There is widespread coverage of the European Commission’s proposed law on how the EU can reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Reuters says the “climate law” would make the target legally binding, but must first be approved by member states and the European Parliament. According to Politico, the draft law “dodges the most politically charged issue of immediately boosting the bloc’s 2030 emissions reduction goal”, instead setting a September deadline to review the impact of raising the current 40% reduction target to as high as 55%, compared to 1990 levels. Politico adds that the draft would give the commission “new powers to push through higher emissions targets every five years after 2030”. Bloomberg says the commission is seeking to legislate these five-yearly targets via “delegated acts”, which can only be opposed by a qualified majority vote of member state governments, plus a majority in the European Parliament. Previous targets have been agreed every 10 years, via unanimity. The Financial Times says: “Brussels is fighting off attacks from MEPs and environmental campaigners, including the teenage activist Greta Thunberg, on its landmark climate law.” It says that criticism has focused on the failure to “nail down more immediate milestones”, of which “[t]he most politically sensitive is an EU-wide emissions target for 2030”. It adds that 12 member states want the commission to propose a higher 2030 target by June, as reported by the Guardian on Tuesday. The FT adds that the commission will also have to “face down resistance from member states” over its proposal to be able to set new targets for 2035, 2040 and 2045 using delegated acts. Politico quotes the leader of Germany’s Christian Democrats in the European Parliament calling this move “unacceptable”. BusinessGreen says the draft would require member states to set out plans for reaching net-zero, giving the commission powers to review progress and issue recommendations. It adds that the commission would review all EU policy by next year to ensure it is in line with the 2050 target.

Much of the coverage of the announcement focuses on criticism from activists including Greta Thunberg, who according to Bloomberg described the decision to postpone raising of the EU’s 2030 target as “surrender”. BBC News leads its coverage of the climate law with Thunberg’s criticism, as do the New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post, Independent, Daily Telegraph and another Politico article. BusinessGreen asks if Thunberg’s criticism of the EU is justified. [Along with 33 other climate strikers, Thunberg wrote an open letter on the EU climate law published by Carbon Brief on Tuesday.] A piece in the Guardian reports the comments of Frans Timmermans, the commission’s top climate official, saying the legally binding climate law was necessary so that it would hold firm, even in the face of other crises such as coronavirus. The paper adds: “Speaking to the Guardian and six other European newspapers shortly before the law was published, Timmermans said the proposal was revolutionary because all EU legislation would have to be in line with net-zero emissions by the mid-century.” Meanwhile, Time has a piece on how “Europe’s border carbon tax plan could force the US to act on climate change”. And New Statesman has a profile of Greta Thunberg.

Separately, Climate Home News reports on how legal gaps and the US election could delay countries’ plans to raise their climate ambition ahead of the COP26 climate summit in November. It points to an EU-China summit in September, where “the EU is hoping to engage Beijing in a race to the top to ensure global action to curb emissions remains meaningful even without the US on board”, but notes that EU plans to raise its own target for 2030 are not due to be assessed until the same month.

Global warming boosted the risk of the hot, dry weather that helped drive the recent Australian bushfires by at least 30%, BBC News reports, picking up a widely covered study looking at the contribution of climate change to the devastating summer events in the country. BBC News adds: “[The study] says that if global temperatures rise by 2C, as seems likely, such conditions would occur at least four times more often.” The Guardian says that in a 2C warmer world, the hot and dry conditions that helped drive the bushfires “would be eight times more likely to happen”. The New York Times says the results “confirm…what had been widely expected”. It adds: “The researchers said the full influence of climate change on the fires was probably much greater [than a 30% increase in risk], but that climate simulations, which form the basis of this type of study, underestimate trends in extreme heat in Australia compared with real-world observational data.” Nature News says of the 30% risk increase: “[R]esearchers say the result is conservative, and that weather conditions that make fires more likely will continue to worsen.” The magazine adds: “In a second analysis that used real-world observations, rather than models, the WWA [World Weather Attribution] project looked at changes in observed fire risk since 1979. The researchers found that the likelihood of the extreme fire risk experienced in 2019–20 has increased fourfold – and possibly by more than ninefold – between 1900 and today.” It says Prof Friederike Otto, one of the WWA authors, “acknowledges that models struggle to simulate temperature extremes or droughts at a regional and local scale, but the results are conservative compared with those based on observations”. It quotes her adding: “If we wait until we have perfect models, we will have a 4C [warmer] world or more until we start saying anything about the real-world impacts of climate change today.” CNN reports that the WWA study “found that heatwaves are the primary driver behind the increasing fire risk, and that heatwaves in Australia are now about 1 to 2C hotter and about 10 times more likely than they were in 1900”. Scientific American reports the findings under the headline: “Yes, climate change did influence Australia’s unprecedented bushfires.” The attribution study results are also covered by the Sydney Morning Herald, CBS News, news.com.au, Axios, InsideClimate News and New Scientist.

Tropical forests are taking up less CO2 from the air, reducing their ability to act as carbon sinks, the Guardian reports, picking up widely covered new research. It adds: “The Amazon could turn into a source of carbon in the atmosphere, instead of one of the biggest absorbers of the gas, as soon as the next decade, owing to the damage caused by loggers and farming interests and the impacts of the climate crisis, new research has found.” The paper quotes one of the study authors, Prof Simon Lewis, saying: “We’ve found that one of the most worrying impacts of climate change has already begun…This is decades ahead of even the most pessimistic climate models.” [Prof Lewis, one of Carbon Brief’s contributing editors, has written a guest post on the findings for Carbon Brief.] The Washington Post reports the study’s findings on forests in the Congo Basin in central Africa: “Scientists have determined that trees in the Congo Basin of central Africa are losing their capacity to absorb CO2…some sites in the Congo Basin showed signs of weakened carbon uptake as early as 2010, suggesting that the decline in Africa may have been underway for a decade.” The research is also covered by Thomson Reuters Foundation, the Independent, Metro, the i newspaper and Bloomberg. An editorial for Nature describes the findings as a “warning from the tropics” and says they suggest “the need for yet faster emissions reductions”.

The UK’s investment industry trade body has “warned companies ahead of their 2020 annual general meetings that they must disclose more about how they are handling climate change risk”, Reuters reports. It says the Investment Association’s members manage £7.7tn in assets and own around a third of British companies, adding that the group’s voting advisory service “helps members decide how to vote at each company’s annual general meeting…[and] would [be] track[ing] each company’s progress”. According to the Guardian, the association has set a three-year deadline for companies to explain in their annual reports how they plan to measure and manage the threat of climate change. The Daily Telegraph says investors are “readying a fresh wave of rebellions” over directors’ pay and climate change. City AM also covers the Investment Association’s demands over climate change disclosure.

A comment for the Financial Times, by Chris Cummings, chief executive of the Investment Association, says climate change “tops the agenda” ahead of more than 450 company annual meetings, arguing: “As climate change dominates the headlines with images of ferocious wildfires and widespread flooding, so too is it a focus for investors.” Cummings says: “Companies must explain the impact climate change will have on their business in their annual reports. And they must demonstrate how these risks are being measured to ensure the viability of their businesses. Only by reporting on climate-related risks in a consistent, clear and comparable manner, can investors make informed decisions.” He adds: “Companies that don’t listen and take action this AGM season can expect to risk the ire of investors.”

Separately Reuters and the Financial Times report that activist investors are increasing pressure on mining giant Rio Tinto over its plan to address carbon emissions. Reuters says there are “renewed efforts to force the world’s biggest iron ore miner to commit to targets that would scale back emissions of its customers”.

A “controversial paper claiming that fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field could be driving global warming has been retracted”, reports Retraction Watch. It says the paper appeared in the journal Scientific Reports with Valentina Zharkova as first author. It adds: “[Zharkova is a] mathematician/astrophysicist at Northumbria University, whose group reported having received funding for the work from the US Air Force and the Russian Science Foundation.” Retraction Watch notes that the paper “immediately received a barrage of criticism, including commenters who pointed out mistakes in the analysis”. New Scientist also covers the retraction by what it calls a “prominent scientific journal”. It says Prof Ken Rice at the University of Edinburgh thought retraction was “warranted in this case due to fundamental errors”. The magazine adds that Zharkova “says the retraction was unfair and the corrections made to the paper were minor”.

China’s coronavirus-related economic slowdown “has wiped out the equivalent of the UK’s carbon emissions in six months”, the Financial Times reports, based on analysis published by Carbon Brief two weeks ago and updated with the latest figures yesterday. The FT continues: “A lowering of emissions would ordinarily be welcomed by those seeking to meet the terms of the Paris climate accord. But economists pointed out that the virus response could inhibit the long-term transition to a low-carbon economy.” Pointing to the potential for Chinese government stimulus, the paper adds: “Global carbon emissions also dropped in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, falling 1.3% in 2009. Yet within a year these gains had largely been undone. Beijing’s Rmb4tn stimulus package was a big contributor.” It says: “The Chinese government has so far resisted launching a similar stimulus package to combat the mounting economic fallout of the outbreak, instead releasing ad hoc measures such as extending credit to struggling small businesses.” Bloomberg reports that a stimulus is “seen unwinding [the] drop in emissions due to coronavirus”. It quotes an investment firm strategy director adding: “I don’t think China will go back down the old road of development with huge pollution, but it’s likely the government might adjust its priorities at a time like this.” Grist cites Carbon Brief’s analysis of the temporary reduction in Chinese emissions due to the crisis, adding that coronavirus is “the worst way to drive down emissions”. It adds: “Moreover, in times of global stress, green projects often take a back burner to more pressing issues.”

MailOnline picks up Carbon Brief’s recent analysis, reporting: “The UK’s CO2 emissions fell by 2.9% in 2019 and nearly 30% over the last decade despite a growth in GDP, according to a new analysis by climate policy website Carbon Brief.” The analysis, cited at prime ministers’ questions in parliament yesterday, also forms the basis for an editorial in the Sun, which says: “From all the Extinction Rebellion protests you might imagine we were among the world’s worst polluters. In fact our carbon footprint is its smallest since 1888…Green campaigners should target those with the worst record, not one of the best.”

Car giant GM is to raise its spending on electric and autonomous vehicles to $20bn by 2025, the Financial Times reports, “after claiming a battery breakthrough that it says will give its cars longer range and faster recharging”. It says the firm will launch 20 new electric models by 2023 and claims its new battery technology will bring costs below $100 per kilowatt hour soon, a level seen as key to making EVs competitive with conventional cars. Axios also covers the GM news. Separately, MailOnline reports that Ford is to launch its first all-electric Transit van in 2022, while the Guardian reports that energy firm Centrica has signed a deal with Volkswagen to accelerate the rollout of home fast chargers.

Two in three Conservative Party members support the UK government’s target for net-zero emissions by 2050, according to the website Conservative Home, citing a survey of more than a 1,000 of its readers. It says: “Taken together, these results are moderately encouraging for Boris Johnson and his team as they head towards this autumn’s COP26 summit in Glasgow.” In the Daily Telegraph, climate-sceptic columnist Sherelle Jacobs writes under the headline: “The political storm over green targets will be even bigger than Brexit.” She says: “A savvy politician like Boris Johnson can still reverse No 10’s green strategy, which moved on this week from banning petrol and diesel cars to the revival of onshore wind farms. He must – all the ingredients for another seismic uprising are already simmering. First is the drift towards disaster at the Treasury. With the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, reportedly poised to end the freeze on fuel duty for all motorists, voters are referring to zero carbon as ‘the new austerity’.” An editorial in the Sun says the chancellor “must listen on fuel duty…to Tory backbenchers, small firms and the Sun readers”.

Separately, BBC News reports on a confidential letter from the UK nuclear industry to the chancellor “seen by the BBC” and “prompted by fears that the government will use next week’s budget to ditch a plan to pay for new [nuclear] plants through a levy on energy bills”. (The Times reports on new research showing that “young people fail to understand that nuclear power helps the UK to meet its climate change targets because they have been misled by green campaigns promoting wind and solar”.)

Meanwhile, writing in the Times Red Box on the need for expansion at London’s Heathrow airport, former international trade secretary Liam Fox says: “Climate change is a critical issue – and I will be setting out why every Conservative needs to act on climate change at an Onward event in March.” Pointing to the recent judgement ruling plans for Heathrow unlawful because climate commitments had not been fully taken into account, Fox says: “Thursday’s ruling did not state that the expansion of Heathrow was incompatible with the UK’s targets on climate change. Indeed, the court was very clear: there is no reason why Heathrow expansion should not go ahead in due course once the policy framework (the Airports National Policy Statement) has been reviewed.”

Advances in the ability of satellites to record long-term changes to climate variables such as groundwater, snow and soil moisture could help scientists to better predict the emergence of drought and famine, a study finds. The researchers argue that, as the climate warms, better detection measures for drought and famine will need to be developed. “Famines have long been associated with drought. With the severity of droughts growing in association with climate change, there is increasing pressure to do a better job predicting famines and delivering international aid to avert human suffering and civil instability,” the authors say.