The call by the UN secretary general António Guterres for a “quantum leap” on climate action has “heightened concern about China’s coal reliance among climate analysts”, writes the South China Morning Post. It adds that China’s “reluctance to ditch coal due to energy-security concerns – as “evidenced” by Beijing’s “recent greenlighting of more coal-fired power plants – will make the country’s decarbonisation progress “even harder”. The “newly announced” decarbonisation deadlines put a “spotlight” on China, which is the world’s “largest” GHG emitter, accounting for “a third of global GHG emissions, as well as the largest producer and consumer of coal, relying on the fuel to generate over 60% of its electricity last year”. (The Hong-based newspaper is referring to comments made by Guterres on Monday when the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was released where he called for richer, developed nations to move faster than their current net-zero commitments. His remarks have caused some confusion over whether he was referring to CO2 or GHG emissions.) Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at climate thinktank the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, is quoted saying that “it’s clear that meeting the global emissions goals outlined by [Guterres] requires much faster emissions reductions than China is currently prepared to target”. Additionally, the journal Science has published an article by Christoph Nedopil, who is affiliated with Fudan University’s Fanhai International School of Finance, titled: “Lessons from China’s overseas coal exit and domestic support.”

Relatedly, Reuters has published an analysis article by David Stanway and Muyu Xu titled: “China’s new coal plants set to become a costly second fiddle to renewables.” It begins: “China’s plans for some 100 new coal-fired power plants to back up wind and solar capacity have sparked warnings that the world’s second-biggest economy is likely to end up lumbered with even more loss-making power assets. Analysts question the logic of policies that intend to reduce the role of the dirtiest fossil fuel but at the same time require more coal-fired power plants to be built – especially given that only a small number of older plants are typically retired each year.” The Times says that “China’s emergence from years of Covid lockdowns is likely to push oil prices back up to average almost $90 a barrel this year, according to leading analysts”.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping met in Moscow “for two days of talks which ended Tuesday, during which they discussed a major new infrastructure project, Power-of-Siberia 2, to deliver gas to China via Mongolia”. It notes that Putin said Russia, China and Mongolia had completed “all agreements” on “finishing the pipeline to ship Russian gas to China and that Russia will deliver at least 98bn cubic metres (bcm) of gas to China by 2030”, although a “subsequent” Russian statement said “pipeline details still need to be resolved”. Wang Yuanda, China gas analyst at data intelligence firm ICIS, is quoted saying: “The original target is for China to import 38bcm of Russia gas by 2025. Now Russia is saying this will reach 98bcm by 2030. That is a very big jump, so it pays to be slightly cautious on that.” He adds: “China will also be wary of finding itself in a similar position to Europe if it becomes more reliant on Russia.” Quartz runs a story under the headline: “China is gobbling up Russian oil, gas, and coal.” Bloomberg carries a comment piece by David Fickling titled: “Why China keeps pulling the rug on Putin’s pipeline.”

In other China news, the Shanghai-based Sixth Tone carries an article titled: “In China, climate change disrupts a beloved tradition: cherry blossom season.” It says that, viewed from a “longer-term perspective, the date is even more striking”, adding that “historical data shows that the trees now flower significantly earlier than they did in the past”. An article published by China Dialogue writes that “some progress has already been made on disaster preparedness” in Malawi, including a “collaborative project launched in 2014 by Malawi, China and UNDP to support communities in reducing disaster risks”. It adds that the first phase of the programme from 2014 to 2017, which is to “increase vulnerable communities in rural districts’ resilience to flooding”, China contributed $500,000 and UNDP $400,000. The article says it is an example of “south-south cooperation, meaning an exchange of resources, technology and knowledge between emerging economies in the global south, rather than from global north to global south nations”.

There is continuing coverage of the release of the latest IPCC report, with Climate Home News focusing on how government negotiators “fought bitterly last week [at the closing plenary] over which groups and regions are defined as particularly vulnerable to climate change”. The outlet adds: “Representatives of countries from an array of different regions, including Africa, Asia, Latin America and small island states, pushed to be singled out as particularly vulnerable. Tanzania and Timor-Leste asked that the world’s poorest countries, known as least developed countries (LDCs), be added to a list of impacted communities, according to a report of the meeting by thinktank IISD.”

Relatedly, Tim McDonnell in Semafor writes that “international climate negotiators are divided over key elements of a United Nations fund they’re creating to distribute financial resources from richer nations to low-income countries impacted by climate change, negotiators and observers told me this week”. He adds: “With eight months left before the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, two dozen delegates from a range of countries are scrambling to lay out rules for the ‘loss and damage’ fund adopted at COP27 in Egypt last year, that summit’s biggest accomplishment. They have just three scheduled meetings before COP28, the first of which is next week in Egypt, to agree on essential details of how the fund may be accessed and where the money will come from. As talks begin, negotiators say they face steep odds of getting cash flowing soon.”

Returning to the IPCC report, freelance journalist Rishika Pardikar argues in India’s Carbon Copy that it “reveals an unequal science”, adding: “Its climate models fail to reflect and preserve the principles of equity and rights to development while charting decarbonisation pathways.” Mongabay carries an interview with IPCC author Aditi Mukherji “on energy transition in agriculture and water security”. Media Matters for America reveals that the new IPCC report has “garner[ed] just 14 minutes of corporate broadcast and cable TV news coverage” in the US. And Bloomberg’s Lara Williams uses the report’s release to argue that the “climate crisis is coming for your children”.

The United Nations used its first conference on water security in almost half a century yesterday to “exhort governments to better manage one of humanity’s shared resources”, reports Reuters. “We are draining humanity’s lifeblood through vampiric overconsumption and unsustainable use, and evaporating it through global heating,” said UN secretary general António Guterres at the meeting. The newswire adds: “The three-day conference beginning on Wednesday in New York is not intended to produce the kind of binding accord that emerged from climate meetings in Paris in 2015, or a framework like the one set for nature protection in Montreal in 2022…Hundreds of action plans were sent to the UN before the conference started, but the World Resources Institute research group said that while “some commitments offer inspiration, more of them miss the mark”, variously lacking funding or performance targets, or neglecting to address climate change.”

Separately, the Independent reports that researchers from BirdLife International, WWF, the RSPB and the University of Cambridge have released a new study showing that “human infrastructure is present in at least 80% of the world’s most important sites for biodiversity”. The outlet adds: “Publishing their work in the journal Biological Conservation, the researchers overlaid maps with data on different types of infrastructure categorised as transport, dams and reservoirs, extractives, energy, and urban areas…The researchers also said the renewable energy drive, which requires mining for precious metals used in solar panels, wind farms and batteries, must take care to minimise its impact on biodiversity.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Norway has pledged its support for Brazil’s efforts to attract additional donor countries for the Amazon Fund that it helped to set up to fight deforestation and spur sustainable development.

Reuters reports that diplomats from European Union countries are “hoping to avoid a debate among their leaders on a row over the bloc’s planned combustion engine phase-out at a two-day summit which begins on Thursday in Brussels”. The newswire adds: “Last-minute opposition from Germany has stalled the EU’s flagship law to end sales of new CO2-emitting cars in 2035, putting on hold part of the bloc’s strategy to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The unusually late objection to legislation EU countries and lawmakers had agreed last year has raised concerns among some EU officials that political deals on other major laws could unravel. France, meanwhile, is leading a push ahead of final negotiations next week to have fuels based on nuclear energy counted towards the EU’s renewable energy targets.” (See Comment below.) Meanwhile, the Financial Times carries a comment piece by Alan Beattie under the headline: “EU seeks to tone down the imperial style in search for critical minerals.”

Almost a fifth of hospitals in the UK were forced to cancel operations during the three days in July last year when temperatures soared highest, according to new research covered by the Press Association. The newswire adds: “The findings, published in a letter to the British Journal of Surgery, are based on surveys of surgeons, anaesthetists and critical care doctors who were working during the peak of last year’s heatwave, from 16-19 July, when temperatures reached as high as 40C in some parts of the country. The researchers received 271 responses from 140 UK hospitals, with respondents from nearly one in five hospitals (18.5%) reporting that elective surgeries had been cancelled as a result of the heatwave.” The Daily Express quotes the study’s co-author James Glasbey of the University of Birmingham: “Even short heatwaves may result in widespread disruption to surgical services in the UK. The likelihood of extreme weather is growing. We could find ourselves in both a ‘winter’ and ‘summer’ stress situation within the next few years.”

In other UK news, the Financial Times covers remarks made by Lisa Brankin, managing director of Ford in the UK and Ireland, who warns that the UK’s lack of public electric vehicle chargers and the prospect of tariffs on imported battery cars because of Brexit are risking the country’s ambitions to shift away from petrol vehicles.

An editorial in the Guardian argues that Germany’s “rearguard defence of the combustion engine sends a disastrous signal in the race to meet net-zero targets”. It begins: “Germany’s pro-business Free Democratic party (FDP) has long been an uncompromising defender of the biggest domestic car industry in Europe. A couple of years ago, it campaigned against proposals for a national speed limit on autobahns – a move that would have helped reduce Germany’s CO2 emissions. But as a coalition partner in Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrat-led government, it is taking environmental obstructionism to a new level. The FDP is the driving force behind German opposition to Brussels’ plans to ban sales of new cars with internal combustion engines from 2035. Until this month, the date was considered a done deal, and constitutes a vital pillar of the EU’s strategy to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. But Germany is now insisting that the European Commission offers a get-out clause, allowing car manufacturers to carry on producing the engines if they can find a way to deliver carbon-neutral ‘e-fuels’ to run them. The highly technical nature of this debate risks obscuring its dangerous implications for Europe’s climate ambitions.” The editorial concludes: “Europe, given its wealth and its industrial history, bears a special responsibility in the battle to contain global heating. Hard times have undoubtedly made the politics of fulfilling net-zero pledges more difficult, and handed an opportunity to the populist right in particular. But the response cannot be to delay and water down necessary action in the hope that, Mr Micawber-style, some new technology turns up to solve the problem. As cold political winds begin to blow, the pace and necessity of Europe’s green transition urgently needs defending.” An editorial in the Times focused on the relationship between China and Russia says that “The west must find new ways to win the trust of developing countries, including through practical help in fields such as medicine, green technology and development finance”.

Meanwhile, in other comment, the Daily Mail gives over a whole page to climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark (who is plugging a new book on the theme) to attack the “hysterical language” of the new IPCC report. The Financial Times carries a “big read” titled: “Solar power: Europe attempts to get out of China’s shadow.” And, finally, Bloomberg has published an investigation headlined: “Consumers foot the bill for traders ‘manipulating’ UK power market.” It begins: “Traders at firms including Vitol’s VPI, Uniper SE and SSE Plc have frequently announced they would cut off electricity capacity – sometimes with just a few hours’ notice – ahead of the busiest evening periods. At the same time, they offered power from their plants in a special side market where they charged higher prices to meet the shortfalls they helped create…In response to detailed questions, most firms featured in this story provided brief statements saying they comply with regulations.”

Since 2008, population densities of shallow-reef fishes, invertebrates and seaweeds around Australia have generally decreased near the northern limits of species’ ranges, and increased near their southern limits, according to new research. The authors assess population trends in more than 1,000 common shallow reef species at around 1,600 sites around Australia over 2008-21. They find that population declines typically followed heatwave years when local temperatures were more than 0.5C above 2008 temperatures. The paper adds that more than 30% of shallow invertebrate species in “cool latitudes” face a “high extinction risk”, with “rapidly declining populations trapped by deep ocean barriers, preventing poleward retreat as temperatures rise”. The journal has published a research briefing on this study.