Half the corals on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef have died over the past 25 years due to warmer seas resulting from climate change, AFP reports. According to the newswire, a new study published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society found an “alarming” rate of decline on the vast reef. While all coral varieties were impacted, larger species, such as branching and table-shaped corals, were the worst affected, “almost disappearing from the far northern reaches of the reef”, the piece states. BBC News reports that the “steepest falls” came after mass bleaching events in 2016 and 2017, noting that more mass bleaching occurred this year. The article includes a statement from the researchers, who said: “There is no time to lose – we must sharply decrease greenhouse gas emissions ASAP.” Bloomberg includes comments from the paper’s authors indicating their concerns that the ability of the Great Barrier Reef to recover from extreme events is being compromised because there are not only fewer large breeding adults, but also “fewer babies”. It notes that corals are considered key indicators of the state of ocean ecosystems and that, even if global warming is limited to a “best-case scenario” of 1.5C above pre-industrial times, “almost all warm-water coral reefs are forecast to suffer significant losses”.

Last year Carbon Brief published an interactive feature asking “can the Great Barrier Reef survive climate change, which includes input from a co-author of the new study, Prof Terry Hughes. The Independent notes in its coverage of the paper that, despite evidence of climate impacts, the Australian government has pledged a recovery from coronavirus led by fossil fuels, specifically gas.

Separately, the Independent reports on a different paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which found that recent Atlantic ocean warming has been “unparalleled” over the past 2,900 years.

Axios reports on plans for US president Donald Trump to sign an executive order designed to “put more weight” behind his administration’s role in the international One Trillion Trees Initiative. It notes that support for the project “contrasts with Trump’s overall climate posture”, adding that while White House information on the order “briefly” notes trees’ role in removing CO2, it does not mention climate change. The Hill reports that the order creates a federal council that is in charge of “developing, coordinating, and promoting federal government interactions with the initiative with respect to tree growing, restoration, and conservation”. The council will track progress on the initiative, which already has US private sector participation, and address laws that are hampering tree planting efforts, but it did not specify a target number of trees for the government, the news website notes.

As the US presidential election approaches, Reuters reports that Trump told a crowd in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that his Democratic challenger Joe Biden wants to “abolish fracking” [In fact, Biden has stated that while he will stop new oil and gas production on federal lands, he does not intend to ban fracking]. According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, Trump is “losing ground” in Pennsylvania. The New York Times reports that the Trump campaign has “taken advantage of confusing statements that Mr Biden has made about fracking despite his consistent position that he will not work to ban the practice”, but notes the approach was not “gaining enough traction” where they need it. Carbon Brief has an interactive policy tracker recording comments from Trump and Biden on climate and energy in the run up to the election, including their positions on tree planting and fracking.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that hot and dry conditions combined with intense winds in California are “threatening to reinvigorate what has already been the worst fire season in state history”. Finally, according to the Hill, conservation group the Centre for Biological Diversity is asking the Trump administration to explain why the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report released every four years that “often paints a dire picture” of climate impacts, has already been delayed by a year.

Speaking at the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative roundtable, former Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said banks should link their executive pay to climate risk management in a bid to align the industry with the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, the Guardian reports. Carney, who now serves as finance advisor for the UK presidency of the COP26 climate summit, made the comments following the announcement of net-zero climate pledges from a number of major banks. However, according to the Guardian, “few have made explicit commitments about how executive remuneration might play a part”.

Reuters reports that “Britain’s biggest asset manager” Legal & General Investment Management has announced plans to increase the number of companies it “assesses and engages with over climate change” as part of is Climate Impact Pledge. The group, responsible for more than £1.2tn in assets, will expand its coverage of companies from 100 to 1,00, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports on an “investor rebellion” at “one of the largest US companies” Procter & Gamble over environmental concerns about impacts on forests.

Climate Home News reports that campaigners are calling on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to “walk the talk” on supporting a green recovery to Covid-19. The piece notes that the IMF has made a quarter of its total lending, $250bn, available to support nations, but, in advice it offers alongside the financial support, “it implicitly backs fossil fuel subsidies that risk putting countries on a polluting pathway”. The story comes after the IMF described existing policies to reduce emissions as “grossly insufficient to date”, according to the Guardian. The newspaper notes that the international body has called for a combination of carbon pricing and an “initial green stimulus” to help recover from the pandemic.

A comment piece in the Financial Times by former counsellor to US president Barack Obama John Podesta and David Sandalow, who has served in senior positions at the White House, state department and US department of energy, explains why there “must be” short-term emissions cuts along with commitments to be carbon neutral by 2060 in China’s new climate pledge. The article explains why China’s commitment is so important, noting “President Xi’s pledge sends a message to countries around the world” and that “governments around the world will feel a combination of pressure and inspiration to follow this example”. However, the authors note that “one risk” remains in the announcement, stating that the commitment to peaking emissions country’s emissions “before 2030” is “basically” the same as a previous pledge from 2014. “Instead of ambition, the next decade looks more like business as usual,” they write. In the end, the piece is optimistic: “Forty years is a long time. But if the Chinese government starts now to set itself on a serious path towards carbon neutrality in 2060 — or well before if global ambition continues to mount — it will make a major contribution to the fight against climate change”.

The lead op-ed in the Daily Express is written by the chair of The Big Issue Group Nigel Kershaw OBE, who says he identifies with climate activist Greta Thunberg and her fears about the planet’s future. He writes about a new initiative called the Big Exchange, which launches today as the UK’s “first online investment platform to only list funds that make a positive difference to the planet and society”. According to Kershaw: “Currently, trillions of pounds held in bank accounts, pensions and ISAs are being used, without our knowledge, to fund industries that harm the Earth and do not benefit society.” He says the “opportunity for change lies with every individual”, and concludes: “Ultimately, The Big Exchange will be as big as the number of people behind it…bringing about positive transformation for people and the planet today – and for future generations.”

Meanwhile, the Sun has an opinion piece written by Sir Paul McCartney urging readers to cut out meat for “just one day a week”. The former Beatle launched the Meat Free Monday campaign in 2009 to convince people to eat more plant-based meals, the piece notes. He writes that “animal agriculture is a major contributor towards global environmental degradation and climate change” and says cutting down on meat can make a real difference. “It’s compassionate to animals, it’s good for your health and it’s damn good for the planet,” he concludes. Carbon Brief recently published a week-long series of articles on the links between food and climate change, including an interactive feature detailing the emissions from meat and dairy consumption.

An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald says that while the energy system is rapidly changing, the process of developing the grid to take advantage of these changes in Australia is “being slowed by planning delays, haphazard government intervention and the federal Coalition’s reluctance to fully embrace the possibilities of a green economy”. It questions why the government is supporting the privately owned Vales Point coal-fired plant “without considering other options such as batteries”. It also cite’s China’s recent net-zero pledge and the International Energy Agency’s report declaring the success of solar power as evidence that the “political push for faster action on reducing emissions is growing internationally”.

Record-setting temperatures set the stage for this year’s unprecedented fire season in the western US, scientists write in a letter. The authors say: “The 2020 fire season in the western United States (the West) has been staggering: over 2.5 million hectares have burned as of 31 September, including over 1.5m ha in California (3.7% of the state), in part from five of the six largest fires in state history; over 760,000 ha have burned in Oregon and Washington, most occurring within a few‐day period.”

Wolverines in the Rocky Mountains could be threatened by declining snow cover in future decades, a study says. The study uses high-resolution projections of snowpack change under several future warming scenarios to assess how it could affect wolverine denning sites. The research shows that many low-elevation denning sites could see large reductions in snowpack under any degree of future warming.