French and UN officials say plans for the 2015 UN climate summit in Paris will continue, despite Friday night’s terror attacks, according to Climate Home. AFP reports that former president Nicolas Sarkozy had decided against calling for the talks to be postponed. The Hill reports that a US official had confirmed that Barack Obama is still “slated to attend”, adding that “French foreign minister Laurent Fabius told reporters the conference will still take place, though there will be new security measures to protect participants”. Reuters says organisers of a large climate march through Paris to mark the start of the COP would now meet later today to discuss their option following Friday’s attack: “Activists could be encouraged to take to social media instead of to the streets.” Within hours of the attacks, Le Monde was reporting that French organisers of the COP were saying that there was “no question” over whether it would take place. Meanwhile, Politico reports the views of Paul Bledsoe, a former White House climate aide: “Paul Bledsoe, a former climate aide in the Clinton White House. “The resolve of world leaders is going to be redoubled to gain an agreement and show that they can deliver for populations around the world. The likelihood for a successful agreement has only increased because of these attacks.”

A handful of the Sunday newspapers trailed Amber Rudd’s long-awaited “reset” speech, which Carbon Brief understands will take place on Wednesday morning. The Sunday Telegraph said that the energy and climate change secretary will say that the UK “will no longer pursue green energy at all costs and will instead make keeping the lights on the top priority”. The key detail, though, was the possible announcement of a coal phase-out: “The energy department is understood to be considering announcing a closure date for Britain’s remaining coal plants – potentially requiring a shutdown as early as 2023.” The Sunday Times ran with the headline: “25 power stations needed to stop lights going out.” It added: “She will also hint she wants a rethink on the government’s commitment to combating climate change.” The Independent on Sunday focused on the news that 200 jobs are to be shed at Rudd’s department. it also reported an extract from her expected speech: “I inherited a department where policy costs on bills had spiralled…Subsidy should be temporary, not part of a permanent business model.”

Human societies will soon start to experience adverse effects from manmade climate change, a prominent economist has told the BBC. Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C – which has nearly been reached already. Prof Tol, interviewed for a new three-part BBC series on climate change, is regarded by many campaigners as a climate “sceptic”, says the article. Carbon Brief has published the full transcript of the Tol interview.

Epidemics of dengue fever and other tropical diseases could soon affect people in Britain because of global warming, one of the world’s leading medical experts has warned. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, said he also believed the planet is already being affected by many other serious health threats triggered by climate change – including malnutrition and deaths from air pollution. Meanwhile, the Times reports that “climate change turns Britain into haven for wildlife”, based on a RSPB report. The Scotsman has an alternative headline for the same RSPB study: “UK wildlife ‘at risk’ from rising temperatures.”

In a letter to the Guardian, Thomas Piketty has called for investors to move their money out of fossil fuels ahead of landmark UN climate change talks. The French economist, along with ‘ecological economist’ Tim Jackson, authors of the respective bestselling books Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Prosperity Without Growth: economics for a finite planet, said that investors should divest from a sector with a business model “at odds with physical realities”.

The executive director of Stockholm Resilience Centre says: “Setting such a planetary guard rail is critical, even though our scientific planetary boundary for climate change is set at 1.5C, showing that even 2C – a political “boundary” – is a risky threshold for humanity. But after 21 years of trying, nations have yet to agree a global pact to avoid this fate. This is why, earlier this year, my colleagues and I published the Earth Statement, outlining the eight essential ingredients of a successful agreement in Paris.”

The FT argues that “tying [INDC] voluntary targets to a formal treaty would be counter-productive”. It adds: “If countries are asked to make binding commitments they will limit their promises to what they know they can deliver…Countries cannot be forced to cut emissions any more than they want to. An agreement that covers much of the globe may not deliver everything. But it would still be a real step forward.”

The FT’s environment correspondent takes the executive secretary of the UNFCCC out to dinner in Bonn in the paper’s regular interview slot. In a wide-ranging, often personal discussion, the key quote comes near the end: “Let us be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that there is no such thing as Paris success, because success would be perfection. Paris is about decreasing risks into the future.”

Victor, the professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, argues that “deep greens will call Paris a failure. But it could do more to establish practical mechanisms for cooperation than any other deal since the early 1990s. It would, of course, have been better for this to have happened long ago. But better late than never.”

“The [solar] subsidies, so despised by climate change deniers, have driven market innovation and price cuts,” writes the Guardian’s money editor. “They are a mostly decent example of how government intervention can spur efficiency and job creation, outweighing the regrettably large number of dodgy double glazing-style sales tactics subsidies also triggered…Cut the subsidy, by all means. Halve it, even. Set a date for its complete removal. The industry will innovate and survive. But slicing it by 87% in one go is plain absurd.”

Drought years could become the norm for the Amazon by 2050 if deforestation rates rebound, a new study says. As the trees of the Amazon transpire, they transfer vast quantities of water from the soil into the atmosphere. Cutting trees down reduces this transfer, meaning less moisture is available to become rain. Using the results of 96 climate model runs of the Amazon from other studies, the researchers estimate that rainfall over the region could decrease by 8% by 2050 if deforestation returns to the peak levels of 2004.

The pattern of droughts may be as important as their magnitude for carbon losses from grasslands, a new study suggests. Researchers modelled the impact of short, extreme “pulse” droughts and long, chronic “press” drought periods on the carbon cycle in grasslands of the US Great Plains. The results show single year pulse droughts had immediate and prolonged effects on carbon storage, and could cause greater carbon losses than press droughts in some circumstances.