ExxonMobil has become the latest western company to abandon its oil-and-gas projects and cease investing in Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, according to the Financial Times. The decision to end operations at the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia’s far east – one of the largest foreign-operated oil-and-gas fields in the country – comes after BP, Shell and Equinor announced plans to exit their stakes in projects and sell their shares in Russian state oil companies, the newspaper continues. Politico notes that Sakhalin-1 has an export capacity of 6.2m tonnes a year, and ExxonMobil owns a 30% stake in the project, with most of the rest owned by Japanese and Indian companies. The piece notes that there is “a de facto embargo of Russian energy exports after nations imposed financial sanctions”. Previously, Reuters had already reported that ExxonMobil had begun removing US workers from Russia, where last year it employed more than 1,000 people. Bloomberg notes that fossil fuel giants leaving their Russian investments in recent days had likely come at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, French oil-and-gas company Total is considering how to implement EU sanctions on its Russian business amid pressure to cut off ties altogether, the Financial Times reports. While the firm has condemned “Russia’s military aggression”, stating it would not provide capital for new projects in the country and was reviewing how to deal with its existing business, it has so far “stopped short of announcing an exit”, the newspaper says. According to Bloomberg, Total held talks with the French government over its operations in Russia, as did the utilities company Engie, which has a stake in the Nord Stream gas pipeline and has provided a loan to the recently suspended Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The article states that, according to French finance minister Bruno Le Maire, a decision on Total’s operations in Russia will be taken over the coming days. An “exclusive” story in Reuters states that Nord Stream 2 AG, the company registered in Switzerland and owned by Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom that built the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, is considering filing for insolvency following sanctions from the US.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal reports that Shell’s incoming chief financial officer Sinead Gorman will “face a host of issues” including exiting Russian business, defending against an activist investor and shifting towards cleaner energy.

Member states of the International Energy Agency (IEA) have agreed to release 60m barrels of oil in a coordinated response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. Following a meeting with its 31 members, the IEA announced that the decision to release emergency stocks was meant “to send a unified and strong message to global oil markets that there will be no shortfall as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”. Reuters notes that half of the oil will come from the US, and states that Russia’s oil trade is in disarray because even though technically the fossil fuel is exempt from sanctions, “buyers are shunning Russian oil to avoid unwittingly violating sanctions”. Axios notes that the IEA said the “initial” 60m barrel release is 4% of members’ combined stockpiles and would represent 2m barrels per day for 30 days. It adds that Russia currently exports about 5m barrels per day, with more than half going to Europe. The Financial Times notes that “rather than calm prices, the announcement triggered further gains”. The Times reports that oil prices rose above $110 a barrel this morning – the highest since July 2014 – with “fears of supply disruptions mounting” as attacks on Ukrainian cities intensify.

Anna Moskwa, Poland’s energy minister, tells Politico that Russia’s war on Ukraine should lead to the whole EU moving to “de-Russify” its energy sector. Reuters, meanwhile, reports that the invasion has prompted Italy to put its share of financing for the $21bn Arctic LNG-2 project led by privately-owned Russian gas producer Novatek on hold. The piece notes that this project was expected to produce almost 20m tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) a year in 2026. This comes after another Reuters story reports that Italian prime minister Mario Draghi said his nation would be able to weather a complete breakdown in gas supplies from Russia in the short-term, adding that following winters would be more difficult.

An “exclusive” story from Reuters notes that a draft resolution being prepared for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency – the UN’s nuclear watchdog’s board – condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. One diplomat told the newswire that as Ukraine has four nuclear power stations and various waste sites including Chernobyl, which Russia has seized, it is a relevant matter for the agency.

Climate Home News has interviewed Svitlana Krakovska, a Ukrainian climate scientist who was leading an 11-strong delegation in the negotiations to approve the “summary for policymakers” of the latest IPCC report. The piece notes that “as Russian troops advanced towards the capital, the survival of Ukraine as a sovereign state and the completion of the IPCC report both became critical for Krakovska”.

The Daily Telegraph reports that Centrica, the owner of British Gas, is set to end a supply agreement with Russia as UK ministers “scramble to shut the Kremlin out of the country’s pipelines”. The newspaper says they have  signed a new law banning all vessels that are “Russian-owned, operated, controlled, chartered, registered or flagged” from entering British ports, preventing shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG) and diesel from Russia. Bloomberg reports that Centrica plans to exit its gas supply agreements with Russian companies, especially Gazprom’s trading unit, “as a matter of urgency”. Chief executive Chris O’Shea said they are “working through the details of how best to do this, additionally we will ensure we are compliant with all relevant sanctions”, according to Reuters. The Financial Times says the UK government has “launched an urgent review into how to reduce Britain’s exposure to Russian gas imports and Kremlin-backed energy companies following the invasion of Ukraine”.

In his first State of the Union address last night, US president Joe Biden continued to push for tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles, both of which are key climate components of his stalled Build Back Better bill. Amid increasing energy prices, Biden framed the push as cutting costs for consumers, saying it would “cut energy costs for families an average of $500 a year”, and said it would also be part of his plan to fight inflation. After months of debate around the president’s climate spending bill, the whole package was thrown into doubt after West Virginia senator Joe Manchin refused to support it. However, the Hill notes that Manchin has expressed some support for the clean energy tax components. According to the Washington Post, Biden’s speech was “relatively light on truly divisive issues”, with the brief section referencing climate change a notable exception. According to E&E News, going into the speech, and against the backdrop of the IPCC’s latest report, progressives were pressuring Biden to use his address to “demand bold climate action and resist calls for more domestic drilling in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine”. (In the event, drilling is not mentioned in the speech and “climate” is only mentioned twice – see Carbon Brief‘s overview of how energy and climate have featured in each State of the Union address since 1989.)

The UK government cannot say what hitting its net-zero emissions target by 2050 will cost consumers, households and businesses, the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has warned, according to the Press Association. The piece says that MPs on the committee pointed out “missing answers to key questions” in the government’s net-zero strategy, which was released at the end of last year. These include “how it will fund the shift to net-zero and how it will replace income from taxes such as fuel duty, which raises billions of pounds a year but will dwindle with the move to electric cars”, it notes. The piece also adds that while the plan relies on consumer behaviour changes and new technology, it is unclear how the government plans to support this shift. Press Association also states that Treasury officials questioned by the committee were “reluctant to be drawn” on queries about costs. Some UK newspapers have used the report’s findings to support their recent messaging about high costs of net-zero, with the Sun noting that the committee “wants to know the true cost to struggling families”. An editorial in the same newspaper says that “the Sun would love a zero-emissions Britain” but “the truth is that MPs on all sides fear being straight with voters on the issue”, as bills are “already rocketing”. The Daily Telegraph also has the story.

Bloomberg reports that Chinese power plants and steelmakers are “looking for alternatives” to Russian coal. The publication says that some Chinese domestic banks have “suggested” that these companies should “avoid purchases” due to the “mounting sanctions” against Russia. The report cites “people with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be named as the issues are commercially sensitive”. Reuters reports on the same matter, saying that Chinese traders are “scaling back” imports of Russian coal. The newswire explains that Chinese traders “struggle to secure financing from state banks” because the latter is worried about potential sanctions against Moscow.

Meanwhile, AFP reports via France24 that China “backpedals” on its climate promises as its economic growth “slows”. The news agency refers to a speech made by China’s president Xi Jinping in the country’s “coal heartland” and notes that “Beijing is not ready to kick its coal addiction, despite promises to slash emissions”. It says that environmentalists are “concerned” that a series of policies from the Chinese government would mean that “China would continue to pollute beyond the 2030 deadline by which it has promised to have reached peak emissions”.

Elsewhere, China’s state news agency Xinhua reports that China’s state economic planner has “called for further improving the price-formation mechanism in the coal market to guide price movements within a reasonable range”. CGTN – the English arm of the state broadcaster – says that rescuers have been “trying their hardest” to rescue the 14 missing miners trapped in a coal mine in southwestern China. The coal mine roof had collapsed on Friday morning, the channel reports.

Unearthed writer Damian Kahya has penned an opinion piece noting that “Russian fossil fuels are the last thing the west wants to sanction. The reasons why are important”. Kahya says: “We’re way past the point where energy politics matter a great deal now, but let’s go through the motions, because it does still matter – if only thanks to its connection to climate change.” He lists the sanctions already in place on Russia, and notes that the west “continues to buy Russian oil, in dollars, at record prices”. He continues: “While BP and Shell have promised to pull out (albeit have not yet actually pulled out) Exxon, Eni and Total remain heavily invested in Russian oil and gas. Only last year, we released footage of a senior Exxon lobbyist bragging about his success in warding off sanctions on Russia which might have impacted its investments…The more demand there is for oil and gas, the more money there is for Putin. The oil price is global and it rises like all other prices, with demand. It doesn’t matter who uses what oil where, if there is less demand, dictators get less cash. That’s why – as we reported before COP and as has emerged again now – the Russians and the Saudis don’t want action on climate change. They don’t even want the UN to note that climate change is caused by humans.” Meanwhile, Conservative MP Craig Mackinlay – who chairs the “Net-Zero Scrutiny Group” of climate-sceptic Tory politicians – has penned an opinion piece in the Times entitled, “European reliance on Russian gas will hurt us all”. At the same time, DeSmog reveals the links between Mackinlay and “a lobbyist who has an undeclared interest in the continued use of fossil fuel-powered vehicles”.

Elsewhere, Daily Telegraph international business editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written a comment piece arguing that “cutting off Russian gas supplies puts fracking back on the table”. He notes that the European Parliament will vote today on a motion targeting energy, with a call to “use all possible gas depositories in order to ensure uninterrupted gas supply to the EU”, and states: “That implies fracking.” Meanwhile, the Guardian has published an editorial noting that “the Russian invasion of Ukraine has ended an era of German foreign policy and is transforming security assumptions across the EU”. The piece highlights Germany’s decision to halt the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and argues that “ending German energy dependency on Russian gas, and accelerating the green transition, has become a matter of national security”. An editorial in the Daily Mail notes Germany’s decision to recommission its nuclear power plants, and calls on Britain to make a “similar reset”. And an editorial in the Sun argues that “Britain’s money should no longer fund Russia and the government must cut all Kremlin links”.

There is extensive commentary on the new IPCC report, which was released on Monday. The Financial Times considers the report’s focus on the need to adapt to climate impacts, noting that “while trying to cut emissions is fundamental, just as much focus is now needed on adapting to the inevitable – while it is still possible”. The editorial also ties these issues into wider geopolitics and specifically Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “More geopolitical risk, more instability and ultimately more conflict is inevitable if they do not try to break this addiction [to fossil fuels] in the longer term.” The piece notes that preparing for climate impacts will take money, stating that the IPCC “tried to sidestep” the politically charged issue of “loss and damage”, but concluding that: “Regardless, richer countries need to keep promises already made. A 2009 pledge to channel $100bn in both public and private climate finance to poorer nations by 2020 still has not fully materialised. Doing nothing will only push up costs in the long run.” On the topic of loss and damage, Reuters has an analysis piece looking at how the IPCC report has reignited the “global fight for compensation” for climate impacts.

A Washington Post editorial also considers the issue of climate adaptation, which it says still “won’t be enough”. It concludes: “There is no excuse for policymakers to be asleep to the threat of climate change at this point. Time is running out to substantially reduce carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases. If we don’t act soon, adaptation will become impossible for many of Earth’s inhabitants.” In the New Yorker, environment writer Elizabeth Kolbert considers the report in the context of US politics. She concludes: “Of course, it would be useful if Congress approved legislation explicitly aimed at curbing CO2 emissions. These days, that appears about as likely as getting the proverbial snowball through Hell. Which is one reason that we can expect the state of the world, along with future IPCC reports, to grow even grimmer.”

Associated Press has a pair of pieces off the back of the IPCC report, one focusing on climate impacts in Asia and the other on Africa. Climate Home News has a piece by Linda Schneider – senior programme officer on international climate policy at the Heinrich Böll Foundation – on the risks of “techno fixes” such as carbon dioxide (CO2) removal and solar radiation management. “The latest IPCC report finds they could trigger catastrophic events, particularly in vulnerable parts of the world and would introduce a range of new, egregious hazards to people and ecosystems,” she writes.

Writing in the Times of India, climate scientist and IPCC lead author Roxy Koll points out that “climate change is still not a critical factor determining the electoral outcome in India”, even as the country “hosts the largest population that is under threat on a daily basis to rising cyclones, floods, rising sea levels, heatwaves and droughts”. He points to findings in the new IPCC report which show that “soft limits of human adaptation have been reached due to lack of financial support or adaptation measures”, such as in India’s coastal villages “under imminent threats due to storm surges, flooding, erosion and depleting fisheries”, but where low-income fishing communities are unable to relocate without the political and financial support of local governments. Koll concludes that “India needs climate-aware administrators and policymakers” at all levels, with the “political will” to implement “transformational climate action”, as well as “a collective effort involving citizens, institutions and infrastructural redesign to reduce the risks from extreme weather events”.

In a comment in the Indian Express, IPCC lead author on cities and mountains Anjal Prakash writes that “India, which has almost all the world’s agro-ecological zones, is not spared” and is host to “three major climate change hotspots: semi-arid and arid regions, the Himalayan ecosystem and coastal zones”. He says that “current adaptation measures largely focus on knee-jerk solutions and disaster management which has to move towards long-term planning for resilient cities”. Cities will house nearly 40% of all Indians in the next 15 years and will reel from risks including increased extreme heat exposure and “heat-induced labour productivity loss”, he writes, just as “places like Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam, Goa and smaller coastal towns are at a greater risk of being flooded”. He urges that “adaptation measures…must be overhauled to prepare” for future impacts, including “stormwater management, green infrastructure, sustainable urban drainage systems, passive cooling and socially just alternative[s] for managing water resources”.

New research finds that organic aerosols in the Arctic are dominated by human-produced emissions – mainly from Eurasia –  in the winter. “In summer, the decreasing anthropogenic pollution is replaced by natural emission,” the study adds. The authors use data from eight observatories that represent the entire Arctic to reveal the annual cycle in human-produced and natural aerosols. They find that natural emissions include marine secondary, biogenic secondary and primary biological emissions, which can affect cloud cover in the Arctic.