Hostilities emerged at the UN talks in Paris, as developing nations pointed the finger at rich countries for holding up the agreement and damaging trust. The issue of finance has become central, reports AFP, with South African negotiator Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko warning that it is the “make or break” issue. She accused a small group of countries of wasting time and ballooning the negotiating text, reports the Guardian, adding that China too has highlighted the need for developed nations to take into account their historical responsibility for climate change. The Indian Expressquotes Indian negotiator Ajay Mathur, who says the focus of the finance talks should be on the amount raised, not which countries ought to donate. Another Indian paper, the Business Standard, referenced developing country (G77) concerns about the introduction of economic conditions into the text before poor countries become eligible to receive finance. The Times of India also covered the debate.

Hoesung Lee, the newly elected chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has given an interview to ClimateWire on the sidelines of the UN climate talks. He spoke of an important role for the IPCC in the process, though held out little hope that the panel’s “carbon budget” concept would be included in the deal. “I think it will take time for policymakers to absorb the core concept of the carbon budget,” he said. He also said that the 1.5C temperature limit should be given same level of analysis as carried out on the current 2C goal.

Countries in Paris released a new draft of the UN negotiating text on Thursday, cutting it down by four pages after almost a week of work. The text still contains all the main issues that negotiators are discussing, as well as many square brackets and different options, denoting the decisions that need to be taken. It is the first of a number of redrafts expected to be delivered this week, before ministers take over the discussions.

Germany and France have backed the 1.5C target being championed by many of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. Currently the international limit for temperature rise is 2C, but nations including small island states say that this would pose an existential threat to them. The head of the Filipino delegation welcomed their support, saying: “This is historic. The call of the vulnerable has been answered by the presidency of the COP and the largest economy of the EU host region.” But for some other nations, this remains a red line. The Guardian reported that Australia saw itself as a broker on the issue. Separately, Climate Home reported that Saudi Arabia and India had evoked anger among low-lying vulnerable nations for quashing any reference in the Paris deal to the UN’s 2013-2015 “expert dialogue” published in June which highlighted the dangers of breaching 1.5C.

Indian commentators are divided over whether the flooding in Chennai, India, ought to be blamed on climate change. Environment minister Prakash Javadekar said that the record rainfall was not linked to climate change, but prime minister Narendra Modi has linked the rains to warming. Harjeet Singh of Action Aid said that, while rising temperatures may not be “directly responsible”, it has “definitely contributed”. The Centre for Science and Environment in India said that the floods are emblematic of increasing extreme weather across India, reports the Business Standard. Meanwhile, Indian minister Maneka Gandhi has said that the west’s historical responsibility for climate change does not absolve Indian from taking action now, as one of the biggest polluters in the world today, reports the Indian Express.

Wealthy nations are spending 40 times more on fossil fuel subsidies as they are contributing to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) — money which goes towards helping poor countries deal with climate change. Oil Change International found that eight industrialised countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) are spending $80bn a year on fossil fuel production, but only $2bn a year on the GCF.

Paris is “poised to ignite” a clean energy “revolution”, writes Carol M. Browner, former director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. It will transform how we get energy and “alter the course of human existence for the better”, she says.

For oil and gas, the idea of stranded assets is “as much of a red herring as ‘Peak Oil’, argues Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. Oil has a long future, he insists, which is “perfectly compatible with any realistically framed shift to a low-carbon economy”. Getting rid of coal would “substantially solve” the problem, he says, without “so much as touching” oil and gas.

Finance is key to any deal in Paris, says PWC’s Jon Williams, writing for Business Green. Ask anyone at COP21 what their top five issues are and you would be hard pushed to find someone excluding finance, he says. Many countries are looking for more detail how, when and from where the promised $100bn by 2020 will materialise.

Camilla Toulmin, senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development, writes a letter to the Financial Times, criticising it for continuing to publish the “discredited” theories of Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg wrote in the Financial Times on Monday that spending money on curbing climate change is “immoral”, and has written again the Australian today that any deal in Paris will do little to rein in temperature rise. But Toulmin writes that the cost of not doing anything would be more expensive, and that implementing the pledges will have many co-benefits in terms of stemming conflict, ill health, inequality and air pollution.

A new study uses a global climate model scaled down to the southern African region to project rainfall in the coming decades. The model results suggest that while total rainfall doesn’t look set to increase by the end of the 21st century (2069-2098), when it does rain it’s likely to be heavier across the tropical and subtropical regions of southern Africa.