There is widespread coverage of the latest round of protests by Extinction Rebellion (XR), which is set to start today with a promised fortnight of actions. The Guardian says “environmental activists from around Britain are set to swoop on Westminster on Monday morning in an attempt to ‘shut down’ the heart of government with two weeks of disruptive protests”. It adds: “Extinction Rebellion said its members are planning to blockade ‘every single road’ into the central London district and plan to maintain the protests for at least 14 days, or until their demands are met…Activists will stop traffic from around 9am onwards at 12 different sites around parliament, including Trafalgar Square, Horse Guards Parade, the Mall, Victoria Street, and Westminster and Vauxhall bridges, among others. Throughout the week activists plan to take action around Westminster at government departments, to blockade Smithfield market, then later move on to London City airport, where they intend to stage a three-day protest…XR UK claims to have recruited five times as many activists as during the last major protests in April, when more than 1,100 were arrested at blockades of four major London sites that lasted about a week.” Similar actions are expected in at least 60 cities around the world. The Times reports that XR “is spending almost £1m” on the London protests: “The group, which has had big donations from the band Radiohead and the oil heiress Aileen Getty, has been stockpiling equipment including stages and sound systems at secret locations near Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square before the ‘October Rebellion’.” Over the weekend, 10 climate activists were pre-emptively arrested by police in London, reports Reuters: “A Reuters photographer said he saw police using a battering ram to break down a door and enter a former court building that was used by Extinction Rebellion to store equipment. A spokeswoman for London’s Metropolitan Police said seven women and three men had been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance.” The Daily Telegraph says former police officers are risking arrest by joining the protests: “The most senior is Rob Cooper, 60, a former chief superintendent of Devon and Cornwall police. He is risking arrest when he attends the protest in London on Monday. Mr Cooper, who retired a decade ago, said: ‘We really do face a climate emergency. There are times when I really struggle. I have three children and I have a grandchild.’” BBC News says that farmers will also be joining the protests: “They say agriculture has been unfairly criticised and want to highlight the work being done and the fact they are one of the industries worst affected by climate change. Dagan James, a buffalo farmer from Broughton in Hampshire, was involved in Extinction Rebellion events in April and he and other farmers came away believing not enough was being done to put the side of farmers across.” The Daily Telegraph says that XR protesters have “admitted that their climate protest could disrupt emergency care at hospitals” and that “their action could have an impact on St Thomas’s hospital, which sits on the opposite bank of the Thames from the Houses of Parliament”. In a separate article, the Daily Telegraph reports that transport secretary Grant Shapps has warned that disrupting the lives of “ordinary workers” risked “turning people against” the XR’s cause. He is quoted saying: “I am concerned that it will potentially turn people against an important cause since it’s this government which has taken a global lead by legislating to reach net-zero.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Greta Thunberg has reached Iowa in her journey from last month’s UN climate summit in New York to December’s COP in Chile. On Friday, she addressed a crowd of climate protestors where they calling for the University of Iowa to cease operations of its coal-burning plant.

EU environment ministers agreed on Friday to next year “update” the bloc’s climate pledge to the Paris Agreement, EurActiv reports. It adds that they failed to agree on how or even whether to raise the EU’s ambition, noting that “Ten countries blocked attempts by the others to commit outright to an increase there and then.” EurActiv continues: “EU diplomats were not overly disappointed with the result of the council though and even praised the fact member states had come to an agreement ahead of COP25 in Chile, which was the main objective of the meeting. According to officials contacted by EurActiv the lack of unanimity on ratcheting up the target at this stage was expected but they warned that patience with countries still dragging their feet is beginning to wear thin.” Meanwhile, Climate Home News reports that Kadri Simson, the EU’s energy commissioner in waiting, has “back[ed] gas as part of climate transition”. It quotes her telling MEPs that gas “might be the most cost-efficient option for replacing coal-based power plants”.

New research published by the University of Tokyo, Carbon Tracker and the Carbon Disclosure Project shows that “as much as $71bn of Japanese coal assets could be at risk as the economic viability of plants is undermined by cheaper renewable energy”, reports Reuters. The report uses project financial models to analyse the economics of new and existing coal plants in Japan and has found that Japan’s planned and existing coal capacity could be, says Reuters, “jeopardised by low utilisation rates and cheaper renewable energy, namely onshore and offshore wind and large-scale solar photovoltaics (PV)”. It adds: “Offshore wind, solar PV and onshore wind could be cheaper than new coal plants by 2022, 2023 and 2025 respectively…Offshore wind and large-scale solar PV could be cheaper than the long-run marginal cost of existing coal plants by 2025 and 2027 for onshore wind.”

The National Theatre has announced that it will no longer accept financial support from Shell from June of next year, reports Sky News. The move by the London-based venue comes just days after the Royal Shakespeare Company ended its ties with BP. In a statement, the theatre has declared a “climate emergency”, adding: “We believe theatre can be part of the solution – we tell stories, shape culture and encourage empathy and understanding. Our industry is made up of creative and inspiring people who are motivated to make change.” Shell has also reacted, saying: “”The heightened awareness of climate change that we have seen over recent months is a good thing. As a company, we agree that urgent action is needed.” Meanwhile, the Sunday Times reports that the Royal Society has at least £16m invested in oil and gas companies, adding that “the revelation may shock members, many of whose careers are devoted to researching climate change”. The revelation emerged following a study by Scientists for Global Responsibility into the investment policies of science and engineering societies.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published research, reports the Daily Telegraph, arguing that £28bn of fuel duty – currently, almost 4% of total government receipts – will disappear in coming decades unless a new approach to taxing motorists can be found. With the rise of electric vehicles, the IFS says that new motoring taxes should reflect distance driven and vary according to when and where journeys take place. It adds that there is also a case for introducing a flat-rate tax per mile driven. “The government should set out its long-term plan for taxing driving, before it finds itself with virtually no revenues from driving and no way to correct for the costs – most importantly congestion – that driving imposes on others,” says report author Rebekah Stroud.

There is plenty of pre-emptive opinion about this week’s Extinction Rebellion protests. Writing in the Guardian, Leo Barasi says: “Few people could have predicted that a two-week blockade of central London [last April] would be met with so much support or have such political impact. So the natural question is whether a new round of protests can repeat the success. The fact this month’s rebellion won’t be such a novelty could make things harder. It’s the difficult-second-album problem: repeat your material and you’re boring; innovate and you may lose the magic. And with the police preparing to move faster against protesters this time, it’s inevitable that opponents of climate action will call for tougher law enforcement. But difficult though it will be for the protests to recapture the novelty and public support of the April protests, that is far from the biggest problem. Ironically, the greatest threat to the movement is its apparent success over the past six months. If the public believe the protesters have already won, continued street blockades could look unnecessary.” An editorial in today’s Times says that “there is no doubt that the issue of climate change now has great salience and that Extinction Rebellion is due some of the credit”. It adds: “Yet the protesters seem strangely lacking in anything more to say beyond their stock-in-trade of rampant exaggeration. It is hard to avoid the judgment that the campaigners best placed to make climate change a burning question might not be the ones to provide persuasive answers.” The Observer carries a feature by Nosheen Iqbal on how XR has “put the world on red alert”. She adds: “While its actions may seem controversial in some quarters, Extinction Rebellion’s rise and influence have undoubtedly been extraordinary, galvanising young and old across party lines.” However, in speaking to various people involved with XR, she also uncovers some tensions. “Some grassroots groups hate them because they’re not anti-capitalist [enough], they are for-profit and pro-arrest,” one anonymous worker from a major environmental organisation tells her. In the Guardian, Damien Gayle has a piece asking whether XR “has a race problem”, adding that critics say the group is not doing enough to involve people of colour, or expose links between climate crisis and inequality.

Meanwhile, the right-wing press is full of pieces attacking XR. An editorial in today’s Daily Telegraph says: “[XR] are demanding that the government takes the issue of global warming seriously, and yet the UK’s policy on carbon reduction is one of the most ambitious in the world. In some countries, taking to the streets is often the last resort. Here we have democratic processes. They should be followed rather than disrupting the lives of millions.” On Saturday, reacting to XR’s attempt on Friday to spray the Treasury with beetroot juice, the Daily Telegraph published another editorial saying: “One has to be fairly privileged to visit this much hell on hard-working people without batting an eyelid, and quite naive not to realise the damage being done to one’s own cause. The green movement is splitting in two. On the one hand, many governments, of both Left and Right, are getting on with the job, while business innovates and consumers change their habits. On the other hand, a small band of clowns dominate air time with what often resembles silent-era slapstick comedy.” In the Sunday Telegraph, Julie Burchill says: “Hearing the over-privileged and under-productive half-wits of Extinction Rebellion talk about economic growth as if it was child abuse, you can sense real contempt towards people who believe that working at a job in order to make money and pay the taxes which keep society civil is a desirable thing to do. But perhaps this is understandable when you consider that no protest movement has ever featured so many double-barrelled names or Instagram skiing trips, while demonising air travel for the masses.” Meanwhile, the Mail on Sunday has published an opinion piece by Douglas Murray who asks why “do we listen to a bunch of anarchists”? He bemoans the “passivity” of the police which he says “is depressingly typical – and the result is that green extremists are encouraged to do whatever they want unchallenged”. He adds: “The supine response to the fanatics of XR is something which this country needs to address – and quickly…Their refusal to acknowledge any view but their own deranged belief and their defiance of democratic norms is authoritarian, even fascistic. Just who do they think they are?” He goes on to incorrectly claim that the “science of climate change is deeply contested” and that scientists “disagree on exactly what the causes are”. In today’s Daily Mail, the climate sceptic Dominic Lawson attacks climate science concluding that “the key fact to bear in mind is that CO2 is not, in itself, a pollutant”. He adds that the XR “eco-fascists” are “completely bats”.

An editorial in the FT looks favourably on fusion power, a technology that has long held promise but faced decades of delay and is yet to be commercially realised: “After years of frustration and disappointment, the field is now experiencing a justified return to optimism, driven by improvements in fusion technology accompanied by an influx of funding from public and private sectors.” The newspaper welcomes the UK government’s recent promise of further funding. “Fusion power may turn out to be unattainable at reasonable cost, for technical reasons that have yet to emerge. Yet the chances of success are high enough to justify significant spending on the development of an energy source that might make a huge contribution to the battle against climate change later this century…We should wish the fusion contenders, public and private, success in eventually overcoming the charge that fusion is a technology that always seems to be 30 years away. Whenever it opens, the first commercial fusion plant will represent a huge advance in energy generation.”

An editorial in the Washington Post says that Donald Trump’s “mindless intention to remove the US from the Paris Agreement next year, at the first possible opportunity, not only makes the US the object of international contempt – it also deeply undercuts the accord’s effectiveness”. It adds: “He is letting China off the hook just when the world’s largest emitter needs to feel more pressure…it will be increasingly impossible for humans all over the planet to ignore the accelerating costs of uncontrolled climate change. No one will be laughing then.”

“When it comes to climate policy, Thunberg has it right,” says David Roberts in his latest opinion piece for Vox. “We are in a unique historical moment; we understand the danger of climate change and, for now, still have the resources and political space necessary to address it. But every second of delay makes the challenge more expensive, more difficult, and more dangerous.” Roberts then walks through what economists conclude: “A just solution to climate change crucially hinges on maxing out near-term mitigation spending.” But there’s an extra dilemma, he says: “Climate change will primarily manifest as a series of traumas, and as a general matter, stress and trauma cause people to draw their circles of concern inward. Yet addressing climate change requires a circle of concern that encompasses all of humanity. It requires international cooperation…Every year the countries of the world put off that transition, they pile more risk onto the shoulders of their children and grandchildren. How dare they.”

A new study uses a regional integrated assessment model to identify the conditions under which European forests reach the extent required to meet the Paris Agreement’s mitigation targets. The authors look specifically at changes in meat demand, bioenergy crop production, irrigation efficiency and crop yield improvement and conclude that it is “virtually impossible” for Europe to meet its targets without transformation of the food system. The find: “Only 42 out of 972 model simulations achieved minimum levels of food provision and forest extent without the need to change dietary preferences, but relied on crop yield improvements within Europe of at least 30%. Maintaining food imports at today’s levels to avoid the potential displacement of food production and deforestation required at least a 15% yield improvement, or a drastic reduction in meat consumption (avg. 57%).”

Using satellite data, the authors analyse changes in annual mean sea surface temperature (SST) and extreme SSTs over the China Seas since 1982. They find that the average SST “experienced a remarkable declining trend during the global warming hiatus (1998–2013), which was dominated by the striking cooling of SST in boreal winter”. They add that further analyses reveals that, from 1982 to present, the marine heatwave wave (MHW) frequency increases at a rate of 1.13 events per decade, 2.5 times the global mean rate. However, for the period 1998–2013, the MHWs in the China Sea has never decreased in both of the frequency and intensity but has already become more frequent, longer and more intense than during 1982–1997.