The European Union has agreed to back five-year climate targets at next month’s COP26 climate summit, where countries will attempt to finalise the rules needed to put the Paris Agreement into effect, reports Reuters. The newswire adds: “At [COP26], countries will attempt to unblock years of negotiations on the technical rules. One issue they will address is whether their climate targets under the Paris 2015 accord should follow a ‘common timeframe’. Environment ministers from EU countries agreed on Wednesday to support the view that countries should set climate targets every five years. Some EU states, including Poland, had wanted an option to set 10 years goals.” (See the EU’s position paper for COP26 here.)

In other COP-related news, Climate Home News reports that Turkey’s parliament has finally ratified the Paris Agreement, nearly six years after it signed the treaty. It says: “The move comes days after the government’s cabinet approved a goal to meet net-zero emissions by 2053…Turkey’s ratification means just five countries have yet to ratify the agreement – Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Libya and Yemen. But in a declaration approved by lawmakers alongside the text of the Paris climate treaty, Turkey unilaterally declared that it would implement the accord ‘as a developing country’ despite its developed country status in the UN climate convention.” Reuters says that President Tayyip Erdogan said countries that have a “historical responsibility” for climate change should make the most effort.

Separately, Reuters says that “Russia is considering more ambitious climate targets that would significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but fall short of carbon neutrality”, according to a draft government document seen by the newswire. It adds: “Russia’s new draft plan – which has not been approved by the cabinet – sees it cutting 2019 greenhouse gas emissions by 79% by 2050 in its main ‘target’ scenario. The target would factor in the growing carbon absorption power of Russia’s forest, the document said. The Kommersant newspaper reported that a draft of the document envisioned Russia reaching carbon neutrality in 2060 or earlier. There was no mention of that in the draft seen by Reuters.” Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that “Australia needs to increase the ambition of its 2030 emissions reduction target and ‘come back to the climate financing table’ at [COP26], according to the prime minister of Samoa”.

And, finally, in a five-minute video, the Financial Times environment correspondent Leslie Hook “outlines the stumbling blocks that could spell success or disaster in Glasgow, including emissions targets, the phasing out of coal and climate finance”.

There is continuing coverage of the energy-price crisis affecting many nations around the world. The Daily Telegraph says “natural gas prices swung wildly on Wednesday as Vladimir Putin vowed to boost supplies to Europe in the face of unprecedented pressure on households and businesses”. It adds: “Month-ahead natural gas contracts surged 40% on Wednesday morning, climbing above 400p a them for the first time in Britain, as politicians on the Continent pledged to take action to cushion the impact. They fell back below 300p after the Russian president said he would seek to solve the crisis by pumping more gas into the European Union.” BBC News says that energy bills in the UK “could rise by hundreds of pounds next year”. The Financial Times says that “European chemical and steel companies have warned that soaring gas prices threaten the region’s economic rebound in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic”. It continues: “In Spain, electricity producers are subject to a windfall levy that the Socialist-led government has imposed on companies it says have benefited from the rise in electricity prices and which do not have corresponding gas and carbon costs of their own. Iberdrola has already written to big clients warning that it may have to renegotiate existing contracts with them because of the ‘extraordinary [and] unpredictable’ impact of the new levy.” And Reuters reports: “Royal Dutch Shell warned on Thursday of a $400 million hit to third-quarter earnings from the damage caused by August’s Hurricane Ida. However, in an update ahead of quarterly results this month, the oil major also flagged a boost to cashflows from soaring natural gas and electricity prices.”

Separately, Reuters covers the views of Frans Timmermans, the EU’s climate commissioner, who says that EU’s carbon market is not the cause of soaring gas and power prices across Europe: “It is responsible to a very small extent, a maximum is one fifth…The problem is elsewhere. The problem is in the market conditions which at this stage, with the highest demand in 25 years, create these price hikes.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that “hedge funds have been quietly scooping up the shares of unloved oil and gas stocks discarded by environmentally-minded institutional investors, and are now reaping big gains as energy prices surge”. It quotes Crispin Odey, founder of London-based Odey Asset Management: “It’s such a great and easy idea…They [big institutional investors] are all so keen to get rid of oil assets, they’re leaving fantastic returns on the table.” Finally, Reuters reports that “the environmental law firm ClientEarth has warned the European Union that it would be breaching its own laws if it labels investments in gas-fuelled energy as ‘green’ in upcoming finance regulations”.

The British public want the government to move faster on banning gas boilers from UK homes, according to new polling reported by the i newspaper. It continues: “Almost half of adults support government plans to ban the sale of gas boilers, according to a Public First poll of 2,000 Britons, compared to just 23% who oppose the policy. Of those in support, 59% said the ban should be introduced within a decade. That would mean no new gas boilers installed in British homes from 2030, with households forced to switch to greener technologies when their heating systems need replacing.” The newspaper quotes Rachel Wolf from Public First, who has been a key Downing Street adviser: “There’s surprising public support for a gas boiler phase out as early as 2030. It should make the government more confident in introducing policies which will speed up the transition to clean heating in our homes.”

In other UK news, Reuters reports that “a British regulator [has] rejected Royal Dutch Shell’s plans to develop the Jackdaw gasfield in the North Sea after considering its environmental statement, industry sources said”. The newswire says Shell responded by saying: “We’re disappointed by the decision and are considering the implications.” Reuters adds: “It was unclear on what grounds the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning (OPRED) refused to approve the environmental statement for the field’s development.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times says that “National Grid’s chief executive has warned that Britain will face tighter electricity supplies this winter than in previous years, compounding the problems for businesses and households that are already facing a sharp rise in the cost of electricity as gas prices spike to record highs”. And Climate Home News has an article headlined: “UK’s 2035 zero-carbon electricity goal is a diplomatic trendsetter, analysts say.”

The New York Times reports that “the Biden administration on Wednesday announced that it would restore climate change protections to the nation’s bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, which former President Donald J Trump had weakened in an effort to speed the approval of projects like mines, pipelines, dams and highways”. it adds: “The proposed changes would require the federal government to evaluate the climate change impacts of major new projects as part of the permitting process. They come as Congress is weighing a plan to spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure improvements across the US.” Reuters quotes White House Council for Environmental Quality chair Brenda Mallory: “The basic community safeguards we are proposing to restore would help ensure that American infrastructure gets built right the first time…[The changes can] reduce conflict and litigation.”

The Indian government has released a consultation paper to amend India’s Forest Conservation Act, a move that, reports the Hindustan Times, “will facilitate private plantations and the extraction of oil and natural gas…and [what experts worry] could actually accelerate trade in what is unquestionably India’s most precious commodity – land”.

Creating “a carbon sink of 2.5-3bn tonnes through additional forest and tree cover by 2030” is one of “India’s nationally determined contributions (NDC) under the Paris Agreement”. The newspapers adds that while the country’s “environment ministry is considering introducing a provision in the act to keep certain pristine forests ‘showcasing rich ecological values’ intact for a specific period”, it “said that to achieve the NDC, extensive plantations in all possible available land outside government forests are necessary”, which could also “[revive] a thriving market for timber and wood products which has disappeared”.

The consultation paper, the Hindustan Times says, “proposes to facilitate new technologies for extraction of oil and natural gas found deep beneath the forest land by drilling holes from outside the forest areas”, a technology the ministry considers “quite environment-friendly”.

The Morning Context reports that the “environment ministry quietly uploaded the [paper] for public consultation, with a short 15-day deadline”, “limiting access to many citizens, especially forest dwellers, who will be directly affected by the proposed provisions”.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that “India’s ambitious plan to cut the use of fossil fuels by promoting ethanol derived from rice, corn and sugar is drawing criticism from some experts who warn the move could undermine food security”, in a country that “still ranks 94th [out of 107 nations] on the Global Hunger Index 2020”. It reports that “in June, [the Modi] administration [sought] to double production and have gasoline 20% blended with spirit by 2025”, offering financial assistance to biofuel producers”. However, it reports “the plan is also resulting in the diversion of food grains meant for the poor to companies at subsidised rates.”

Google Maps is to offer drivers the lowest carbon route for their chosen journey as part of the search company’s new environmentally friendly policies, reports the Guardian. It adds: “Motorists will be able to select the route with the lowest carbon emissions once factors such as traffic and road inclines are taken into account. The new product launches in the US on Wednesday and in Europe next year. Where the comparable journey times are broadly the same, Google Maps will default to the lowest carbon option. Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said the initiative could save 1m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or the equivalent of taking 200,000 cars off the road.”

James Murray, the editor of BusinessGreen, reacts to Boris Johnson’s Conservative conference speech yesterday which he says “contained some encouraging rhetoric for the green economy, but the lack of tangible policies and strange silence on the net-zero [which] will leave business leaders feeling nervous”. He continues: “The Times had been briefed that a new target to fully decarbonise the grid by 2035 would be confirmed. Other journalists were expecting news on rail links in the north of England. Neither materialised. The absence of such announcements means the government now has just a handful of weeks to deliver massive decisions that should sit right at the heart of its net-zero strategy. It is strange that the prime minister did not want to trail some of these moves yesterday. It is an absence that suggests crucial decisions have not yet been finalised.”

Meanwhile, Prospect magazine has a new edition with climate change and COP26 as its focus. The Guardian’s Fiona Harvey has written an article headlined: “One man, one planet: how the COP climate talks will put the fate of the Earth in Boris Johnson’s hands.” Harvey writes: “COP26 ought to be an opportunity for our boosterish prime minister to shine: charming, cajoling and nudging the world leaders towards a sustainable future. A chance to take the Rolls-Royce of FCDO diplomacy for a spin, to trumpet the UK’s real success in cutting its emissions to gee everyone else along. But Johnson always exuded confused priorities, and left the legwork hopelessly late.”

In the Times, James Kirkup – director of the Social Market Foundation – writes that “voters want more from business than profits”. He adds: “After the theatre of conference season, a meaningful test of Tory attitudes to business looms: net-zero and the COP26 summit. Climate change should bring Tories and business back together, because there is no Big State route to net-zero. Government alone cannot mobilise the money and resources needed to decarbonise the economy. Happily, big businesses and big investors are practically begging to get to work financing and building renewable energy generation, warmer gas-free homes, electric cars and the kit to charge them. All that’s missing is a clear steer from government. Yet Sunak, for all his pro-business credentials, is strikingly absent from this conversation. The chancellor’s Manchester speech didn’t even mention net-zero. His Treasury radiates doubt about Whitehall’s climate plans.” Separately, the Daily Telegraph carries a comment piece by Dr Stephen Davies who writes: “Frivolous energy policies will undermine Conservative support for climate action. Thinking seriously about the climate leads to the conclusion that some major changes to our lifestyles and the way we conduct business – not least a major reduction in energy usage – will be inevitable. The ironic thing is that right now there is, according to the polls, widespread support for action to address climate change, including among the Conservative Party’s core supporters.”

Finally, an editorial in the Washington Post says “instead of creating a complex and costly web of green subsidies, Democrats could impose a carbon tax that would fight greenhouse emissions and actually raise revenue”. A “big read” feature in the Financial Times is headlined: “Battery technology gives China an opening in electric vehicles.” It is “the final part of an FT series analysing how the electric vehicle market is rapidly taking off”. And Bloomberg carries a feature about how “climate scientists created a SWAT team for weather disasters”. It says: “Friederike Otto and her colleagues jump into action during heat waves, floods, and fires to pinpoint if global warming is to blame.”

New research explores “rain on snow” (ROS) events in the Arctic – when rain falls on an existing cover of snow, followed by low temperatures, or falls as freezing rain, potentially leaving a hard crust. These events “can profoundly influence the environment and in turn, human livelihoods”, the authors write: “Impacts can be immediate (e.g. on human travel, herding, or harvesting) or evolve or accumulate, leading to massive starvation-induced die-offs of reindeer, caribou and musk oxen.” The researchers review Arctic ROS events and their impacts, “addressing human-environment relationships, meteorological conditions associated with ROS events, and challenges in their detection”.