As widely trailed, European Union policymakers yesterday “unveiled their most ambitious plan yet to tackle climate change”, reports Reuters, “aiming to turn green goals into concrete action this decade, and in doing so lead the way for the world’s other big economies”. The European Commission, the EU executive body, “set out in painstaking detail how the bloc’s 27 countries can meet their collective goal to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 55% from 1990 levels by 2030 – a step towards ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050”, the newswire explains. EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans said: “We’re going to ask a lot of our citizens. We’re also going to ask a lot of our industries, but we do it for good cause…We do it to give humanity a fighting chance.” The “Fit for 55” measures will require approval by member states and the European parliament, a process that could take two years, the newswire says. Politico reports the comments of Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who told reporters: “Our current fossil fuel economy has reached its limits…Europe is now the very first continent that presents a comprehensive architecture to meet its climate objectives.”

A series of Reuters articles unpack the details of the measures, including increasing the share of renewables in the energy mix to 40% by 2030; an effective ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035; proposing quotas for states to boost natural carbon sinks; adding shipping to the bloc’s carbon market for the first time; funding support for vulnerable households it the plan results in higher fuel bills; a plan for the world’s first carbon border tariff – to cover imports of carbon-intensive steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers and electricity; setting an EU-wide minimum tax rate for polluting aviation fuels; and proposing “effort-sharing” rules for dividing out the burden of cutting greenhouse gas emissions within the EU. Reuters also has a “factbox” on the carbon border tariff, and a piece gathering reaction to the climate plan from politicians, industry and campaign groups. Politico outlines “10 key policies” in the plan in a single article, while the Financial Times has a similar summary. EurActiv says that Timmermans “faced lawmakers in the European Parliament” yesterday, just hours after the plans were published, and many of whom “weren’t fully convinced”. And Politico says that the proposal to extend carbon pricing to road transport and buildings through the emissions trading scheme “triggered a split within von der Leyen’s Commission and will likely spark criticism from governments across the bloc wary of a social backlash if the proposed measures hit consumers’ wallets”. The Financial Times says “Europe’s most polluting businesses have accused the EU of jeopardising investment and innovation after Brussels unveiled ambitious plans to halve the bloc’s emissions by 2030 in an effort to curb global warming”.

In other reporting around the plans, Bloomberg says the “world’s largest emissions market is about to get bigger and stricter”. And a second piece picks out “seven elements of the EU green deal you should care about”. The New York Times says the “seminal moment in the global effort to fight climate change…challenged the rest of the world”, but the EU’s plan “also has the potential to set off global trade disputes”. A second article in the paper looks at “how Europe’s ambitious new climate agenda will affect businesses”, and a third focuses on how the carbon border tariff would work. BBC News environment correspondent Matt McGrath says the scale of the plans is “breathtaking”, adding: “The rest of the world will watch this huge gamble with interest.” Finally, Bloomberg imagines “what life might look like if the EU Commission’s ambitious climate overhaul actually comes to pass”.

In further reaction, the Guardian looks at what the carbon tariff proposal would mean for Australia, while a second piece reports that the “Morrison government has renewed fears that the European Union’s new carbon tariffs could hit Australian jobs, despite Australia’s major exports being largely spared from the first stage of the scheme”. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard – international business editor of the Daily Telegraph – writes that the EU has “jumped the gun” by “charg[ing] ahead with plans for a carbon border tax before it has secured the necessary cooperation of key allies”. He says: “It is attempting to impose the EU’s political agenda on everybody, by unilateral means, in the face of implacable opposition across the globe.” And an editorial in the Wall Street Journal describes the plans as a “awe-and-shock strategy”, saying: “They hope voters will be so awe-struck at its grand ambitions that they won’t have time to be shocked by what’s in it.” The paper asks why the EU is proposing “something so preposterous”, adding: “Brussels may hope that, by talking up its own climate ambitions, it can goad President Biden into inflicting on the US economy costs similar to those that already hobble European industries. And if that doesn’t work, Fit for 55 includes a proposal for a carbon tariff as a diplomatic stick.”

Democratic lawmakers in the US “are drawing up plans for a tax on imports from carbon-polluting countries to help pay for a $3.5tn package in new government spending on everything from universal childcare to an expansion of public healthcare benefits”, the Financial Times reports. It continues: “While details of the tariffs are scant, news of Democrats’ proposals came on the same day as the EU published its plans to impose a levy on imports based on their carbon footprint. European diplomats had hoped that Washington would work with Brussels to address climate change through trade mechanisms such as a carbon border tax. But any US effort to impose levies on carbon entering the country would mark a shift in policy for Joe Biden’s administration. John Kerry, Biden’s climate envoy, warned this year that a carbon border tax adjustment should be a ‘last resort’ and that he was ‘concerned’ about Brussels’ plans for such a mechanism.” The New York Times reports that “top Democrats called the timing coincidental”, but “said both the US and Europe must work together to put pressure on China and other heavy polluting countries to reduce emissions”. Oregon senator Jeff Merkley tells Bloomberg that “there is a lot of support for this idea”. The outlet notes that the “size and scale of the potential ‘polluter import fee’, as it was described in a summary document, were not immediately clear”.

The Financial Times article also explains that the proposed $3.5tn in spending by Democrats is “in addition to a $1tn bipartisan infrastructure deal agreed to last month between Democratic and Republican lawmakers”. The budget blueprint “pave the way for Democrats to produce a reconciliation bill this fall that would be shielded from a filibuster”, explains the New York Times. The Washington Post reports that President Biden met with Senate Democrats yesterday at a “closed-door lunch” – Biden’s first such in-person visit as president – to emphasise the “package’s potentially transformational effect on America’s middle class”. The Hill reports that senator Tina Smith said that a standard requiring a certain amount of electricity to come from clean sources will be included in the proposal. Smith tweeted that the clean electricity standard “is the cornerstone of the progressive, practical transformation to a clean energy future we urgently need”. She also told the Hill that while the details of the standard will have to be worked out in negotiations, she’s hoping to see a requirement for 80% clean electricity by 2030. US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the Senate budget plan “will make bold, essential investments in our values as a nation”, reports Reuters. In a letter to colleagues, Pelosi said it “will contain many of House Democrats’ top priorities, including transformative action on the investments needed to confront the climate crisis”. Another piece in the Hill looks at the other the key elements of the proposal, which includes “calls for funding clean-energy tax incentives, federal procurement of clean energy technologies and a clean-energy accelerator”. It adds: “The climate-focused programs are in line with ideas that Biden proposed earlier this year in his $2.3tn American Jobs Plan but were not included in the framework for a $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure package.” It notes that “Senate Democrats still need to hammer out some of the details, and legislative text has yet to be released” and that the Senate will “need to get all 50 members” on board for it to pass without Republican support. However, Reuters notes that “Republicans voiced immediate objections to the plan’s massive size, as did at least one key moderate Democrat whose support would be critical to passage”.

At the same time, Reuters reports that a Senate committee yesterday passed a bill on climate and energy initiatives that are expected to be debated as part of the wider bipartisan infrastructure bill. The newswire explains: “The Senate energy panel voted 13 to 7 to pass the bill, which authorises about $100bn for initiatives such as helping the power grid handle more electricity from renewable sources, boosting production of hydrogen from sources that are cleaner than fossil fuels, and capturing carbon from fossil fuel plants and other industry before it can reach the atmosphere. The bill, sponsored by Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat and the chairman of the committee, also includes initiatives to boost nuclear power.” The Hill also has the story. And the New York Times reports on a new initiative by the US Energy Department to “drive down the cost of long-duration storage 90% below the cost of today’s lithium-ion batteries by 2030”.

In other US news, a statement from the US State Department says that US climate envoy John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed in a phone call yesterday that the US and Russia should work together on climate issues, Reuters reports. The New York Times reports that the Biden administration is expected to announce today that it will move forward with a plan to fully restore environmental protections to Tongass National Forest in Alaska, one of the world’s largest intact temperate rain forests, whose protections “had been stripped away by former president Donald J Trump”. And the Hill reports that former vice president Al Gore has warned of a “yawning gap” between long-term goals on climate change and the action plans developed by governments to address it.

New research suggests that significant parts of the Amazon rainforest have started to emit more CO2 than they absorb, BBC News reports. The study says that some regions of the rainforest were “a steadily increasing source” of carbon between 2010 and 2018, the outlet reports. The researchers collected around 600 air samples above selected parts of the rainforest over the years of the study, the article says, and found “a very clear division between the eastern and western parts of the rainforest”. Lead author Dr Luciana Gatti tells the outlet: “In the eastern part of the Amazon, which is around 30% deforested, this region emitted 10 times more carbon than in the west, which is around 11% deforested”. She adds: “This is a huge impact, you know directly because we are emitting CO2 to the atmosphere, which is accelerating climate change but also because it is promoting changes in the dry season conditions and stress to trees that will produce even more emissions…This is terrible negative feedback that increases the emissions much more than we knew.” The Guardian – which has the story on its frontpage – notes that “most of the emissions are caused by fires, many deliberately set to clear land for beef and soy production”, adding: “But even without fires, hotter temperatures and droughts mean the south-eastern Amazon has become a source of CO2, rather than a sink.” The study is picked up by the New York Times, the Hill, Inside Climate News and the i newspaper.

In related news, Reuters has seen a draft of a “landmark report” that warns “more than 10,000 species of plants and animals are at high risk of extinction due to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest – 35% of which has already been deforested or degraded”, the newswire says. It adds: “Produced by the Science Panel for the Amazon (SPA), the 33-chapter report brings together research on the world’s largest rainforest from 200 scientists from across the globe. It is the most detailed assessment of the state of the forest to date and both makes clear the vital role the Amazon plays in global climate and the profound risks it is facing.”

And, in an editorial, the Financial Times argues that “Brazil should pay for not halting deforestation”. It discusses the lack of progress from a group of asset managers “who clubbed together last year to put pressure on the Brazilian government and its far-right president Jair Bolsonaro to curb deforestation of the Amazon”. Just over a year and several high-level meetings later, “the results are clear”, the paper says – “deforestation has surged by 17% in the first six months of 2021”. With “most of their objectives unmet”, the paper asks what the investors – who control $7tn in assets – should do now. The editorial says that “in a year of exceptional circumstances amid the pandemic, it has been difficult to discern an environmental discount on Brazilian government bonds”. It concludes: “This needs to change. It is time for investors to send a $7tn signal to Brasília that unless deforestation abates, they will sell.”

There is continuing widespread coverage – and reaction (see Comment below) – to the UK government’s new plan to decarbonise the transport sector. The frontpage of the Daily Telegraph leads with the story, saying: “The [government’s] document says further ‘carbon pricing’ for flights could be introduced and suggests new motoring taxes could offset the anticipated loss of fuel duty from electric vehicles. It adds that the Government will need to ensure that ‘revenue from motoring taxes keeps pace’ with the switch to electric vehicles ‘to ensure we can continue to fund the first-class public services and infrastructure that people and families across the UK expect’. On flights, the plan promises to reconsider carbon prices to “help accelerate” the move to green fuels, which could see air fares rise. Other key points include a commitment to banning new polluting lorries and reaching net zero in domestic flights by 2040.”

The Guardian looks at the plan from a different angle: “Britain’s £27bn roadbuilding strategy will have to be redrawn to take account of environmental commitments, the government has admitted, in a victory for campaigners who sought a judicial review.” And the Times says that “the prospect of US-style ‘carpooling lanes’ in the UK was raised yesterday as ministers pledged to cut the number of vehicle journeys being made without any passengers”. The Daily Mail says that “electric vehicles could face road duty within five years in range of measures to recoup fuel levies lost as vehicles go green”.

Meanwhile, in other UK news, Sky News has an “exclusive” saying that “government talks over how Britain should meet its domestic climate change commitments have stalled and the publication of a new strategy is set to be delayed until the Autumn”. It adds: “Ministers had been due to announce a ‘heat and buildings strategy’ next week which would set out how Britain will decarbonise central heating systems in homes and offices – which combined make up a third of emissions. But Sky News understands a Whitehall standoff over the cost of the plans means this is now not expected until at least September.” And the Guardian reports that “campaigners are hailing the end of opencast coal mining in Britain after a long battle to see off the final applications for new mines in former coal heartlands”. It adds: “The Banks Group’s decision not to appeal against the rejection of a proposed scheme on the outskirts of Newcastle upon Tyne means England joins Scotland in apparently reaching the end of the road for surface coal mining.”

The governments of more than 100 developing countries have joined together to “demand” financial support from richer nations in tackling climate change, the Guardian reports. Poor nations “have been frustrated with the slow progress at the recent G7 leaders’ summit and meetings of the G20 group of major economies”, and say that rich nations “must move faster to cut greenhouse gas emissions and provide financial assistance to their less wealthy counterparts to cope with the climate crisis,” according to the newspaper. It adds that the least developed countries (LDC) group for COP26 has made five demands of rich countries, including for them to give £73bn in climate finance per year to poor nations and to “accept their responsibilities in contributing to loss and damage to poor countries from the impacts of climate breakdown”. BBC News also covers the story. Separately, Politico says that COP26 president-designate Alok Sharma is “unhappy at the position he has been placed in by the [UK government’s foreign aid reductions] just as he negotiates with developing countries on reducing carbon emissions”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times has published its “top takeaways from this weekend’s G20 meeting. “There is rising frustration among many climate policy leaders – and some financiers – about the lack of innovative blended finance solutions currently available,” the newspaper says. It adds that carbon taxation is “set to generate a lot of controversy in the coming months”. The outlet also reports that former US vice-president Al Gore has said that “climate finance has finally reached critical mass” and is “‘personally optimistic’ that we have a good chance of stopping the climate crisis”.

A new government food strategy for England says that meat consumption must fall by 30% over the next 10 years in order to tackle the interlinked climate, nature and health crises, reports the Independent. The report is “England’s first major review of the food system in more than 70 years”, the paper says, and recommends that “the government should invest £1bn in research into how to improve the national diet and the sustainability of farming practices”. The paper continues: “This money should be spent on ‘everything from methane-reducing additives for sheep and cattle to new agro-ecological techniques’ and research into ‘alternative proteins’, the review says. It adds that the role of the Food Standards Agency should be expanded to cover sustainable and healthy eating as well as food safety. As part of this expansion, the agency should work with the government to develop new sustainable national eating guidelines and a food labelling system to help consumers understand the environmental impact of what they eat, the report says.” The strategy “rules out a meat tax” for being “politically impossible”, reports the Guardian, which adds: “Instead it suggests ‘nudging’ consumers away from meat, such as by putting veggie sausages alongside meat ones, which is known to push sales up. It also backs plant-based meats as replacements in processed foods.” While the review is officially intended to shape legislation in England alone, Henry Dimbleby – co-founder of restaurant chain Leon and lead on the review – “believes many of his recommendations ought to be implemented across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland too”, reports the i newspaper. The report notes that food and health are largely devolved issues, but “our food systems are so tightly interwoven as to be in places inextricable”. In an editorial commenting on the plans, the Times says that Dimbleby is “right to conclude that a meat tax is a political non-starter, even if that leaves open the question as to how the target of reducing meat consumption by 30% will be otherwise met”. The paper adds: “What all can surely agree is that farmers should be incentivised to produce high-quality food and minimise carbon emissions in the post-Brexit subsidy regime.”

In related news, an “exclusive” in the Independent reports that Unilever – one of the world’s biggest food and consumer goods companies – is “set to introduce carbon footprint labels on its products for the first time by the end of the year”.

Bloomberg reports that China intends to “rapidly expand” its national carbon market. It states that the nation plans to add more heavy polluting industries to the national emissions trading scheme (ETS) once the system begins trading this month. It also notes that the Chinese authorities will “quickly” work on establishing emission-accounting rules and issuing guidance for pollution rights for industries beyond the electricity sector, which is the first sector to be covered by the scheme. The report cites Zhao Yingmin, deputy minister of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, who addressed the press on Wednesday. State-run China Energy News also features Zhao’s comments. It says that, according to the official, China will “no longer support” new ETS pilots and strengthen its carbon data inspection. It adds that China is “still studying” carbon pricing, according to Zhao.

Separately, the English website of China News Service, a state newswire, reports that the “world’s first typhoon-resistant floating wind turbine” has been installed off the coast of Guangdong province in southern China. It says that the wind turbine can withstand up to Level 17 typhoons, which represents gusts of wind travelling at 56.1 to 61.2 metres per second. It has a unit capacity of 5.5 megawatts (MW) and is scheduled to go into operation at the end of 2021, a project representative tells People’s Daily. The state-run website adds that the project is expected to generate 16.5MW hours of clean energy annually, saving 5,100 tonnes of standard coal equivalent (tce) and 13,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Elsewhere, South China Morning Post reports that climate change could bring China “more frequent disasters”, citing a Greenpeace report. The publication says that the report has assessed how climate damage and risk in China’s most dense regions have changed over 60 years. The article adds: “Greenpeace suggests summers could become longer by as many as 28 days in Beijing, 24-28 days in Shanghai and more than 40 days in the Pearl River Delta.” Finally, an opinion piece on China Energy News says that it is high time manufacturers of “new energy” vehicles in China formulated their roadmaps towards “carbon neutrality”. The author urges relevant companies to “master relevant technologies and standards” to help China’s “new energy” automobile industry overtake its counterpart in other countries.

An editorial in the Daily Telegraph reacts to the UK government’s new plan for decarbonising transport by saying that “to take the country with it the government needs to invest a huge amount of political capital in explaining the practicalities and the costs to voters”. It continues: “Only now is the penny beginning to drop among millions of homeowners who will have to replace their heating systems at considerable expense in order to meet targets for cutting gas usage. For the first time, the UK will also include emissions from international aviation, which could cause a rise in air fares. Inevitably there will need to be some form of carbon taxation. Moreover, how will the Treasury recoup £35bn in revenues currently received from petrol duties as more cars go electric? One idea is to move to road pricing whereby motorists pay per mile driven. But this is a politically difficult idea to sell so the Government has simply shied away from addressing the issue. Sooner or later it will have to.” It concludes: “There is a desire in the country for people to play their part in combating climate change even though their sacrifices will be negated for as long as the world’s biggest emitters pump out carbon. The government needs to be much more straightforward with the country about the impact this will have on their way of life and their pockets.”

In other UK comment, Robert Taylor writing in the Daily Telegraph says: “If millions of people are going to switch to electric cars, then the taxpayer will have to cough up for huge incentives and tens of thousands of charging points. If we want people to use public transport, we need equally massive investment in buses and trains. The Institute for Public Policy Research [IPPR] is even calling for free local public transport by 2030. Fine. That all sounds lovely. But let’s be honest: whatever gloss the government puts on it, we’re all going to end up paying through the nose.” The Times carries an opinion piece by Luke Murphy, director of IPPR’s Environmental Justice Commission, who says: “The government needs to lead by putting fairness at the heart of its plans and then to commit to investing what’s needed — £30bn a year more than is being spent, we calculate — to take the UK to net zero. The cost of delayed action will be far higher. The dividend from seizing this opportunity must be more than economic: people should see improved surroundings, health and wellbeing. That’s what our jurors want from the drive to net zero. Without it, the whole project may fail.” Writing in the House magazine, Darren Jones MP, who chairs the business, energy and industrial strategy select committee, argues that “we will not achieve net zero without more support for decarbonising homes”. And in the Guardian, economics editor Larry Elliott writes: “It is now little more than three months until the COP26 meeting, and despite what it says, the government’s net zero strategy does not pass muster. There has been much less urgency than in Germany, France or the US, and no real evidence of a strategy.”

In a special report, the Financial Times publishes a collection of 13 articles inviting “expert writers to set out policies that governments and companies should pursue to help the next generation overcome the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, and economic inequity”. Articles include Mary Robinson – the first woman president of Ireland, serving from 1990 to 1997, and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002 – explaining why tackling climate change is an “intergenerational conversation”; Lord Martin Rees – the UK’s Astronomer Royal – writing on “how to build a better, fairer, greener, safer world for children”; Bob Casey – a US senator from Pennsylvania – with a piece on “why we must tackle the scourge of child labour”; Sanda Ojiambo – chief executive officer and executive director of the United Nations Global Compact – writing that “companies must get moving on the journey to combat climate change”; and Kul Chandra Gautam – a former deputy executive director of Unicef and assistant secretary-general of the UN – arguing that “Global Britain should restore its foreign aid spending pledge”.

Parts of the Amazon rainforest have switched from a carbon sink to a carbon source as a result of deforestation and climate change, a new study has found. Between 2010 and 2018, the authors took 590 vertical profiles at four sites over the Amazon to sample carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide concentrations. They find that emissions are greater in eastern Amazonia than in the west – mainly due to fires. They add that southeastern Amazonia switched from a carbon sink to a source during the course of the study. The study concludes: “The intensification of the dry season and an increase in deforestation seem to promote ecosystem stress, increase in fire occurrence, and higher carbon emissions in the eastern Amazon.” Nature has published a News & Views article on the paper.