There is widespread international coverage at the opening of COP27, the UN climate summit that started in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt on Sunday. BBC News reports that more than 120 world leaders are due to arrive at the summit, amid two weeks of negotiations between countries on how to navigate a path away from the worst of climate change. A story in the Guardian says that Wael Aboulmagd, the Egyptian diplomat in charge of running the negotiations at COP27, has criticised countries for making “empty public promises” at the beginning of the talks. Speaking to the Independent, Egypt’s lead climate negotiator ambassador Mohamed Nasr says the world must take climate change “as seriously as Covid”.

The first day of the talks were dominated by discussions about the need for rich nations to pay poorer ones in recognition of their majority role in driving climate change. A frontpage story in the Guardian this morning, based on just-published analysis by Carbon Brief, reports that the US, UK, Canada and Australia have all fallen billions short of their “fair share” of climate funds for developing countries. The Carbon Brief analysis compares the share of international climate finance provided by rich countries with their share of carbon emissions to date, a measure of their responsibility. Reacting to the news, Eddy Pérez, a director at Climate Action Network Canada, tells the Guardian: “Canada, the US and Australia have accumulated a huge debt to developing countries. This is an absolute scandal. These wealthy polluters have not only contributed very little to climate finance but are also partly responsible for the increase of international fossil fuels finance.” The Independent reports that the UK is refusing to reveal the latest figures on its contribution to international climate finance.

It comes as many publications report on the news that funding for “loss and damage” from climate change (see Carbon Brief‘s in-depth explainer for a full explanation) has made it onto the official agenda at COP27, a first for UN climate talks. The Independent describes this as a “slither of good news”. The Guardian adds that delegates “tussled late into Saturday night and into Sunday morning” over what should be on the agenda, with loss and damage “at the heart of the disagreement”. The New York Times and Bloomberg are among titles reporting on how loss and damage is likely to feature at COP27.

In other international news, the Guardian reports that “the big three tropical rainforest nations” – Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – are in talks to form a strategic alliance nicknamed an “Opec for rainforests”. The alliance could see the countries, responsible for 52% of the world’s remaining primary tropical forests, “make joint proposals on carbon markets and finance, a longtime sticking point at UN climate and biodiversity talks, as part of an effort to encourage developed countries to fund their conservation”, the Guardian says. It comes as Reuters reports that a global deal to cut deforestation made at COP26 last year is “off to a slow start”.

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that Australia has formally confirmed that it will launch a bid to host the 2026 UN climate summit, along with Pacific nations. The Guardian reports that the bid could result in Australia “facing pressure” to do more to tackle climate change at COP27.

In addition, the Washington Post reports on how activists have “slammed corporate influence” at COP27, while the Guardian reports on fears that the COP27 app (designed to help delegates navigate the labyrinth of conference rooms) could be used to spy on critics of Egypt’s regime. Speaking to the Independent, the UK’s former chief scientific adviser Sir David King says that COPs are a “formula for failure”.

In UK media, there is widespread coverage of COP27 and what it could mean for the country. A frontpage story in the Daily Telegraph reports that the UK backed calls for loss and damage funds to appear on the official agenda for COP27 (see above), a move which the paper describes as “open[ing] the door to paying climate change reparations to developing countries”. On Sunday night, a Downing Street source told the Daily Telegraph that UK prime minister Rishi Sunak has plans to “scale up progress and support” for developing countries suffering the worst effects of climate change. The UK’s Labour Party has also backed calls for the UK to pay other countries affected by climate change, with Ed Miliband, the shadow climate minister, calling it a “moral responsibility” on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, the Daily Telegraph adds. Seizing on Miliband’s comments, the Daily Mail publishes a frontpage story with the headline: “Red Ed: UK must pay climate change damages.” (The Egyptian COP27 president explicitly said yesterday that the loss and damage finance discussions will not include liability or compensation.)

Elsewhere, BBC News reports that Sunak arrived in Egypt on Sunday night and will speak along with other leaders at the summit today. He is expected to say that tackling climate change can become “a global mission for new jobs and clean growth” and that it is essential nations stick to commitments made at COP26 in Glasgow a year ago. Reuters notes that Sunak’s appearance comes after he “had initially said he would be too busy coming up with a plan to fix Britain’s economy to attend the COP27 summit, drawing criticism from political opponents and campaigners”.

Former UK prime minister Boris Johnson will also speak at COP27 today, attacking what he calls the “corrosive cynicism” on net-zero that is hampering efforts to tackle climate change in the UK and elsewhere, the Guardian reports. The Guardian adds: “In a swipe at members of his own Conservative party, the former UK prime minister will contrast the success and spirit of optimism at COP26 in Glasgow last November with the failures of governments – including the UK – to follow through on promises since.” The Daily Telegraph adds that Johnson will also warn the “naysayers” against climate change “defeatism” in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Elsewhere, several publications report on King Charles III’s pre-COP27 meeting in Buckingham Palace. BBC News reports that around 200 politicians and campaigners met at Buckingham Palace on Friday, including Sunak, US climate envoy John Kerry and COP26 president Alok Sharma. Press Association reports that King Charles III will still not be able to attend COP27 despite Sunak’s U-turn, adding: “Downing Street acknowledged on Thursday that the King might have been able to join delegates in Egypt if [Sunak] had been in office earlier in the year.”

In addition, the Independent reports that US special climate envoy John Kerry has warned the UK against further oil and gas expansion. Separately, the Times reports that the government has been urged to block plans for the country’s first deep coal mine in 30 years, after the permit decision was delayed until after COP27 has finished.

According to China’s foreign ministry, climate change diplomacy between China and the US “cannot be separated from broader political tensions between the two sides and Washington must take responsibility for the breakdown in talks”, reports Reuters. A spokesperson from the foreign ministry is quoted saying “China has not suspended cooperation with other countries and would continue to support the multilateral climate negotiation process”. The spokesperson adds that China is “willing to communicate and coordinate with all parties” to ensure COP27 was successful. Additionally, Reuters writes in a COP27 “factbox” that “few expect” China to offer “any fresh pledges” at COP27, with “officials saying the two-week summit should focus on securing climate finance for developing countries”. The New York Times notes that the US special envoy for climate John Kerry has said he was “hoping to restart discussions once he and Xie [Zhenhua, China’s climate envoy] reconnect in person in Sharm el Sheikh, noting that the stakes are enormous”.

Meanwhile, the Guangzhou-based newspaper Southern Weekly has an interview with Li Gao, the director general of the department of climate change at the Ministry of Ecology and Environment. He says: “COP27 is important, but compared to the Paris climate summit, it is not a COP for making a new climate agreement…but for implementing the agreements that were already made.” He adds: “COP27 covers many topics, such as loss and damage that is of the developing nations’ concern and the Santiago Network…The Chinese delegation should fully participate in the negotiations on these topics.” Separately, Shanghai-based Sixth Tone carries an article, titled: “The four key issues facing China at the COP27 Climate Summit”. Byford Tsang, senior policy advisor at the thinktank E3G, is quoted saying: “China could formally announce that its 2060 carbon neutrality goal will include all greenhouse gases, not just CO2”, which the article says is something that China’s climate envoy has “stated, but hasn’t yet been included in the country’s NDC”. The article says that – based on the views of Kevin Mo, principal of the Beijing-based green consultancy iGDP – China has “realised the importance of loss and damage at COP27”. The article adds: “However, it is ‘yet to be observed’ how the country will participate in these talks, which aim to establish rules regarding funding and which nations should give or receive support.”

Separately, the state-run newspaper China Daily has a comment piece by Muhammad Asif Noor, founder of the Friends of BRI Forum. He writes that, through research and development programs and the “effective use” of the latest technology, China is also “promoting climate action cooperation under the umbrella” of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), applying “scientific ways” for participating countries to reduce their carbon footprints.

In news about German chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to China, the state news agency Xinhua reports that Chinese president Xi Jinping met with Scholz on his “official visit” to China in Beijing on Friday. Xi is quoted saying: “The visit will further enhance the mutual understanding and trust between the two sides and deepen cooperation in various fields, and give the two sides an opportunity to plan for the growth of bilateral ties going forward.” The Guardian writes that “ahead of the meeting, the chancellor said the two would discuss Europe-China relations, climate change and global hunger, and how to develop China-Germany economic ties, as well as topics where both countries’ perspective is different.” BBC News says that there was an “agreement to keep talking – about the war in Ukraine, global food and energy security, climate change and the global pandemic”. An analysis by CNN quotes Lisandra Flach, director of the ifo Center for International Economics, who says: “If the European Union and Germany were to decouple from China, it would lead to ‘large GDP losses’ for the German economy.” Deutsche Welle notes that Scholz said he wanted “to talk about how we can further develop our economic cooperation on other topics: climate change, food security, indebted countries”.

Finally, Bloomberg reports that, according to a new analysis by the NGO Global Energy Monitor, “just 30 fossil fuel companies” account for “nearly half of the planet-warming methane emitted by the world’s energy sector”, adding that the state-owned China Energy Investment Corp ranked as one of the “top three”.

A frontpage story in the Financial Times reports that the US “is working on a plan to harness cash from the world’s largest companies to help developing countries cut their use of fossil fuels, an idea it aims to unveil at [COP27] this week”. Special US climate envoy John Kerry “is trying to marshal support from other governments, companies and climate experts to develop a new framework for carbon credits to be sold to business”, the FT says, adding: “The proceeds could then fund new clean energy projects. Under the potentially transformational plans, regional governments or state bodies would earn carbon credits by reducing their power sector’s emissions as fossil fuel infrastructure such as coal-fired plants were cut and renewable energy increased. The credits would be certified by an independent, as-yet unspecified, accreditation body. Companies would then be able to buy the credits to offset their own carbon emissions.”

Elsewhere, Politico reports that the US appears to have a new message on climate change, which is “make China pay”. A second Politico story says the “US-China global influence battle” has taken “centre stage” at COP27.

The cover of German magazine Der Spiegel depicts the sinking of Cologne Cathedral, with the accompanying article focused on the “emergency” of climate change adaptation in Germany. (The front cover echoes one published by the same magazine in 1986 under the headline “the climate catastrophe”.) The piece points to the poor response of German municipalities, adding that “the term climate adaptation has not even made it onto the to-do list for 2023”. The article quotes Wolfgang Haupt from the Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space, saying: “Germany’s preparations are far from sufficient.” Another article by Der Spiegel reports that “every year, the consequences of the climate crisis cost Germany at least €‎6.6bn and hundreds of lives”. Rheinische Post quotes climate researcher Mojib Latif, who views the climate policy of the ruling “traffic-light” coalition with concern: “Unfortunately, things are going backwards in Germany at the moment as a result of the war and the associated energy crisis…I am very sceptical as to whether Germany can meet its climate targets.”

The Financial Times also reports on uncertainties arising from Germany’s Glasgow pledge to end public overseas funding for coal, oil and gas projects. “In the grip of the energy crisis, [Angela Merkel’s] successor Olaf Scholz was considering continuing to fund so-called upstream and midstream production, said people familiar with the talks ahead of COP27,” the paper continues. It quotes Germany’s special climate envoy Jennifer Morgan saying that “we’re not looking at contracts for gas for more than 15 years…we have a legally binding greenhouse gas target for 2045. We’ll actually peak our gas use earlier”. In addition, Deutsche Welle reports that Germany’s president Frank-Walter Steinmeier “expressed scepticism” about the probability of a climate deal being reached in Egypt due to “military confrontation” in the world.

Meanwhile, German TV programme Tagesschau quotes German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock saying that “for many countries, the climate crisis is still the most important security issue, not Russia’s war in Europe”. In addition, ZDF covers the statement of the German economy and climate protection minister Robert Habeck ahead of COP27, emphasising the urgency of taking action against “galloping global warming”.

Elsewhere in German media, Der Zeit reports that slightly more gas is currently being withdrawn from German gas storage facilities than is being stored, adding that the filling level of all German gas storage facilities together fell by 0.03% to 99.26% on Thursday. Klaus Müller, president of the Federal Network Agency, is quoted saying that if it gets “frosty”, “the storage tanks are quickly drained”. Reuters also has the story.

Finally, Reuters reports that “Germany will spend €‎83.3bn, or 42% of a major protection scheme launched last month, to finance a cap on gas and power prices in 2023 in a bid to protect Europe’s top economy”, according to a draft proposal seen by Reuters.

The past eight years are on track to be the hottest on record – “bringing ever more dramatic and deadly impacts of climate change”, Press Association says, citing the latest “state of the climate” report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). PA adds: “Sea level rise is accelerating [and] the melting of Europe’s Alpine glaciers shattered records and devastating floods, drought and heatwaves hit in 2022.”

There’s a wide range of media commentary recognising that COP27 is an “African COP”. In the Guardian, UN deputy secretary-general Amina J Mohammed writes: “African nations cannot fight the climate crisis, protect their rich rainforests and safeguard their biodiversity alone. The international community must stand in solidarity with Africa and help to provide the significant resources needed. Africa requires $2.8tn by 2030 to play its part in limiting global heating to 1.5C and to address the impacts of climate change. Yet the whole continent received only $30bn of global climate finance in 2020.” The Guardian also carries a joint op-ed by French president Emmanuel Macron, Senegalese president Macky Sall and the Netherlands prime minister Mark Rutte. They argue that “Africa is the continent most vulnerable to the climate crisis…with the right support at COP27 it can build a stronger, greener future…but it needs all funders – donors, private financiers and philanthropists – to get behind this agenda”. Mohamed Adow, the founder and director of Power Shift Africa, has separate comment pieces in the Independent and Al Jazeera: “Why climate cash could make or break COP27. It’s the dirty secret of climate talks. Financing structures discriminate against the very nations that need the most help.” The Independent also carries other COP27 viewpoints in its “Voices of Africa” series, including by Oladosu Adenike, Abigael Kima and Elizabeth Wathuti. The Financial Times interviews Wanjira Mathai, the daughter of Wangari Maathai, the late Kenyan activist who won the Nobel peace prize for her work linking tree-planting, women’s empowerment and the fight for democracy. She says: “We’re only at a 1.2C world. Can you imagine how much worse it will get?”

A COP27 preview in the Financial Times by Camilla Hodgson says “dark clouds” hang over the conference: “Rich countries’ willingness to pay poorer nations to ditch fossil fuels is being put to the test.” In the Guardian, Isabel Losada writes: “We environmentalists must avoid sending the message that the situation is hopeless. Let’s focus on solutions.” Also in the Guardian, Adam Morton argues: “Greta Thunberg isn’t alone in rejecting the UN climate conference, but we still have to be there.” Joe Lo in Climate Home News asks: “As COP27 kicks off, where are the coal to clean deals at?” Vivian Yee, the New York Times’ Cairo bureau chief says that COP27 “allows a debt-wracked African country to champion climate needs of poorer nations, but it also puts Egypt under scrutiny”. Aidan Lewis has written analysis for Reuters which says that Egypt is “a gas producer with big renewable energy potential that is considered highly vulnerable to climate change”.

Finally, the Guardian has an anonymous article by the “secret negotiator”, who concludes: “COPs are a big game of let’s pretend: let’s pretend Egypt is a free country, let’s pretend that we can still meet the 1.5C target for temperature rise, and let’s pretend that this COP will be different from all the others. I don’t mean to be cynical: if the COPs didn’t exist we would have to invent them. They do serve a purpose, but just not as big a purpose as you might think.”

Most of the UK national newspapers carry editorials today reacting to the start of COP27. The Financial Times says: “The defining challenge of the 21st century can only be resolved through co-ordinated government action — especially by China and the US — in concert with the private sector and non-governmental bodies. This, above all, is what the world needs to see from COP27.” It adds that “one priority in raising financing is reform of multilateral development banks, above all the World Bank”. An editorial in the Times argues that “there has been progress [in the UK] in reducing carbon emissions, but a healthy dose of realism is needed in the climate debate if public support is to be maintained”. It concludes: “It would therefore be wrong to lose hope and junk the targets altogether, in Britain or abroad. The goal of net-zero by 2050 is on the statute book as a binding legal commitment. If Britain were to ditch it, then hopes of persuading less developed countries, including China, to tack faster towards green technology may dissolve. The question is how to get there in a way that the public can afford, and can back, in the real world.” The Daily Mirror says: “Reducing emissions, insulating homes, expanding renewable energy, switching to electric cars and scores of other changes will be good for Britain and the Earth, guaranteeing a sustainable future. The question isn’t whether we can afford going green when the answer is we can’t afford not to.” The Independent argues that “Rishi Sunak is right to go to Egypt, but COP27 must be more than an empty show”. The Daily Express is proud of the UK’s climate action to date: “We don’t need to be lectured by anyone about not taking climate change seriously. We are, by and large, a nation that loves and respects the natural world – and we always will be.”

In contrast, most other right-leaning newspapers largely criticise efforts to address climate change. An editorial in today’s Daily Telegraph says: “Too many commitments are made that are not followed through, putting countries like Britain at a potential disadvantage against those blithely ignoring the pledges. Sunak may feel the political ‘optics’ require his presence at Sharm but voters facing blackouts this winter will not understand why we refuse to exploit the fuel beneath our feet when we need it.” (An editorial in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph made the point that “Sunak has rightly pointed out that both our security and prosperity depend on reliable, clean energy supplies. But questions remain about how he intends to deliver that”.) The climate-sceptic Daily Mail is even more negative: “Ed Miliband’s demand for Britain to pay reparations to poor countries suffering the effects of global warming are as absurd as his Climate Change Act was disastrous. That legislation – passed with reckless insouciance [and the support of all but five MPs] when he was Labour’s energy secretary in 2008 – was the most ruinous commitment in our peacetime history. It put the country on the slippery slope to net-zero carbon by 2050 [which was adopted by Conservative prime minister Theresa May in 2019], although how this target can be achieved without crashing the economy is anyone’s guess [the government and its advisory Climate Change Committee (CCC) are among the organisations to have published detailed roadmaps to net-zero in the UK]…Miliband – a dismal flop as Labour leader – may come across as a harmless policy geek. Really, he’s a dangerous ecozealot. At the BBC he is deified as some kind of climate seer. But that’s because he shares the broadcaster’s apocalyptic environmental groupthink. Labour vehemently insists that reparation payments are not party policy. But isn’t the plain truth that in his green fervour, Miliband has let the cat out of the bag?” An editorial in the Sun ends: “Sun readers are facing a raid on pensions and a squeeze on tax allowances, as well as soaring mortgage bills. Where is the morality in making them pay more to deal with climate change? [The CCC recently said reaching net-zero would save 0.5% of UK GDP if fossil fuel prices remain high.] Especially when they are powerless in the face of our planet’s unchecked mega polluters like China and India [both of which have also committed to reaching net-zero emissions]. Sending money to nuclear-armed Pakistan or the millionaires paradise of the Maldives doesn’t sound like much of a vote-winner for Labour. Sir Keir Starmer doesn’t appear to realise what an electoral liability zealot Miliband is fast becoming.”

In the Guardian, Labour leader Keir Starmer argues that “only Labour grasps the challenges of the climate crisis and why we must become a clean energy giant”. He continues: “I wouldn’t be dragged to COP27 as prime minister [like Rishi Sunak], I’d be leading the way. My first objective would be to persuade world leaders that we need to get to clean energy as quickly as possible. It’s why I have set a world-leading commitment for Britain to be the first major economy to reach 100% clean power by 2030. The ambition of those plans is matched only by my determination to deliver them. Under my Labour government, the UK will become a clean energy superpower.” In the New Statesman, Green MP Caroline Lucas comments on the fraught issue of loss and damage at COP27: “​​The bottom line is that we’re not lacking options for funding a proper loss and damage finance facility. What’s lacking is sufficient political will to make it happen.” Emma Gatten, the Daily Telegraph’s environment editor, has an analysis piece looking at “climate debt”. She writes: “It is difficult for the developed world to argue against the injustice of the situation. The US is responsible for 20% of the world’s cumulative CO2 output, according to analysis by the website Carbon Brief. Pakistan, by contrast, has contributed just 0.3%…But now, there’s a new villain in town. China has largely sat outside these debates so far, arguing that it plays the role of a developing country. That argument barely holds. Though it was slower to develop, China now accounts for 11% of historical emissions, according to the same Carbon Brief analysis.”

In sharp contrast, the Daily Telegraph also promotes the views of climate sceptics. In a joint op-ed, Bjorn Lomborg and Jordan Peterson claim that “pushing the same old climate policies at COP27 is simply insane…After decades of failure to curb emissions, let’s accept that capitalist investment is not the problem: it’s the solution.” (The world is now on track to warm by 2.5C – or 1.7C if all pledges are met – rather than the 3.5C it was expecting before the Paris Agreement was signed.) The Sunday Telegraph returns to its go-to climate sceptic, Matt Ridley, a former Conservative peer who oversaw the collapse of Northern Rock a decade and whose inherited estate has earned income from coal mining: “Obsession with climate change is now actively harming the environment.” Today’s Daily Mail invites climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark to answer his own question: “Has anyone caused as much damage to the British economy as Ed Miliband?”

In other UK comment, Lucy Sherriff in the Guardian says that “Britain arrives at COP27 in disarray over the climate – and the world’s leaders know it”. And Henry Mance in the Financial Times explains “how I saved energy and stopped worrying about light switches”.

The 2021 European heatwave was “unprecedented” – with the earliest start date and longest duration recorded over 1950-2021, new research finds. The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to list all major European heatwaves since 1950 and evaluate the 2021 heatwave in its long-term context. They find that the 2021 heatwave was comparable to the 2003 and 2010 events in terms of magnitude and spatial extent, but “record-breaking in length”. In addition, the 2019 and 2018 European heatwaves stand out for their intensity and magnitude, respectively, they say. Overall, 83% of Europe experienced its most severe heatwave over 2002–21, which “demonstrates a rapidly changing summer climate in Europe”, the paper adds.