Many outlets cover the news from last Friday that G7 countries have vowed to stop all new financing for overseas coal projects by the end of this year, in what the Financial Times describes as a “breakthrough in the global effort to fight climate change”. The FT adds that the G7 environment ministers, including the US administration’s John Kerry and the UK’s COP26 president Alok Sharma, issued a “strongly worded” communiqué which “sets the stage for more climate pledges when G7 country leaders, including British prime minister Boris Johnson and US president Joe Biden, meet in Cornwall next month”. BBC News says the ministers “agreed to stop direct funding of coal-fired power stations in poorer nations by the end of 2021”, adding: “There’s wriggle room in the statement, but the decision will send a clear message to development banks that still fund coal power in poor countries.” The Guardian says that “after two days of wrangling” the ministers also “committed to phasing out coal and fully decarbonising their [power] sectors in the 2030s”. The newspaper adds: “Japan, one of the world’s biggest sources of finance for coal power, along with China, held out on agreeing to stop helping to build until the final stages of the two-day virtual meeting. Japan’s government raised concerns that if it halted the financing, China would step in and build coal-fired power plants overseas that were less efficient than Japanese designs.” [The only other major state financier of overseas coal power development, South Korea, recently committed to phasing out support.] The Washington Post says the G7 nations agreed to “ambitious new goals”, adding that “other climate-related promises that nations made Friday included a commitment to safeguard 30% of the world’s land and 30% of oceans by 2030 in hopes of reversing the loss of wildlife and helping nature to soak up carbon emissions”. The Times states that “the decisions help to pave the way for a successful outcome from pivotal UN conferences on biodiversity in China in October and climate change in Glasgow in November”.

Politico says that “the G7 is throwing down a challenge to China and other middle and emerging economies: follow our lead and stamp down hard and fast on coal power”. However, it noted that the G7’s “determination was undermined by a mixed message from the group itself, with uncertainty over whether Japan has agreed to end foreign coal financing, and Japan and Germany balking at agreeing to end domestic coal-fired power by 2030”. Sky News‘s Victoria Seabrook says the G7 announcement is an “exciting milestone in the global struggle to tackle climate change”, adding that “this is the strongest language yet from the group of seven ‘advanced’ economies on ending coal and it was likely hard won”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that “Japan and Australia have disputed the findings of the International Energy Agency’s report on reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, indicating they will continue fossil fuel investment despite the watchdog’s advice”. It continues: “The push back from [IEA] member countries – traditionally big fossil fuel consumers – and global energy producers, highlights the controversy surrounding the IEA’s recommendations which include halting fossil fuel exploration and spending on new projects.” [See Carbon Brief’s in-depth summary of the IEA’s net-zero “roadmap”.] Writing on LinkedIn, IEA executive director Fatih Birol says: “Our roadmap sets out a pathway to net-zero by 2050. We do not claim it is the only one. Different countries are in very different places on the path to net-zero, and each will chart its own course.”

BBC News reports that the influential employers’ organisation Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said in a “landmark” economic plan for the UK that “business and government should put the bitter divisions of Brexit behind them and focus on building a fairer, greener economy”. The CBI adds that such a focus “could drive an extra £700bn of economic growth by 2030”. The CBI’s Tony Danker tells the BBC. “For the last five years business and government have been at odds. Brexit was very divisive. But after the events of the last five years, we find ourselves in total alignment about what needs to be done. We need to level up, we need a greener economy and, my God, we should not waste this opportunity.” The Guardian notes that the CBI report argues that “British businesses have the opportunity to create 240,000 low-carbon jobs and boost green exports by billions of pounds to radically transform the UK economy over the next decade”. The Times says that Danker will say in a speech later today: “Our plan is to make the UK the most competitive, dynamic and future-focused economy in the world. Become a beacon to the world in achieving green growth. Decarbonising our economy is a planetary imperative, we can use our transition to net-zero to create green jobs, to find sustainable solutions and sell them to the rest of the world.” The i newspaper highlights that the CBI report argues that “no new gas boilers should be installed in any UK home from 2025”. The i newspaper also has a feature asking: “Can the UK rely on hydrogen to save its gas boilers?” And Bloomberg carries an exclusive saying that “British homeowners will have to replace their conventional gas boilers with potentially more expensive and greener alternatives under a radical plan being drawn up by prime minister Boris Johnson’s officials”. It adds: “When owner-occupiers sell their homes, or carry out significant renovations, they would need to make sure their heating systems comply with tougher new environmental standards, people familiar with the proposals said. That’s likely to involve replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump, which can typically cost more than £10,000.”

In other UK news, the i newspaper covers a new report by Imperial College London, commissioned by Drax, which says that the “UK’s electricity grid is increasingly vulnerable to weird weather events as its reliance on low-carbon wind and solar power grows”. The Guardian covers provisional data published by National Grid showing that “powerful gusts of wind sweeping across Britain have helped the country reach a new all-time high for electricity generated from wind turbines”. It adds: “Between 2am and 3am [on Friday], wind was contributing 62.5% to Britain’s electricity mix, beating the previous record of 59.9% from August last year, when gale-force winds brought by storms Ellen and Francis hit the country.”

A separate Guardian article says that “climate-heating carbon dioxide will be sucked from the air using trees, peat, rock chips, and charcoal in major new trials across the UK”. It continues: “The £30m government-funded project will test ways to do this effectively and affordably on over 100 hectares (247 acres) of land, making it one of the biggest trials in the world.” The i newspaper also covers the story. BusinessGreen covers the news that the UK government has “today announced a new £166.5m spending plan designed to accelerate the roll out of green technologies across the UK’s energy-intensive industries, predicting the latest phase of its ‘green industrial revolution’ will help create up to 60,000 jobs”.

Meanwhile, the Times reports that “flood-prone communities may miss out on concrete flood defences under plans by the Environment Agency to cut its carbon footprint by focusing on nature-based solutions to flooding”. Another Times articles says that “up to 25,000 electric vehicle drivers will be offered financial incentives to charge at off-peak times under plans to reduce the need for power grid upgrades”. CityAm notes that the “Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, also known as Ofgem, has invested £300m into expanding the UK’s electric vehicle (EV) charging network today”. The i newspaper says “Britain needs to embrace significantly increased mining on UK soil for raw materials vital to new low-carbon technologies as a trade-off for a green future, according to experts at the Natural History Museum”. Finally, the Sunday Telegraph criticises Alok Sharma for flying to international meetings this year ahead of COP26.

The Financial Times reports that “European leaders are on a collision course over the looming impact of radical emission targets on their citizens and businesses as the cost of going green hits home across the EU” It continues: “A summit in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday is set to be dominated in part by discussions on how to decarbonise swaths of the European economy so that the bloc can meet its goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 55% by the end of the decade. In particular, the summit may blow into the open the distributional questions at the heart of the green agenda as it will impact voters’ disposable incomes by driving up household energy bills, pump prices and food costs. Officials expect a divisive debate that pits richer countries in western Europe against their poorer and more polluting counterparts in the south and east.”

Meanwhile, a separate Financial Times article says that “the EU is moving closer towards agreeing a tax on aviation as part of a wide-ranging revamp of fossil-fuel levies to help meet ambitious emissions goals”. The report adds: “EU finance ministers meeting in Lisbon on Saturday expressed broad support for upcoming proposals for a Europe-wide tax on kerosene jet fuel used in aircraft, officials told the Financial Times. Brussels has struggled in previous years to extend its fuel taxation rules to areas such as aviation and maritime but the cause has been re-energised by the bloc’s commitment to reduce EU carbon emissions by 55% over the next decade and to net-zero by 2050.”

The New York Times says that “the linchpin of president [Joe] Biden’s climate plan faces a perilous path through the Congress” in the coming days. The NYT’s Lisa Friedman explains: “The central tool of Mr. Biden’s plan, known as a clean electricity standard, would require power companies to gradually ratchet up the amount of electricity they generate from wind, solar and other sources until they’re no longer emitting carbon dioxide. On paper, it seems a no-brainer. Some version of it has been approved by 29 states from Washington to Virginia. The idea is popular among Democratic and Republican voters. And experts say it is one of the most effective ways to cut the pollution from burning oil, gas and coal that is driving climate change. But in trying to push a nationwide standard through a bitterly divided Congress, Democrats are considering a politically risky move: attaching it to a fast-track maneuver known as budget reconciliation, which allows some bills to pass with a simple majority. That would require the support of all 50 Democrats, including senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the state second only to Wyoming in coal production.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that “US Senate Republicans and the White House could have as little as a week to 10 days to overcome their differences on infrastructure and strike a deal to revitalise America’s roads and bridges, a top Republican said on Sunday”. The newswire continues: “Senator Roy Blunt, who is among a group of Republicans negotiating with the Biden administration, said the two sides are still far apart on how to define infrastructure, which president Joe Biden views as a wide-ranging topic that includes climate change”. The Hill says “supporters of President Biden’s infrastructure plan see it an important tool for getting his climate goals across the finish line”. It spells out the significance: “Some argue that is the most politically prudent way to pass some of the provisions that they fear may not have enough bipartisan support to evade a filibuster on their own. And they expressed concern that if the plan doesn’t get through Congress, it could make Biden’s pledges like getting US emissions to half of 2005 levels by the end of the decade much harder to accomplish.” Another Hill article covers the comments made yesterday by White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy who rebutted fake Republicans claims that Biden wants Americans to give up red meat, saying that “we’re all in a lotta trouble” if people think consuming less meat is the “entire solution to climate change”.

A British diplomat in Beijing has said that the UK would not be able to ‘independently’ tackle climate change challenges “if it doesn’t cooperate with China”, according to 21st Century Business Herald. Danae Dholakia, Beijing minister-counsellor prosperity at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, highlighted the importance of a China-UK climate collaboration during an interview with the state-affiliated outlet. Dholakia stated that the upcoming biodiversity-focused COP15 in Kunming and COP26 in Glasgow this year would give the two nations “unique opportunities” to establish a “deeper partnership” in the field, the report reads.

Meanwhile, China’s Inner Mongolia autonomous region, the nation’s former cryptocurrency hub, has launched a new crackdown on virtual currency mining after ordering all mines to close in March, reports state-approved China Times. The website says that the region’s energy-use authority has set up a “mining reporting platform” for the public to flag relevant activities. Meanwhile, most cryptocurrency mines in Sichuan had undergone a temporary blackout for three days as of Thursday after the state grid had cut their electricity supply amid a shortage of the resource in the province, China Times adds.

Separately, Chinese premier Li Keqiang has ordered “key coal enterprises” to “increase production and supply while ensuring safety” to prepare for the summer energy-use peak, reports Xinhua. At a top-level political meeting, Premier Li also called on renewable energy producers to “make contributions”, the state newswire says. Shanghai Securities News writes that the National Development and Reform Commission has urged the electricity industry to ensure a “steady” supply while acting upon the nation’s emissions targets “fast”. The South China Morning Post reports that an Australian coal ship has finally unloaded its cargo in China after a year waiting off the coast, due to a diplomatic dispute between the two nations.

Finally, the Financial Times has a feature on why “China and US [are] look[ing] to rekindle [their] Paris bond to reach net-zero”.

The Financial Times says that ExxonMobil, a “titan of corporate America”, faces a “pivotal moment this week as restive shareholders have their say on what critics call an inadequate response to seismic shifts brought on by climate change”. It adds: “On Wednesday, the most watched proxy battle in years will end in a vote to decide who sits on ExxonMobil’s board. The company is trying to fend off a challenge from upstart hedge fund Engine No1, and after a string of recent endorsements the activists think victory is within grasp.”

Separately, the Guardian reports that “Britain’s biggest fund manager has piled pressure on Shell after joining a shareholder rebellion over the oil company’s carbon-cutting plans, saying that they lack credibility and the ambition required to combat global heating”.

An editorial in the Washington Post looks at the IEA’s new net-zero roadmap published last week (see above): “The agency rejects fantasies that everyone will suddenly eschew air conditioning and walk to work, figuring that behavioural change will drive only 4% of emissions cuts. Moreover, some 785 million people lack access to electricity. For them, the priority is getting this essential service, not how that happens. The goal must be to advance living standards everywhere while cutting the environmental impact…Of course, few governments, if any, are likely to follow the script as closely as necessary. The agency found that the Earth would warm 2.1C by 2100 if every nation met its current commitments. That is much higher than the 1.5C scientists recommend. On the other hand, it is also far better than if governments had done nothing. The world must not shy from the challenge.”

An editorial in UK tabloid the Sun asks: “Is the government taking its policy cues from Extinction Rebellion’s loons?” It continues: “The UK’s ambitious eco-targets are laudable, but the Sun has long argued that green measures work best when the public are gently coaxed into them. The idea of fining households for not switching to more efficient home boilers hardly falls into that camp. Buying an eco-friendly £10,000 heat pump [see UK news section above] would be ruinously expensive for many families – if not flat-out unaffordable. Savings on fuel bills that won’t pay off for years are scant consolation. Ministers must return to dangling the carrot of subsidies, and put away the stick.”

In other UK comment, the Guardian carries a short piece by Charles, Prince of Wales, in which the heir apparent to the British throne argues that “it is essential the contribution of the small-scale family farmer is properly recognised – they must be a key part in any fair, inclusive, equitable and just transition to a sustainable future”. Meanwhile, the Sunday Times carries a column by John Collingridge under the headline: “What my electric car nightmare taught me about net-zero.” He concludes: “Net-zero is a societal shift that requires detailed, multi-decade planning. It is something that should transcend electoral cycles. It involves investment decisions from which only future generations of politicians will reap the plaudits. It demands a clear and realistic strategy to create jobs that will replace the tens of thousands set to be lost in cities such as Aberdeen, when the North Sea oil and gas industry dies, or Birmingham, when the combustion engine is killed off. It is not something that can be left to the market alone to decide. It is something that, in short, requires an industrial strategy.”

Temporarily overshooting 1.5C or 2C of warming could be an “economically attractive” way to meet the Paris Agreement limits by the end of the century, according to new research. The authors use an integrated assessment model to investigate when overshooting the warming targets is “economically attractive” and find that, under “medium assumptions” about climate damages and mitigation costs, “avoiding net negative emissions leads to an increase in total costs until 2100 of 5% to 14%”. However, they add that if damages from climate change are not fully reversible, then avoiding net negative emissions can “become attractive” and avoiding a temperature overshoot “may be justified”.