The Times reports that “Boris Johnson will warn G7 leaders this week that a climate change deal will be possible this year only if the West provides money to help developing countries tackle Covid-19”. The newspaper continues: “The UK is expected to contribute more than 100m vaccine doses worth £2bn via Covax, the UN-backed scheme that aims to supply jabs to low and medium-income countries. Johnson will tell world leaders next weekend that unless other countries follow suit it will diminish chances of a climate deal to keep alive the aspiration to limit global warming…Johnson hopes to use the G7 meeting in Carbis Bay, Cornwall, as a ‘launchpad’ for the climate conference, in particular by corralling rich nations to contribute towards the cost of decarbonising the developing world. He will make the point that Covid has severely hit the finances of poorer countries and until the virus is defeated there will not be the confidence or the money to invest in clean technologies.” The Times quotes a UK government source saying: “We need to be in a position where, by November, people can see that the worst of Covid is behind them. The last thing we want is for developing countries to come to [COP26] feeling aggrieved that the virus has been tackled in the West but not the rest of the world.” Separately, an article for the Herald Scotland quotes former COP26 president Claire O’Neill telling BBC Scotland’s Sunday Show that there is a “question mark” over whether the Glasgow summit will take place or be delayed. She says of ongoing virtual climate talks: “I’m hearing from very reliable sources that at the end of this virtual negotiation period, the parties, the 198 parties, will decide whether they’ve made enough progress to go ahead in Glasgow. And of course there is then a question about in-person or virtual [attendance], because some countries find the idea of virtual negotiations to be very difficult.”

Meanwhile, today’s frontcover story for Politico runs under the headline: “Trouble brews at home as Boris Johnson plays climate hero on world stage.” The article says: “In his effort to live up to the hype of hosting the COP26 UN climate summit in November, Johnson has set world-leading emissions goals, but achieving them means a difficult conversation with the public and his own party: one experts and officials worry Johnson is avoiding.” The publication quotes Chris Stark, chief executive of the UK’s Climate Change Committee: “It’s great to see the enthusiasm that there is from No 10 to do all of this, but we haven’t had much since [the 10-point plan]. Many of the things that we need to do to get to net-zero rest on the willingness of the people in this country to go with this program that the prime minister’s set out. It’s top-level politics rather than engaging with people in the country on what it means, and I’m very worried about it.” Similarly, the Independent carries the views of Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader who is now the party’s shadow business secretary. He says, reports the news outlet, that “Britain risks a repeat of the angry ‘yellow vests’ protests in France if the huge changes needed to prevent a climate disaster fail to tackle the other ‘injustices’ people face”. Miliband adds: “That was an example of him not recognising that, if you are going to go down this green road – and I believe we absolutely must do – it has got to be seen as fair.”

In other UK news, the i newspaper covers a new Oxfam report which concludes that the annual cost of coping with the impacts of climate change will “dwarf” the economic cost of Covid-19: “The UK will fare slightly better than the G7 average. If greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory to 2050, the UK would be facing an annual economic hit of 6.5% a year by that date, according to the modelling.” The Guardian reports that “the UK’s 100 richest families are being urged to commit £1bn over the next five years to tackle the climate emergency and halt the destruction of the natural world”. It adds: “Ben Goldsmith, an investor and philanthropist, and one of the signatories to the letter, said: ‘Given what is at stake for the planet, it is odd that we have so few people giving money and funding these problems. This is the mother of all problems – everything else is subservient to this.’”

The Times says that campaigners are urging the Bank of England to “use upcoming climate stress tests on financial institutions to force them to reduce business that is damaging to the environment”. The Independent covers new data collated by Reclaim Finance, a group campaigning for an end to financial support for fossil fuels, which shows that “the number of ;dirty deals’ between Britain’s biggest banks and the world’s largest fossil fuel companies surged in 2020 despite pledges from financial bosses to be more climate conscious”.

Finally, The Times’s energy editor Emily Gosden has two articles about the prospects of lithium mining in Cornwall. One of them says that “the switch to electric vehicles promises to revive a long-ignored mining industry”, whereas the other says that “a start-up planning to mine lithium in Cornwall for electric vehicle batteries is preparing to tap investors for cash at a valuation of more than £80m and aims to list in London next year”. An accompanying editorial in the Times in supportive: “It won’t be easy to get out. Extracting lithium carbonate from granite rock, sometimes in disused clay mines, will need specialised machinery and a lot of money. But already there are signs that speculators have started the rush.” And the Press Association covers the demolition of four cooling towers at the Rugeley coal power station in Staffordshire, which closed in 2016.

Finance ministers from the G7 nations agreed at a pre-summit meeting in London over the weekend to mandate climate reporting in line with the recommendations of the global Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), reports edie. The sustainability news publication describes the move as “historic”, adding: “G7 finance ministers made a commitment at the meeting to make it mandatory for corporates to report climate impacts and investment decisions, alongside new measures to strengthen central company beneficial ownership registries to crackdown on environmental crime. The agreement to mandate climate disclosure does not yet have a timeframe attached, but the wider G20 group of nations are also set to discuss the topic, potentially meaning that an international agreement could be achieved prior to the COP26 climate negotiations in Glasgow this November…There are now more than 1,500 companies that support the TCFD’s recommendations, including corporates with a combined market cap of $12.8tn and investors with $138.8tn of assets under management collectively. This is an enormous uptake of 85% since 2019.” The full communique from the G7 finance meeting has been published on the UK government’s website.

In related news, the Financial Times says: “The People’s Bank of China plans to introduce ‘mandatory disclosure of climate-related information’, said governor Yi Gang, speaking at a conference hosted by the Bank for International Settlements, the so-called central bankers’ bank. He did not outline a timeframe for doing so.” The FT adds: “Asked about his message for the G20 group of nations ahead of the G7 leaders meeting in the UK next week, the Chinese central bank chief said he hoped the countries could agree on a ‘disclosure standard by the end of this year’. Europe has led the charge on climate-related reporting, but with China seemingly moving into alignment with the EU the pressure is building for the US to introduce a similar system.” Bloomberg also covers the story.

Separately, Reuters reports that “US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that she is urging the G7 wealthy democracies and other countries to keep up fiscal support for their economic recoveries and to make investments to fight climate change and inequality”. In the Financial Times, European economics commentator Martin Sandbu says that “climate change is driving an extraordinary pressure for companies to collect and publish data on their activities’ impact on the environment”.

The German government is backing an extension of European Union carbon pricing and an end to free carbon permits for airlines as the bloc prepares new measures to help meet climate change targets, according to a document seen by Reuters. The newswire adds: “The European Commission will propose a dozen climate policies on 14 July, each designed to slash greenhouse gases faster in line with an EU goal to cut net emissions 55% by 2030 from 1990 levels. The package will include reforms to the EU carbon market and a border levy to impose CO2 costs on imported goods. All the policies will need approval from EU governments and the European Parliament.” Reuters says the document it has seen says that “Germany backed the Commission’s plan to impose CO2 prices on transport and heating in buildings through a separate system to the EU’s existing carbon market…Extra measures will be needed to ensure governments have enough resources to address the policy’s social impact – particularly on low-income households and for people who rent their homes, Germany said.” The Guardian says that such a move by Germany would put “pressure on the UK to put in place a similar package to meet climate targets”.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg covers a new policy brief published by the European University Institute which says that the “European Union plan to put a levy on certain emissions-intensive commodity imports may offer only limited protection against the relocation of production to countries with laxer climate policies”. The news outlet continues: “The European Commission’s proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism, part of an economic overhaul to make Europe the world’s first climate-neutral continent, will also require extensive consultations with the World Trade Organization, says [the policy brief].”

In other EU news, the Guardian reports that “environment campaigners in Italy are suing the government for failing to sufficiently tackle the climate crisis in what is the first legal action of its kind in the country”.

China has announced that it would limit its public institutions’ total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 400m tonnes a year by 2025, reports Xinhua. Their total annual energy consumption should stay within 189m tonnes of standard coal (tce) under the same time frame, it adds. In another article, the state news agency introduces how President Xi has led China’s “green action” to mark World Environment Day on Saturday. It includes a series of environment-related quotes from the leader.

Independent Chinese financial outlet Caixin reports that Sinopec, a state-owned oil and petrochemical company, has opened its first “carbon-neutral” gas station. The facility in southern China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region is entirely powered by solar energy, the report says. It can save 81.5 tonnes of CO2 emissions and have a 5.5-tonne net CO2 emission reduction every year, reports China News Service. Sinopec plans to build 500 of those “carbon-neutral” gas stations in Guangxi by 2025, Guangxi Daily states.

Meanwhile, Caixin says the China Three Gorges group, which runs the world’s biggest hydroelectric plant, is set to hold the largest-ever initial public offering (IPO) by a Chinese power company. Investors have responded enthusiastically to the group’s move due to China’s “carbon neutrality” push, reports South China Morning Post. Elsewhere, Reuters reports that CATL, the world’s biggest supplier of electric vehicle batteries, is planning a major plant in Shanghai to cement its global lead.

Writing jointly in the Daily Telegraph, Stanley Johnson, an international ambassador for the Conservative Environment Network and father of the UK prime minister, and Liam Fox, former secretary of state for international trade, argue that “Boris Johnson must push the G7 to adopt [carbon border] tariffs if we are to ensure free riders cannot undermine international efforts”. They continue: “In our view, the logic of [carbon border tariffs, CBTs] is inescapable. Why should countries impose carbon-reduction obligations on their own industries and manufacturers only to see their efforts undercut by imports from countries where it is cheaper to pollute?…Yes, there are technical difficulties to be resolved. Which countries and which industries should be covered and on what basis? How do we measure emissions and how do we prevent cheating? How do we determine equivalence between systems? We believe that CBTs are compatible with the provisions of the World Trade Organization but if there are challenges they must be squarely faced and the UK, chairing both the G7 and COP26, should lead the way. A commitment to this effect in the final Carbis Bay communiqué would not be amiss.” In the Guardian, Andrew Mitchell, a former Conservative international development minister, writes that proposed cuts to the UK’s foreign aid budget must be reconsidered: “The eyes of the world are truly upon us [as hosts of the G7 summit and COP26]. But in this moment Britain is found wanting, because we have removed a foundational piece of our own global leadership. Britain is the only G7 nation cutting aid this year.”

In other UK comment, the Times carries several opinion pieces. Alice Delahunty, president of electricity transmission at National Grid, argues that “addressing gender imbalance can steer us to net-zero emissions”. She explains: “We can’t get to net-zero with a workforce made up of individuals who think the same, have the same backgrounds and who have the same experiences…Women bring unique and varied experiences, mindsets and approaches to problems, and can complement thinking within traditionally male teams.” In another comment piece, Ben Houchen, who is the Conservative Tees Valley mayor, says that “Tees Valley is tailor-made for birth place of green industrial revolution”. And Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who is shadow Defra minister in the House of Lords, argues that “Britain could be left behind in green debate, despite Environment Bill”.

An editorial in the Observer looks ahead to the this week’s G7 summit in Cornwall: “[Boris] Johnson says he wants the summit to focus on ‘creating a greener, more prosperous future’ and will urge other leaders to match the UK target of reducing carbon emissions by 78% by 2035. All well and good, but more is urgently needed. Rich countries have a lousy record on helping poorer ones fight climate change – and are still investing more in fossil fuels than in clean energy.” In the Guardian, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, who were the joint winners of the 2019 Nobel prize in economic sciences, write: “If we can vaccinate the world, we can beat the climate crisis.” And in the Hindu, Alok Sharma, the UK’s COP26 president designate, says that “the time to limit global warming is melting away”.

An editorial in the Washington Post picks up on new British research showing that the Arctic’s coastal sea ice is thinning much faster than experts had previously estimated. It says: “This finding is just another in a long string of warnings from scientists that many of global warming’s predicted effects may be occurring faster or in a more severe manner than anticipated. Climate doubters often point to experts’ uncertainty about how bad climate change and its consequences could be, arguing that inaction might not be as irresponsible as scientists claim. But uncertainty works in both directions; global warming could be tamer than predicted – or far worse. Too many recent measurements have suggested that the consequences might land on the ‘far worse’ side of the spectrum. The uncertainty should not comfort people – it should spur everyone to action.”

Separately, the Daily Telegraph carries a feature by Josephine Moulds on why “climate goals [are] caught in a litigation trap”. She writes: “As campaigners increasingly use the courts to push for a tougher response to climate change, governments now face legal action on two fronts: from companies, if they bring in policies to tackle climate change that damage earnings; and from campaigners, if policies are not considered sufficient to meet their commitments to meet the Paris climate agreement.” And in the Financial Times, energy editor David Sheppard has a feature under the headline: “Big Oil’s political clout wanes as governments embrace green energy.”

The terrestrial carbon storage of northern peatlands could be 18% larger than previously thought, a new study suggests. The authors note that when peatland is “drained and cultivated”, it acts as a CO2 source, but add that this process is not comprehensively captured in current estimates. By running a land surface model that includes peatland processes, the authors find that northern peatlands converted to croplands emitted 72bn tonnes of carbon over 850–2010. They add that 45% of these emissions occurred before 1750. The study also finds that carbon emissions from peatlands decrease with time after drainage, suggesting that this effect could be accounted for in inventories of land-use emissions.