforest region experiences its worst rash of fires in a decade”. Data from the Brazilian space research agency Inpe show that, for example, “September recorded 32,017 hot spots in the world’s largest rainforest, a 61% rise from the same month in 2019”. Reuters also reports that nine people were killed and 14 have been hospitalised as a series of forest fires swept through part of the eastern Ukrainian region of Luhansk. Carbon Brief recently published an explainer on how climate change is affecting wildfires around the world.

Shares in the UK’s two biggest oil companies fell to 25-year lows yesterday after oil prices dropped back below $40 a barrel for the first time in nearly a month, reports the Daily Telegraph. It continues: “BP ended the day 3.1% lower at 218.2p, capping off a 20% decline over the past two months after it revealed a long-term strategy to ween itself off oil and go green, after slashing 10,000 jobs in a desperate bid to save cash. Shell similarly fell to a 25-year low on Thursday, just a day after announcing a sweeping reorganisation of the company, and upwards of 9,000 redundancies.” The steep falls come despite “both companies revealing plans to try to weather lower prices and move towards greener energy production”, says the Times. Bloomberg also has the story, while Reuters explains that the dip in oil prices came as “rising coronavirus cases around the world dampened the demand outlook” and higher output from oil-producing countries last month. The Financial Times “Energy Source” column says the “oil business is feeling more pain”, while Reuters reports that Lonestar Resources has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US, “joining Oasis Petroleum and several other energy companies that have been hit by depressed crude prices and dismal fuel demand due to the Covid-19 pandemic”.

Writing in the Guardian, Jeffrey Frankel – a professor at Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School of Government and former member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers – says that “the terrible toll the [Covid-19] pandemic has taken should remind us of the importance of three things that are also necessary to tackle global warming: science, public policy, and international cooperation”. However, if the likes of the US, Brazil, Mexico and “even the once-sensible United Kingdom” can “downplay the pandemic’s significance and override scientists’ recommendations, they can do the same with climate change”, he warns. Turning to next month’s US election, Frankel says: “If the Democrats take back the White House and the Senate in November, respect for scientific expertise, well-designed public policy, and international cooperation will likely return.” This should have “wide-ranging payoffs”, he says, including “stronger environmental protection”. He concludes: “US voters must choose whether to bring back respect for science and sensible public policy, and an awareness that we live in an interconnected world.”

In other US-related comment, Financial Times columnist John Dizard discusses the potential implications of an additional Republican-appointed judge to the US Supreme Court. He writes: “A Supreme Court firmly cemented on the right does not mean the end of hope for climate policy or for a liberal international order. It does mean that activists must put less faith in arcane regulatory tweaks and more effort into passing laws through Congress.” Also in the Financial Times, Ashley Nunes – a consultant and academic, holding positions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University – says he “wouldn’t bet on” Joe Biden’s plan to create jobs while also tackling climate change. Nunes writes: “There is another way to tackle climate change; one you’d be hard-pressed to get Joe Biden – or any politician for that matter – to acknowledge. It’s called curbing consumption.”

China’s recent commitment to carbon neutrality “reflects three motivations”, writes Adair Turner, chair of the thinktank the Energy Transitions Commission, in the Financial Times. These are: “Awareness in China that climate change will cause it huge harm; a desire to be a responsible global leader; and growing confidence that technological progress can make net-zero emissions attainable without interrupting China’s path to prosperity.” Countries across the world “can now build zero-carbon electricity systems with total costs no higher than for fossil fuel-based systems”, Turner says – meaning that nations “should electrify as much of the economy as possible”. However, despite net-zero targets being announced by countries, businesses and investors, “the chances of avoiding seriously harmful climate change remain worryingly low”, Turner warns. Therefore, “action over the next decade is…just as crucial as mid-century targets”, Turner argues, with “a major role for ‘nature-based solutions’ – preventing deforestation and sequestering carbon in soils by changing the way we use land”. While “last week was a great one in the fight against climate change”, Turner concludes, “now we need commitments to the challenging objective of big emissions reductions over the next decade”.

Elsewhere, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, Thom Woodroofe – a former climate diplomat and now senior adviser on multilateral affairs to the president of the Asia Society Policy Institute – says that China’s target “leaves Australia not just diplomatically isolated, but also economically vulnerable”. He explains: “Diplomacy aside, the potential economic impact for Australia of China’s carbon neutrality pledge should not be underestimated. In the 2018-19 financial year, Australia exported $14bn worth of coal to China. This trade is far more important to Australia than it is to China. It only marginally supplements China’s domestic supply, but makes up a large portion of what is Australia’s second largest export industry.”

New palaeoclimate data from the Gulf of Alaska show reoccurring millennial-scale episodes where Pacific Ocean ventilation – the process that transports water and from the surface mixed layer into the deep ocean – occurs alongside rapid ice sheet discharge. Ventilation of the North Pacific tracks strength of the Asian Monsoon, supporting a role for moisture and heat transport from low-latitudes in North Pacific palaeoclimate. These consistently precede ice discharge events from the Laurentide Ice Sheet, known as “Heinrich Events”. This timing precludes an Atlantic trigger for ice sheet retreat, and instead implicates the Pacific as an early part of a cascade of dynamic climate events with global impact.