Bloomberg reports that the European Parliament and member states are set to “thrash out key details of the carbon border adjustment mechanism [CBAM] later Monday” in their aim to reach a “tentative deal” on putting a carbon price on imported goods coming from third countries. The outlet says CBAM would give the bloc a “powerful tool to shield its industry during an unprecedented green transition while helping deter pollution in other parts of the world”. The deal is set to include which products are covered, says Bloomberg, adding: “While both want to slap a levy on carbon-intensive imported cement, steel, aluminium fertilisers and electricity production, parliament’s negotiators also want to include plastics and hydrogen. Another important issue on the table – how to ensure that EU exporters aren’t penalised by higher costs, while phasing out free allowances for CBAM-covered sectors in the bloc’s emissions trading system – is set to be tackled in ‘jumbo talks’ on 16 December.”

In other news from Europe, the Press Association covers a new report from ShareAction, which campaigns for responsible investment. The report has assessed the 25 top banks in Europe and their approaches to climate change and nature loss and concludes that the banks “must do more to tackle the climate crisis, cut emissions and safeguard the world’s vital natural systems”. Separately, Politico reports on the views of Werner Hoyer, president of the European Investment Bank, who says that Brussels should stop complaining about Joe Biden’s subsidies plan within the Inflation Reduction Act and “get its act together”.

National Grid, the UK electricity grid operator, has instructed two emergency-use coal generators to start warming up as the network “faces its first big test of the energy crisis, with demand soaring and temperatures dipping below zero”, reports the Financial Times. The newspaper adds: “[National Grid] said on Monday morning that it had asked the ‘contingency’ plants to prepare for operation ‘to give the public confidence’ in energy supplies, adding that people should continue to ‘use energy as normal’. The two Drax coal-fired generation units, which the government requested to be on standby this winter, may not be needed to supply power to the grid as soon as Monday, the operator said, but ‘they will be available to the ESO if required’. It is the first time any of the standby coal units have been asked to warm up since the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy this summer asked to delay their closure until after winter to help reinforce the grid’s resilience.” The FT explains: “The UK is normally a big importer of electricity from France, but maintenance issues with the French nuclear sector have hit supplies this year, though plants are slowly returning to service. Those cuts have compounded an energy crisis triggered by Russia’s reduction of gas supplies to Europe in retaliation for western support of Ukraine. The standby coal units are operating under so-called winter contingency contracts, so they cannot be bid on in the open market but can be asked to come online by the grid operator to relieve tight supplies.”

The Times says: “Cold weather is forecast to increase electricity demand in Britain to the highest level so far this winter over the teatime peak tonight, as households use more energy to keep warm. At the same time, still conditions mean wind farms are forecast to be generating less than a tenth of their maximum capacity. Wind was generating only about 3% of Britain’s electricity yesterday afternoon.” The Daily Telegraph also highlights the lull in wind power: “Day ahead UK power prices jumped to an all-time high of £675 a megawatt hour on Epex Spot Exchange on Sunday as snow and sub-zero temperatures swept across Britain. The cost of power at the peak hours of 5pm-6pm soared to a record £2,586 a megawatt-hour. The eye watering wholesale power prices are being caused by rocketing demand at a time when low wind speeds are reducing the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy.” Only at the end of the article does it offer further clarity: “Temperatures, wind speeds and how much power the UK can import from Europe are key to keeping the lights on this winter. Britain is expected to avoid blackouts but could have to contend with reduced supplies from France because of maintenance at EDF’s nuclear fleet.”

Meanwhile, in other UK news, the Times reports that “some parts of Britain risk being left behind in the push to create green jobs as London and the southeast gain a lead over other regions in adding new roles, research suggests”. It adds: “Northeast England and Northern Ireland remained the lowest-ranking regions in a jobs barometer created by PwC, which provides an analysis of movements in green job creation, job loss and carbon intensity of employment.” The Daily Telegraph reports that “families living in old houses will pay £350 more for energy this winter than those in modern dwellings as a result of ‘leaky walls’, according to a new report [by the Resolution Foundation]”.And the Daily Telegraph also carries a news feature under the headline: “Why running electric cars could soon get a lot more expensive.”

The Financial Times carries the scoop that “US government scientists have made a breakthrough in the pursuit of limitless, zero-carbon power by achieving a net energy gain in a fusion reaction for the first time, according to three people with knowledge of preliminary results from a recent experiment”. The newspaper adds: “Physicists have since the 1950s sought to harness the fusion reaction that powers the sun, but no group had been able to produce more energy from the reaction than it consumes — a milestone known as net energy gain or target gain, which would help prove the process could provide a reliable, abundant alternative to fossil fuels and conventional nuclear energy. The federal Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, which uses a process called inertial confinement fusion that involves bombarding a tiny pellet of hydrogen plasma with the world’s biggest laser, had achieved net energy gain in a fusion experiment in the past two weeks, the people said…The fusion reaction at the US government facility produced about 2.5 megajoules of energy, which was about 120% of the 2.1 megajoules of energy in the lasers, the people with knowledge of the results said, adding that the data was still being analysed.” The FT says that the US Department of Energy has said energy secretary Jennifer Granholm and under-secretary for nuclear security Jill Hruby will announce “a major scientific breakthrough” at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory tomorrow, but has not given more details.

“Germany is considering support for at least 10 foreign fossil fuel projects worth over €1bn, despite its pledge to end international funding for coal, oil and gas”, reports Climate Home News. The outlet continues that, according to the state secretary at the German ministry of economy, Udo Philipp, the government will provide export credit guarantees for fossil-fuel projects in Brazil, Iraq, Uzbekistan, the Dominican Republic and Cuba. However, the outlet notes that Germany was among 16 countries to sign a pledge at COP26 in Glasgow last year to end international funding for fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022. Separately, Reuters reports that Germany’s power production from renewable energy rose in 2022, “but it is still below the threshold needed to reach the target of generating 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030, the Environment Agency said on Monday”. The newswire adds: “Renewable energy is expected to account for around 46% of German power consumption this year, up from 41% a year earlier, the agency said in its annual report.”

Meanwhile, Die Zeit reports that the commissioning phase of the German “liquefied natural gas” (LNG) terminal at Wilhelmshaven will occur on 22 December with the completion of the floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) called “Hoegh Esperanza” . Over the next few years, notes the outlet, the FSRU will, “as the technical heart of the terminal”, convert LNG delivered by tankers back into gas and pump it on land. Bloomberg reports that Germany’s floating LNG terminals are estimated to cost €9.7bn over the next 16 years.

Elsewhere in German media, Der Spiegel reports that the head of the Federal Network Agency, Klaus Müller, has appealed to Germans not to turn up their heating despite the current low temperatures. He argues that “there may not be enough gas by the end of winter to meet the needs of the industry if everyone turns up the heating in every room”, adds the outlet. Nevertheless, the article notes that the German gas storage facilities are currently around 95% full. Additionally, the German tabloid Bild reports that, in a confidential note, the government of German federal land Baden-Württemberg has warned of so-called “brownouts”, whereby power to companies or entire districts could be switched off for a period of up to 90 minutes this winter to stabilise the grid. The reason for the energy slump, the outlet states, is due to “maintenance work” in France, where only 32 of its 56 nuclear power plants are connected to the grid.

Finally, Bloomberg reports that the “energy crisis in Germany lowers resistance to renewables”, noting that the Bavarian town of Niederaichbach has long opposed a high-voltage line crucial for transporting Germany’s renewable energy. However, notes the outlet, as the energy crisis weighs on the region, “citizens are forced to weigh the political and environmental risks of relying on fossil fuels against the potentially obstructive aesthetics of power cables and modern windmills”. Josef Klaus, Niederaichbach’s mayor, tells Bloomberg: “We need transmission lines to increase our energy independence and make the energy transition a success.”

There is continuing coverage in the UK of the news that the government has granted planning approval to a new coking coal mine in Cumbria. The Observer reports that “senior steel industry figures have rejected claims that their demand for coal has driven the government’s divisive decision to sanction the first new UK coalmine for 30 years”. It quotes Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute, which serves as the UK’s national centre for steel research: “The UK steel industry has been clear that the coal from the West Cumbria mine has limited potential due to its high sulphur levels. This, combined with the industry’s drive to decarbonise, means that by the time the mine opens, only one of the UK’s current four blast furnaces is likely to be able to use this coal, meaning that more than 90% of production will be exported. The situation is the same in Europe with even tighter sulphur controls and a faster drive to green steel, meaning that some companies will have moved away from coal completely by the mid 2030s.”

Meanwhile, several outlets carry remarks made by US climate envoy John Kerry at an event in London. The Guardian reports that Kerry said he is “closely examining the UK government’s approval of a new coal mine, over concerns that it will raise greenhouse gas emissions and send the wrong signal to developing countries”. The Financial Times notes that Kerry said any new coal mining without technology to capture carbon emissions was going in the “opposite direction” to efforts to address climate change. It adds: “Kerry refrained from direct criticism of the UK government and said he would need to study the project’s emissions. However, he highlighted the closure in the US of more than 500 coal-fired power plants in the past decade and anticipated about 100 remaining plants would close by 2030.” Finally, BBC News and ITV News cover protests by “dozens of opponents” outside the proposed site of the mine. (See Comment below.)

Reuters reports that major energy companies are “not doing enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change despite public promises to fight the problem”, according to a US House panel which has gained access to industry internal documents. The newswire adds: “Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed major oil executives for the documents, which included internal corporate emails, late last year after a hearing grilling them over their response to climate change. Many of the documents showed major oil companies discussing the strategy of selling off, or divesting, oil and gas fields to smaller companies to lower their own emissions – a move that simply shuffles those emissions to the next company without reducing them, the panel said.” Shell has responded saying that the House panel’s probe “failed to uncover evidence of a climate disinformation campaign”. The Washington Post also covers the story: “Some of the world’s major oil companies remain internally skeptical about the ‘energy transition’ to a low-carbon economy, even as they publicly portray their firms as partners in the cause, according to documents…They reveal oil company executives dismissing the potential for renewable energy to quickly replace fossil fuels, while working to secure a future for natural gas. They also detail industry efforts to secure government tax credits for carbon capture projects that might relieve them of the need to drastically alter their business models.”

In other US news, Yahoo News says that “vegetable prices in the US were up nearly 40% in November over the previous month, according to new figures from the Labor Department, and climate change is one of the reasons why”. Its adds: “In California, an ongoing drought that studies have shown has been been exacerbated by climate change, has led to $3bn worth of agriculture losses in a state that grows much of the nation’s food.”

“More than a year after its launch”, China’s national carbon market has “failed to force the country’s power companies to slash emissions”, Bloomberg writes. Trading volumes have “underwhelmed as narrow participation and outsized allowances keep the price of polluting at a fraction of the more established market in the European Union”, the outlet says. It adds that while coal remains at the “forefront” of China’s electricity generation, utilities don’t have “much incentive to limit the amount of carbon they spew into the atmosphere”. (See Carbon Brief’s in-depth Q&A on China’s emissions trading scheme.)

Meanwhile, the People’s Bank of China’s Xuan Changneng said on Saturday at a summit that China should “pursue any transition to green economic activity in an orderly manner” and “avoid any ‘campaign-style’ carbon reductions at its financial institutions”, reports Bloomberg. He added that financial institutions must “resist exit from high-carbon assets by enhancing their ability to identify green and low-carbon economic activities and coping with financial risks linked to climate change”, the outlet notes. Reuters also covers the summit, quoting Xuan saying that “climate change and low-carbon transformation will have a major impact on the wealth pattern and the asset management industry”.

Separately, Xinhua reports that China and Saudi Arabia issued a joint statement on Friday. The two sides “underlined the significance of global oil market stability”, the state news agency notes, adding that China “welcomes Saudi Arabia’s role in maintaining a balanced and stable global oil market”. It stresses that the two sides “agreed to promote the development of wind energy and other renewable energy sources and related projects”. The article continues, the two sides “agreed to urge developed countries to face up to their historical responsibilities, earnestly fulfil their commitments, reduce emissions significantly in advance, and effectively help developing countries enhance their ability of tackling climate challenges through financing, technology and capacity building”. Separately, the South China Morning Post writes that China and Mongolia “intend to renew their joint effort to stop the spread of dangerous desertification that poses a growing threat to mining and agriculture on both sides”. China and Mongolia signed a “cooperation document” to combat desertification, the article notes, according to the Chinese foreign ministry’s website.

Elsewhere, Foreign Policy has an interview with Margrethe Vestager, the European Commission’s competition chief, who says: “We [the EU] have developed both the foreign subsidy tool and the carbon border adjustment mechanism in order to create more fairness in the trade between EU and China because we see them as competitors.” Vestager added: “At COP27, our proposal was to establish a fund to pay for loss and damage. But we want China to pay into that and not have China be a recipient. China today is not the developing country it was allowed to be labelled as when COP meetings first started.” Finally, Bloomberg writes that Goldman Sachs Group president John Waldron has said China’s road to reopening from Covid lockdowns could be “bumpy”, which “coupled with the scenario of a mild recession in Europe and the US could lead to a tougher economic climate”.

There has been continuing reaction to the news that the UK government has approved the first new coal mine in the UK for 30 years. An editorial in the Observer says that the decision “demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that No 10 has no credible green agenda and does not understand or care about the climatic peril our world is facing”. It continues: “Ministers are clearly focused only on short-term, tactical gain – in this case, to give a brief boost to local employment – at the expense of forming a strategy for reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and maintaining world leadership in the battle to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on our climate…Approval of the colliery seriously tarnishes the UK’s reputation as a global leader on climate action and opens us up to well-justified charges of hypocrisy. Telling other countries to ditch coal while creating new mines will seriously undermine British negotiators’ chances of influencing climate summits. India and other developing nations will certainly not be happy to be told to avoid using fossil fuels by a country that is exploiting new sources of the most polluting of all hydrocarbons.” In the Scotsman, Lorna Slater, who co-leads the Scottish Greens, argues that the decision “is not just reckless, it is the worst kind of climate vandalism and hypocrisy”. In the Sunday Times, environment editor Ben Spencer concludes: “Some may argue that the approval of the Cumbrian mine is a triumph of short-term politics over long-term policy. For environmental reasons, political reasons and economic reasons, it is unlikely ever to be dug.”

Meanwhile, the Lex column in the Financial Times crunches the numbers on the merits of loft insulation: “A £700 investment in loft insulation [on the average UK home] might lop 25% off gas demand, or around 3MWh — a £430 saving at 2023 costs. What of the longer term? Suppose energy prices return to pre-crisis levels by 2026, and savings settle at £110 per year. Lex calculates that the ‘present value’ of those savings — applying a 7% discount rate — would be about £1,700. That makes it well worth investing £700.” The Guardian carries an analysis by Esther Addley on whether the “writing is on the wall” for the British Museum’s BP sponsorship after the museum chair, former chancellor George Osborne, said he no longer wants it to be a “destination for climate protest”. The Daily Telegraph‘s Michael Deacon mocks young people’s concern about climate change under the headline: “Young people’s fear of climate change is endangering our future.” And, finally, the Daily Telegraph carries an interview with Stephen Fry ahead of his new documentary called A Year on Planet Earth: “Stephen Fry: ‘I don’t understand climate change deniers’.”

“Republicans have found a new front in the culture war,” begins Rebecca Leber in a feature for Vox. “For months, Republicans have been attacking ESG, the financial shorthand for how some companies consider all the ways the environment, social issues, and corporate governance impact their bottom line. One of the GOP’s recent targets is BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, which oversees some $8tn in assets, as a symbol of the financial community’s growing recognition that climate change is too big to ignore. Republican leaders call the business world’s recognition of climate science a symptom of ‘wokeism’. In a white paper released this week, the Republican minority on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs recently called out the ‘big three’ firms BlackRock, Vanguard, and States Street ‘as our new emperors’, taking issue with their involvement in a non-binding coalition that supports reaching a portfolio of net-zero emissions by 2050.” The feature continues to lay out the history and political reasoning why Republicans are attacking ESG. It concludes: “The issue’s salience in the next two years will depend entirely on how it resonates with voters and potentially factors into the presidential election. Many experts were skeptical it could ever gain political relevance, but still worry what the endgame is. Does this mean a future of ‘blue banks’ and ‘red banks’? Will financial behemoths be frightened into weakening already-weak climate targets? It’s too early to say. But the right’s war on banks won’t necessarily drive a back-pedalling on climate goals. BlackRock has tempered its interest in climate publicly since the ESG attacks began, but other institutions have pushed ahead.”

Meanwhile, an editorial in Jamaica’s Gleaner says the island nation “faces existential dangers from global warming and climate change”. It adds: “Policies and programmes around the effects of climate change will hardly make sense without talking to, and getting the involvement of, the people who are being directly impacted by global warming.”

Indigenous people receive 63% greater benefits from participating in nature-based activities than non-Indigenous people in Canada, according to new research. The authors use data from a survey of more than 24,000 people across Canada to assess their preferences and values for nature-based activities. The paper says that “indigenous peoples may be more vulnerable to adverse impacts on nature-based activities such as land-use changes, climate change, and government policies”. The study finds that women see 21% fewer benefits from nature-based activities than men. It adds that immigrants have the lowest participation in nature-based activities and receive the fewest benefits from them.