With Europe heading to the polls today to vote for new members of the European parliament, a number of publications assess what the results could mean for action on climate change. Climate Homes News sets the scene: “The EU’s global climate leadership is at stake as a new political cycle begins amid increasingly polarised public opinion. Climate-sceptic far right parties are surging in polls ahead of European parliament elections 23-26 May, while on the streets, activists are demanding emergency measures to prevent climate chaos. In the middle, the emerging consensus is to strengthen the EU’s 2050 target to net-zero emissions. Yet the steps to get there remain highly contested. The goal raises tough questions about the future for coal mining and car making communities in Europe, and the sustainability of trade relations outside it…The bloc, which is viewed as a pace-setter on climate targets, is expected to boost its ambition in an updated contribution to the Paris Agreement next year. Whether leaders can reach a political agreement in time to announce it at UN chief Antonio Guterres’ September climate summit in New York is an open question.” BusinessGreen says the results “could define the EU’s approach to the climate crisis for years to come”. It adds that the elections “may be the first where a mass of voters are motivated explicitly by bloc-wide issues, like climate change and migration, as much as domestic concerns…If the Greens and other aligned parties do well across Europe, they could well find themselves in the position as kingmakers for a majority in parliament, especially if as predicted the traditional main centre-right and centre-left parties shed seats. According to the latest projections from the European parliament, the Greens are on course to win 57 out of the 751 seats up for grabs, their best ever result.” New Scientist has a guide on “how to vote if you care about climate change” which explains where all the parties stand on the issue. EurActiv carries an opinion article by Martin Porter who is the executive chair in Brussels for the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. He says: “If the EU is to regain trust and achieve a renewed social contract, the most progressive response to the climate crisis must be at the core of its new mission.”

The FT reports that the German federal government has “agreed to spend €40bn to cushion the economic blow from the closure of coal mines and coal-fired power plants in eastern Germany and the Rhineland over the next two decades”. The newspaper adds: “The compensation package is part of a historic effort to wean Germany off a fuel that has powered Europe’s largest economy for centuries but that also counts among the dirtiest fuels around. Power plants that run on coal and lignite produced 40% of electricity in Germany last year — and are one of the main reasons why the country has struggled to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets…According to the 44-page outline of the plan that was approved by cabinet on Wednesday, the €40bn will fund a long list of projects, including the creation of research and development centres in affected regions, the expansion of motorway and railway links, and the construction of landmark sites such as a sports arena for international competitions in Leipzig.” AFP also covers the story, adding: “The top EU economy, having decided to phase out nuclear power by 2022, pledged in January to also end the use of dirty coal by 2038 in order to meet its climate targets.” In January, Carbon Brief published analysis showing how far the planned 2038 coal phaseout could mean Germany breaching its Paris Agreement climate goals.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that mining giant BHP has told investors that it is looking to add more oil, copper and nickel resources to its portfolio, while souring on thermal coal because it thinks the fossil fuel will be phased out, “potentially sooner than expected”.

A number of publications cover the findings of a new study published in Nature which locates a recent “spike” of CFC-11 emissions to China. BBC News says: “Researchers say that they have pinpointed the major sources of a mysterious recent rise in a dangerous, ozone-destroying chemical. CFC-11 was primarily used for home insulation but global production was due to be phased out in 2010. But scientists have seen a big slowdown in the rate of depletion over the past six years. This new study says this is mostly being caused by new gas production in eastern provinces of China.” AFP says the paper shows that “since 2013, annual emissions of the banned chemical CFC-11 from that region have increased by about 7,000 tonnes…CFC-11 persists in the atmosphere for about half a century, and still contributes about a quarter of all chlorine – the chemical that triggers the breakdown of ozone – reaching the stratosphere. Two decades ago, CFCs – more potent by far as greenhouse gases than CO2 or methane – accounted for about 10% of human-induced global warming.” InsideClimate News also carries the story. Writing in the Conversation, the paper’s authors call for more environmental monitoring: “There are still parts of the recent global emissions rise that remain unattributed to any specific region. When governments and policy makers are armed with this atmospheric data, they will be in a much better position to consider effective measures. Without it, detective work is severely hampered.”

The New York Times reports that Amazon shareholders have voted down a proposal that would have pushed the company to reconsider its societal impact regarding climate change: “The proposal asked Amazon to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing its carbon footprint…The company’s board had opposed the [change]…The initiative had an interesting twist: Amazon employees, paid in part with stock, pushed the plan. The move introduced a new tactic in the growing activism among tech employees. More than 7,500 workers signed a letter supporting the climate change proposal, disclosing their names publicly.” The Guardian also covers the story, adding: “About 50 members of the group Amazon Employees for Climate Justice attended the event, representing 7,700 staffers who signed a letter publicly urging Amazon to overhaul its climate policy…After the proposal failed to pass, employees attempted to confront Bezos, who declined to meet with them.”

Reuters reports that China’ top planning agency has approved its first batch of subsidy-free wind and solar projects with a combined capacity of 20.76 gigawatts (GW). It adds: “That follows China’s vow in January to launch a series of unsubsidised renewable power projects this year to tackle a payment backlog amid a decline in construction costs in the sector…By April, China had installed wind power capacity of 280GW and solar capacity 130GW, official data showed.”

Separately, Reuters reports that in the US “representatives from more than 70 companies met with US lawmakers on Wednesday to push for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change, and a senator said bipartisan legislation containing such a plan could be introduced in weeks”. It adds: “The gathering, which included PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, Tesla and General Mills, was the largest business group in a decade to advocate at the Capitol for climate legislation.” Meanwhile, in Canada, Reuters reports that the country’s main crude-producing province Alberta has introduced a bill to repeal the provincial carbon tax, “setting up a legal tussle between premier Jason Kenney’s United Conservative Party and Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government in Ottawa”.

People across Europe will need to work “drastically fewer hours” to avoid “disastrous climate heating” unless there is a radical decarbonising of the economy, reports the Guardian. This is according to new research from the thinktank Autonomy, which “shows workers in the UK would need to move to nine-hour weeks to keep the country on track to avoid more than 2C of heating at current carbon intensity levels. Similar reductions were found to be necessary in Sweden and Germany.” The Guardian adds: “The findings are based on OECD and UN data on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in the three countries. It found that at current carbon levels, all three would require a drastic reduction in working hours as well as urgent measures to decarbonise the economy to prevent climate breakdown.” The Independent also carries the story.

In the FT’s “Big Read”, Leslie Hook reports from Washington DC on how the “Trump administration has been hit with an environmental lawsuit, on average, once every five days since taking power in January 2017”. She adds: “Almost every time president Donald Trump has tried to implement his environmental agenda – centred on boosting fossil fuels and cutting regulations – lawsuits have followed. In recent months, efforts to open offshore drilling, launch the Keystone XL Pipeline or support coal mining have all been thwarted by legal challenges.” And these legal battles are about to intensify. “These revolve around the two centrepieces of Mr Trump’s energy and climate policy: his replacement for the Clean Power Plan, which governs emissions from the power sector, and a redrawing of vehicle emission standards. Neither has entered litigation primetime yet, because the final versions of these policies have yet to be published.”

Meanwhile, in a separate article for the Financial Times, David Sheppard shows why the “annual general meetings of BP and Royal Dutch Shell this week confirmed Europe’s two largest oil and gas majors are on diverging tracks in the battle against climate change”.

ProPublica has published an in-depth feature examining carbon credits – and its lead author Lisa Song does not like what she found: “The desperate hunger for these carbon credit plans appears to have blinded many of their advocates to the mounting pile of evidence that they haven’t – and won’t – deliver the climate benefit they promise. I looked at projects going back two decades and…in case after case, I found that carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO2, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last.”

A new study explores what makes people hopeful or doubtful that humanity will address climate change, and the extent to which hope and doubt affect “activism and policy support”. The results of two national surveys in the US “reveal a lack of hope among the public”, the researchers say. For those that do feel hopeful, common reasons include “personal actions and perceived changes in social awareness and norms”. “Hope and doubt are both significant predictors of political behaviours (e.g., donating to an organisation) and support for greenhouse gas mitigation policies (e.g., regulate CO2 as a pollutant), the researchers find.

A new meta-analysis of 97 studies assesses how the distribution of species and their habitats is likely to be affected by climate change. The researchers focus on two metrics: the fraction of remaining species (FRS) and the fraction of remaining area (FRA) with suitable climate for each species. “We found an expected gradual decrease in both FRS and FRA with significant reductions of 14% and 35% between 1 and 2C increase in global mean temperatures,” the researchers say, including “strong impacts” on both mammals and plants with FRS reductions of 19%. The study concludes: “Our research supports the pledge to limit climate change to 1.5C and preferably lower to protect biodiversity.”

Using virtual reality (VR) to communicate the threat of hurricanes could help encourage residents to prepare for an incoming storm, a new study finds. In a pilot study, researchers tested different ways of warning participants of a landfalling hurricane – including “static text and maps emulating those traditionally used by media outlets and local officials to communicate risk, and a VR video simulating a hurricane landfall in a residential neighbourhood”. The findings reveal that “participants viewing both the VR and traditional products are significantly more likely to take action in preparation for the hypothetical landfall than those being exposed to just the traditional products”.