European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has called for the EU to cut emissions to at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030, Reuters reports, using her “state of the union” speech to also pledge the use of green bonds to finance climate action. Von der Leyen said ambitious action on climate could create millions of jobs and aid Europe’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, the newswire says. It adds: “Von der Leyen acknowledged the [55%] proposal would divide the European Parliament and member states, which must approve the legally binding target but which disagree on how ambitious it should be.” Reuters notes that Poland “said the commission had not delivered a plan to achieve the new target”, but adds that the commission will publish analysis today on “the steps needed to deliver the goal”. Reuters reports that the Czech industry and trade minister has described the 55% target as “unacceptable”. EurActiv reports that while “German industry officially welcomes the new ambitions, it is also clearly sceptical”. Politico says von der Leyen used her speech to urge EU leaders to “step up”, issuing “a clarion call for action”. It reports: “[S]he proclaimed the commission’s intent to seize the moment ‘to build the world we want to live in’ – by stepping up action on climate change and digital innovation,” among other priorities. Reuters says von der Leyen’s speech “doubled down on the flagship goals she set out on taking office last December: urgent action to combat climate change and a digital revolution”. BusinessGreen and EurActiv also report von der Leyen’s call for a 55% target. The Financial Times reports that the commission will today “warn member states that they need to start eradicating subsidies for fossil fuels if the bloc’s ambitions to become a carbon neutral continent by 2050 are to become reality”. A comment for EurActiv by Dr Bert Metz argues that the 55% goal could be “completely undermined if the target also takes into account ‘reductions and removals’ from forest growth and tree planting schemes”.

Separately, Reuters reports that the European Parliament has voted to “allow some gas projects to get green transition money”. It says the vote by the EU parliament sets up “tough talks with the bloc’s executive and national governments, which have already agreed to exclude the fuel”. EurActiv also has the story. Finally, Reuters reports that eight European countries have “urged Brazil to take ‘real action’ to combat rising deforestation in the Amazon rainforest”.

The decision by Japanese firm Hitachi to pull out of plans to build a new nuclear plant in Wales “may accelerate government approval of a new station at Sizewell” in Suffolk, BBC News reports, citing “government and industry sources”. It says the government taking a stake in the Sizewell scheme is one option being considered as it looks to “replace China’s CGN [China General Nuclear] as an investor”. After Sizewell, CGN was set to build its own reactor design at Bradwell in Essex, but BBC News cites “sources” saying this idea “‘looks dead’, given revived security concerns and deteriorating diplomatic relations”. Giving context to the idea of government investment in the Sizewell scheme, the piece adds: “One of the reasons the government is fighting tooth and nail to free itself of the EU’s conditions on state aid is so that it can turbocharge technologies it thinks will make a lasting difference to the UK economy and its workers. It’s no secret that Boris Johnson’s powerful adviser Dominic Cummings is a big fan of the idea of small nuclear reactors and EDF are telling him that big nuclear is an important stepping stone to small.”

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage of Hitachi’s decision to pull out of the Wylfa new nuclear scheme in Wales, with the Financial Times reporting that the firm has “blamed Covid-19” for the decision. The piece quotes a statement from the firm saying “the investment environment has become increasingly severe due to the impact of Covid-19”. It then quotes a government spokesperson saying: “Nuclear power will play a key role in the UK’s future energy mix as we transition to a low-carbon economy, including through our investments in small and advanced modular reactors.” Reuters reports Hitachi’s decision and says the firm “failed to find private investors or secure sufficient government support”. BusinessGreen also has the story. An editorial in the Times says that despite Hitachi’s withdrawal, new nuclear “remains vital” to the UK. It argues that there is “no plausible way” of meeting the country’s climate goals “except by abandoning coal and expanding nuclear energy”. Carbon Brief analysis published last year explored whether the UK can meet its climate goals without Wylfa. A comment for the Guardian by financial editor Nil Pratley argues the Wyfla cancellation is “no great loss” and adds: “Even government experts were not banging the drum for new fleets of giant power plants.”

Andrew Liveris, an advisor to the Australian government, says the country burns “far too much coal” and argues it can reach net-zero emissions using gas instead, the Guardian reports, describing him as “one of the architects of [prime minister] Scott Morrison’s ‘gas-led recovery’”. The Guardian reports Liveris saying the pathway to net-zero emissions involved “optimising your fossil fuel mix and developing alternative technologies using gas as a transition fuel and setting targets…And you can get to net zero by 2050 by doing that.” A Q&A in the Guardian explains what the Australian government’s “gas-led recovery” means and why “the government is hell-bent on gas over alternatives”. In a comment for the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian minister for energy and emissions reduction Angus Taylor writes: “As we turn to our economic recovery from Covid-19, affordable gas will play a central role in re-establishing the strong economy we need”. He adds: “Far from being a competitor, gas is complementary to renewable energy…Gas is part of our plan to reduce emissions without imposing new costs on households, while at the same time creating jobs, growing businesses and the economy.” In a comment for the Guardian, Simon Holmes à Court writes that “Taylor’s gas plan is an astoundingly bad idea, on so many levels”. He disputes Taylor’s suggestion that a large new gas-fired power station is needed to replace the closing Liddell coal plant and adds that gas power is expensive. The Guardian also carries a news report disputing the need for a replacement under the headline: “Advice to government contradicts coalition claim over Liddell coal plant closure.” Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that the Australian government is to “divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar”, with the prime minister arguing that the technologies are now commercially viable. A comment by Christine Milne, former Green party leader, also published by the paper says the government is “sabotaging its renewable energy agency”. Finally, a feature in the Guardian looks at “how Australia’s meat industry could be part of the climate solution.”

China is “considering carbon neutrality as part of its long term climate plan”, reports Climate Home News, citing the country’s foreign ministry spokesperson speaking after a summit with EU leaders. It quotes the spokesperson saying: “China is willing to contribute more and we are now considering and studying a mid-century long-term vision for climate change, including such issues as the peaking of CO2 emissions and carbon neutrality.” EU leaders had used the meeting to push China to reach net-zero by 2060, Climate Home News says. Meanwhile, Climate Home News also reports that South Africa’s cabinet “has approved a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050, but it still plans to burn coal on this date”.

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris used a speech in a wildfire-scorched California town to “redouble the Democratic presidential ticket’s new emphasis on the threat climate change poses to human life and property”, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. The New York Times reports on the other countries around the world that have also this year experienced their “worst wildfires in decades, if not all of recorded history”. The Financial Times reports on the “deft dance” by California governor Gavin Newsom as he manages relations with the White House over his state’s wildfires. The Wall Street Journal, under a headline saying President Trump and his rival Joe Biden “differ on wildfire causes” reports: “The vast majority of scientific experts say that warmer weather across the west caused by climate change has greatly worsened the threat of forest fires.” The Washington Post says that Trump’s “plan for managing forests won’t save us in a more flammable world, experts say”. Vox looks at what is behind the wildfires in the US west and Bloomberg speaks to scientists studying the problem, with another Bloomberg article reporting that the fires are emitting “record amounts of CO2”. The New York Times says that California is “press[ing] insurers to cut rates” for fire cover.

Meanwhile, there is continued coverage of Hurricane Sally, which has, says the Washington Post, “unleashed massive floodwaters and powerful winds along the coast” of the southeast US. The paper adds: “Sally is one of 20 named tropical storms that have formed so far in the Atlantic in 2020, a record, and one of six hurricanes to make landfall, including four in the United States. Scientists say the storms are proliferating because of rising ocean temperatures linked to climate change.” The New York Times reports: “Sally had been defined in large part by its sluggish pace, camping out over Gulf waters made warmer than usual by climate change and chugging tediously toward the coast.” Another New York Times story says “Sally’s fierce rain shows how climate change raises storm risks”. Reuters also reports a similar angle under the headline: “Slow-moving hurricanes that deluge coasts may be latest hazard of climate change.”

Separately, the Daily Telegraph reports on the “once-in-a-lifetime floods” that have “wreak[ed] havoc across Africa”. Reuters reports that Vietnam is planning to evacuate 500,000 people at risk from tropical storm Noul, which is soon expected to make landfall. And Associated Press via the Independent reports that water shortages are “more likely in US West by 2025, putting 40m at risk”.

An editorial in the Financial Times reflects on the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s speech yesterday, in which she proposed a more ambitious 55% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, instead of the existing 40% target. The editorial says: “A cut of 55% is probably the minimum for the EU if its pledge of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 is to have any credibility. If there is one lesson to be learnt from the past three decades, it is that delaying actions only leads to further cost and dislocation later on.” It says that climate campaigners are “sceptical about the commission’s intention to use natural carbon sinks – Europe’s forests and peatlands – to offset emissions. But sinks are a legitimate instrument as long as they can be credibly quantified and protected.” The editorial says meeting a higher goal will involve “difficult choices with big financial repercussions” but that “there are plenty of reasons to believe the target is feasible”. It concludes: “There may be no better moment to reboot the European economy.”

A report set to be published today shows that the British public “is far more thoughtful, is happy to talk across party divides, and way ahead of the government in ideas for a fairer, greener society”, says a Guardian editorial. It says one of the “striking” themes was “how keen respondents were for a more localised, greener economy”. The piece adds: “Our economic system is bumping up against the hard reality of physics, beyond which – as David Attenborough has warned – lies ‘the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world’.” The editorial is responding to the findings of an inquiry by a cross-party group of MPs, reported on by a Guardian news article.

An editorial in the journal Science Advances by two academics discusses the shift to virtual meetings and conferences during the Covid-19 pandemic. Virtual meetings “are replacing traditional meetings that required air travel, thus dramatically reducing [their] carbon footprint”, the authors write, but “can we get the same results from virtual meetings?”. Although some features are difficult to replicate online, “academics and professionals are becoming increasingly proficient in virtual conferencing tools”, they say. These include “break-out discussions, digital poster sessions, virtual white boards, real-time chat functions, and informal post-meeting ‘social hours’”. The pandemic has “forced us to rethink meetings and to begin the inevitable process of experimentation”, they write, adding: “These lessons will also be of immense value for our ongoing efforts to reduce travel and thereby address climate change. We must continue these experiments even when the threat of the current pandemic recedes.”

Food production in China “requires radical and coordinated action by diverse stakeholders” to become environmentally sustainable, a new study says. Applying life cycle analysis to different scenarios, the researchers show that “a 47–99% reduction in phosphorus emissions, nitrogen emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, bluewater consumption and cropland use is needed for China’s food production in 2030 to be within national and provincial environmental boundaries”. Basic strategies – such as improving food production efficiency, optimising fertiliser application, reducing food loss and waste and shifting diets – are “currently insufficient”, the researchers say. An accompanying News & Views article notes that the study suggests that “environmental pressures in the north…could be alleviated by selectively redistributing certain agricultural production, particularly livestock, to specific southern provinces of China”.

A new paper uses the UK Climate Change Act as a case study to assess the importance of a “strategic legal framework” for action against climate change. Undertaking stakeholder interviews, the researchers find that respondents “felt that the Act had established a firm long-term framework with a clear direction of travel”. However, respondents “differed on whether the Act provided sufficient policy certainty and protection against political backsliding”. Overall, the study concludes, “interviewees believe that the Act has helped UK climate policy to become better informed, more forward looking and better guided by statutory routines”.

Switching to reusable and returnable tableware could reduce waste generation and associated greenhouse gas emissions from China’s “rapidly growing online food delivery and takeaway market”, a new study suggests. Using a “top-down approach with city-level takeaway order data”, the researchers show that “sharing tableware could reduce waste generation by up to 92%, and environmental emissions and water consumption by more than two-thirds”. An accompanying News & Views article notes that the study estimates that the “waste generated by the online food delivery service in China was 323 kilotonnes in 2018 (enough to fill 456 World Cup football stadiums)”.