There is widespread coverage of a new estimate of the global methane budget, with the Sydney Morning Herald reporting on how the opening of new coal mines and gas fields is making an increasingly large contribution to levels of the potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It reports that the international team behind the new research say agriculture used to provide around two-thirds of non-natural methane emissions, with fossil fuels making up the remainder until the early 2000s. However, since then the “gap has begun to close with the growth of emissions of the gas from fossil fuels double those from farming”, it states. The newspaper notes the research concludes that trends in methane emissions are “consistent with the warmest marker scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. The Guardian says that methane is “second only to CO2 in its contribution to global heating” and that its rising levels are putting the world on a course to 4C of warming. The New York Times quotes Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford University who contributed to the research, saying: “There’s a hint that we might be able to reach peak CO2 emissions very soon. But we don’t appear to be even close to peak methane…It isn’t going down in agriculture, it isn’t going down with fossil fuel use”. This trend is expected to continue despite the economic slowdown from the coronavirus crisis, according to the newspaper. The Daily Telegraph quotes Jackson saying there is “no chance” levels of methane dropped as much as CO2 emissions have dropped due to pandemic lockdowns in recent months. Reuters highlights oil and gas drilling by the US, the world’s top producer, and growing agricultural activities in South Asia, South America and Africa, as being key drivers behind the trend. Carbon Brief has also covered the new findings in depth.

Separately, Sky News reports that Burger King is “tweaking” the diet of some of the cows it uses to produce its beef Whopper burger, adding lemongrass to their feed to help the animals release less methane during the digestion process.

The Trump administration has been “systematically underestimating” the damage caused by CO2 emissions, slashing figures for the “social cost of carbon” used under the Obama administration to assess the impact of new policies, according to findings from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported by the Hill. It notes that this revision, used to justify various environmental rollbacks is “about seven times lower than the prior federal estimates”, cut from $50 per metric ton cost to carbon to $7 per metric ton. The New York Times also has a story on the report by the GAO, which is Congress’s nonpartisan investigative arm. The newspaper says the figure, used to “massage cost-benefit analyses”, has been particularly useful to the Trump administration for revising rules that allow power plants and cars to emit more CO2 in the US. According to the GAO, the administration pushed the numbers down by only factoring in damages that would occur in the US and not internationally, and using an economic calculation called the discount rate “in a way that assumes society should not pay much now to prevent harm from climate change to future generations”, the paper reports. (For more information on the social cost of carbon, Carbon Brief has an explainer from 2017 that begins by stating “the Trump administration may try to amend it”.)

Meanwhile, a variety of outlets have continued coverage of Joe Biden’s plan to invest $2tn in clean energy. The Guardian says the “aggressive” climate and jobs plan would be taken to Congress “immediately” if the Democrat is elected president later this year, according to his advisers. The newspaper quotes Biden’s speech in which he announced the plan: “When Donald Trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster is ‘hoax’…When I think about climate change, the word I think of is ‘jobs’”. The Hill notes the plan also has “an emphasis on correcting racial economic disparities” – and the Financial Times says Biden intends to have the US “rejoin the Paris climate accord and reduce emissions to net zero by 2050”. A “factbox” in Reuters compares president Donald Trump and Biden’s climate policies.

Separately, the Hill reports that 15 states and the city of Washington DC have announced an agreement aiming to make all new truck and bus sales zero-emissions by 2050. In another story, the Hill carries comments from US energy secretary Dan Brouillette saying he believes recent court decisions blocking new fossil fuel pipeline construction “create national security challenges”.

Governments are spending “vastly more” in support of fossil fuels than on low-carbon energy in their coronavirus “green recovery” packages, according to data compiled in a new initiative called the Energy Policy Tracker, reported by the Guardian. The data, assembled by various civil society groups, shows that at least $151bn (£120bn) of bailout funds has been spent or set aside to support fossil fuels by the G20 group of nations, with only about a fifth of this spending conditional on environmental requirements, such as reducing emissions. (See Carbon Brief’s tracker of “green recovery” spending around the world.)

Separately, another piece by the Guardian reports that introducing measures to tackle the “global nature crisis” could create 400m jobs and $10tn (£8tn) in business value each year by 2030, according to a new report published by the World Economic Forum . The findings from the “New Nature Economy” project mark the latest in a series of calls for a green recovery which the newspaper notes have mainly focused on the “climate emergency” so far.

In more green recovery news, Reuters reports that South Korea has announced more details of its plan to spend 114.1tn won (£75.38bn) on a “green new deal”. (Read more about the nation’s plan in Carbon Brief’s green recovery tracker.) The Guardian reports that according to IPPR, a left-leaning thinktank, the UK government’s new “green recovery” plans to upgrade the energy efficiency of homes “will make only a fraction of the progress needed to help the UK meet its legally binding climate targets”.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that the UK government “is poised to reveal plans for a new state-backed green bank to help finance Britain’s climate ambitions, three years after ministers agreed to sell the UK’s Green Investment Bank”.

The increase in high-tide flooding along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the US over the past two decades has been “extraordinary,” according to comments by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported in the New York Times. Over this period some cities have seen flooding frequency grow fivefold and over the last year parts of the US saw record levels of high-tide flooding, the newspaper reports. It notes that despite opposition to climate action from the Trump administration, government scientists at the NOAA have “mostly been allowed to continue gathering and releasing data showing the effects of climate change”. Nevertheless, the newspaper says that the new report outlining flooding increases “was silent on the cause of rising seas, containing no mention of climate change or global warming”. It notes that Nicole LeBoeuf, acting assistant administrator at NOAA, acknowledged that “climate change and carbon emissions are a factor at play” on a phone call about the findings. The Miami Herald notes that Miami was among the cities breaking 2019 records for high-tide floods.

Meanwhile, the Independent reports that the first half of 2020 was the “second-warmest on record and the year could become the warmest in recorded history”, based on reports from the NOAA and Nasa.

European banks, including UniCredit, BNP Paribas, Barclays and Société Générale, have “helped prop up some of the continent’s biggest coal-burning polluters” with billions of euros in loans, according to a new report covered by the Financial Times. Environmental lobby group Europe Beyond Coal, which compiled the data, note that some of the money, totalling €7.9bn, came after “making public commitments to step away from the coal industry”, the newspaper notes. The Independent also covers the story. Meanwhile, City AM reports that investment management firm Blackrock has “punished” 53 companies “over their inaction on global warming after warning of huge investment risks from climate change”. A new report, also covered by the Financial Times, states that the asset manager had placed 244 companies “on watch” for insufficient progress on issues relating to climate change, according to the news website.

In more fossil-fuel news, Climate Home News reports G20 host Saudi Arabia is trying to remove the term “fossil fuel subsidies” from policy briefs “expected to inform ministerial and leaders’ summits later this year”.

A new paper marks the “largest-ever study of what happens to emissions from fuel combustion when they attract a charge”, according to a piece written by the authors in the Conversation. They analysed data on carbon pricing for 142 countries over more than two decades, 43 of which had a carbon price of some form by the end of the study. The researchers concluded that CO2 emissions growth rates “are about two percentage points lower” in nations with carbon prices than those without. The Sydney Morning Herald also covers the study, noting Australia’s complicated history with carbon pricing after a Labor government introduced it in July 2012, only for it to be repealed by the Coalition government in July 2014. There is also coverage of the study in the Financial Review.

The Financial Times has published a “special report” called “Rethinking Energy”. Among the articles is a piece by the newspaper’s energy commentator Nick Butler examining what he sees as a shift in attitudes towards “a low-carbon future” from energy companies, in light of Covid-19. “The stage looks set for a much more rapid transition than was until recently thought, comparable in speed and reach with the IT revolution of the past two decades,” he concludes. Another article in the series is about investors pulling “green levers” to reshape the energy sector in order to gain ground among environmental stakeholders – for example, through divesting from fossil fuels or voting on climate change resolutions. Other articles in the series look at how demand for clean energy is pushing the development of floating wind turbines, the decentralisation of global power grids, start-ups developing “direct air capture” technology and solar power supporting the production of “green” hydrogen.

Separately, an opinion piece in the Financial Times by Pauline Skypala is titled: “Was June a tipping point for the switch to green?” It looks at the action being taken by pension funds and asset managers to support “green” activities given that “there is little evidence that governments are responding to the call for a green recovery”.

Meanwhile, a piece by David Roberts in Vox considers a recent report by the International Energy Agency considering “clean energy innovation” and concludes “many technologies needed to solve the climate crisis are nowhere near ready”.

A lengthy article written by members of Extinction Rebellion and other climate groups outlines why the “claim that runaway climate change has made societal collapse inevitable” is “wrong” and “undermines” the overall aims of the climate change movement. “We have been overjoyed at the success of our movement in ringing the alarm about climate and ecological breakdown, and in applying pressure to the UK government, as well as other governments worldwide,” they write. “As members of the science community, we have also found comfort in a movement dedicated to telling a truth that has for decades been obscured by corporate public relations campaigns and misinformation.” The article explains that tipping-points science, Arctic ice claims and methane emissions have been “exaggerated”. “This knowledge is far from comfortable because it requires real work: not just nonviolent disobedience, but educating and training others, and gaining political power,” they conclude., adding: “We recommit ourselves to understanding how we can live well within planetary limits, imparting that knowledge to others, and excising the rot and paralysis from our politics.”

Separately, a piece in the New York Times looks at how Facebook deals with climate change disinformation, noting that critics have pointed out “a company policy that exempts opinion articles from fact-checking amounts to a huge loophole for climate change deniers”.

The “ultimate cost of carbon” to humans over a 1m-year timescale is around $100,000 per ton, a new study estimates. The authors explain: “We assume that this hypothetical population is technologically stationary and agriculturally based, and estimate climate impacts as fractional decreases in economic activity, potentially amplified by a human population response to a diminished human carrying capacity.” The best cost estimate is $100,000 per ton, but range from $10,000 to $750,000 per ton for various assumptions about the magnitude and longevity of economic impacts, the authors add.

Up to 95% of sunny and dry habitats could become unliveable for amphibians by 2080 as temperatures warm and landscapes become drier, a study says. Amphibians will also see liveability decrease in wet and shaded dry environments, the research says. “Thus, no single environment that we evaluated can simultaneously reduce both physiological risks [of temperature rise and drying],” the authors say. They add: “We conclude that temperature and water loss act synergistically, compounding the ecophysiological risk posed by climate change, as the combined effects are more severe than those predicted individually.”