There is extensive continuing coverage of the two-day US climate summit, which concluded on Friday. Associated Press describes the closing day: “World leaders shared tales of climate-friendly breakthroughs – and feverish quests for more – to close president Joe Biden’s virtual global climate summit on Friday, from Kenyans abandoning kerosene lanterns for solar to Israeli start-ups straining for more efficient storage batteries.” It adds: “It was an exhortational end to an unusual pandemic-era summit hosted from a specially created TV-style set in the White House East Room. Biden’s two-day gathering briefly united the heads of global rivals America, China and Russia – on screens, anyway – long enough to pledge cooperation on climate. It also saw the US and a half-dozen allies commit to significant new efforts and financing to reduce climate-damaging emissions. Friday’s closing message: Go forth and spend, making good on pledges for rapid transitions to cleaner vehicles, power grids and buildings to stave off the worst of global warming.”

The Guardian says the summit “has thrown the spotlight clearly on the world’s biggest emitter: China”. It continues: “Xi Jinping, the president of China, made a cordial and well-received speech in which he promised further action on clean energy and said China would cause its consumption of coal to peak around the middle of this decade…Xi’s commitment was positive but did not mark a breakthrough, climate experts said, as it would still allow for the construction of hundreds of coal-fired power stations planned for the next five years.” A separate Guardian article notes that Biden said the US will work with Russia on ways to combat the climate crisis, “saying he looked forward to joint efforts and was ‘very heartened’ by the country’s call for collaboration on new technologies such as carbon removal”. The Financial Times says that the return of the US to international climate diplomacy has “resurfaced some old faultlines”. It adds: “Although cheered on in Europe, the US climate comeback masks divergent approaches between the two economic powerhouses on how to win the so-called race to net-zero.” The newspaper quotes France’s environment minister Barbara Pompili: “The Americans have a strategy based on the development of new technologies. It’s great to develop hydrogen, as we are doing, and carbon capture. But I think we have an extra ingredient in France and Europe. We’re going further because we’re also looking at our ways of life.”

Meanwhile, in an interview with the Sunday Times, US climate envoy John Kerry says “our satellites will see what China is doing on climate change”. Reuters reports that “Saudi Arabia will join the US, Canada, Norway, and Qatar in forming a new platform for oil and gas producers to discuss how they can support the implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change”. Climate Home News says the US, UK and Norway have launched a coalition to raise $1bn in public and private finance this year to help protect tropical forests and reduce emissions from deforestation. The Leaf coalition, which stands for Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance, was launched at the US leaders’ climate summit. Finally, the Guardian reports that new analysis shows that “Australia is on track to have the most carbon-intensive economy of any major developed country in 2030 after the US, Japan and Canada promised to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions this decade”. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald also note how the Australian government is “out of sync with the world on climate policy”.

A nationwide poll by Britain Thinks for the Green Alliance thinktank has found that a clear majority of the British public support the idea of green taxes and think the government should increase spending to address environmental issues, reports the Financial Times. The newspaper adds: “Climate experts said the findings pointed to a potential popular mandate to reform the tax system, but warned that ministers would need to move carefully to avoid a political backlash like the yellow vests movement in France that was triggered by anger over green taxes. [The polling] found that nearly two-thirds of the public supported taxing environmentally damaging behaviour and ranked the environment the third-most important priority, after healthcare and jobs…However the survey also pointed to areas of potential political tension, with low public support for levies such as road pricing, which experts warned would be needed to replace lost revenue from fuel duties as cars go electric.”

In other UK news, the frontpage of the Sunday Times carries the news that Richard Moore,  who heads of the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, has revealed in an interview with Times Radio that the MI6 spying unit is helping to check that industrial nations are “playing fair” when it comes to meeting their climate change commitments. The interview with Moore adds: “Moore called global warming ‘the foremost international foreign policy agenda item for this country and for the planet’, adding: ‘Of course we have a role in that space. Where people sign up to commitments on climate change, it is perhaps our job to make sure that actually what they are really doing reflects what they have signed up to.’ Moore declined to go into any detail on how his green spying works. Asked whether it means agents covertly monitoring factories’ emissions from nearby fields, C responded: ‘I am loving the image, but I am not sure that is quite what we are doing.’” The Press Association also covers the story.

Meanwhile, a Guardian investigation “reveals” that “solar projects commissioned by the Ministry of Defence, the government’s Coal Authority, United Utilities and some of the UK’s biggest renewable energy developers are using panels made by Chinese solar companies accused of exploiting forced labour camps in Xinjiang province”. The Observer reports that “the UK overtook France to become Europe’s second largest electric car market in the first quarter of the year, amid rising demand for cars with zero exhaust emissions”. The Sunday Telegraph (not yet online) carries the views of Guy Gratton, who sits on one of the government’s “jet zero” subcommittees and leads research into low-carbon aviation at the University of Cranfield. He says “the unpleasant truth” is that “jet zero” aviation technology will not be ready in time to meet the government’s climate targets. He warns that there is “a degree of denial” about introducing the necessary curbs on demand for flying.

Finally, the Guardian joins many outlets in reporting that six Extinction Rebellion protesters have been cleared of causing criminal damage to Shell’s London headquarters despite the judge directing jurors that they had no defence in law. And the Independent continues it new campaign about the UK government’s funding of fossil fuel development with an interview with Lord Deben from the Climate Change Committee and an article on Labour’s calls to close the “unacceptable loopholes” on overseas fossil fuel projects.

The New York Times reports that President Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers has released a report which “makes the case” that a “failure to adopt clean energy technologies and reduce carbon emissions will contribute to [the US’s] rising economic costs”. The report adds: “[The US] has also fallen behind its biggest global competitors in efforts to develop technologies that could reduce the effects of climate change. Citing data from Bloomberg, the report lays out a few bleak comparisons: China has dominated market share across clean technology sectors, from battery cell manufacturing to wind turbines. The effect, the report said, could ‘mean growing dependence upon more intrepid countries.’”

Meanwhile, China’s special envoy for climate, Xie Zhenhua, has said that the country is “confident” about implementing its climate pledges “to 100%”, reports Chinese financial news outlet yicai.com. Xie stressed that China’s goal to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and become carbon neutral by 2060 “greatly lifted the confidence of the international society”, the state-run publication says. Xie gave the remarks during a press conference in response to president Xi Jinping’s address at the leaders climate summit last Thursday. He did not “rule out the possibilities” of forming a joint working group on climate change with the US, according to state-affiliated news site Jiemian.

At the same briefing, deputy foreign minister Ma Zhaoxu said China’s climate goals reflected the “maximum” requirements of the Paris Agreement, reports state news agency Xinhua. (Read Carbon Brief’s report on a new study that assesses the compatibility of China’s “carbon-neutral” pathway and the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C warming limit.) Shanghai-based The Paper focuses on the same press briefing, highlighting Ma’s warning that climate change should not become “a geopolitical bargaining chip”. China Daily picks up the comments made by Xie at an industry forum in Beijing. It reports Xie saying that climate change and decarbonising transition brought “challenges” as well as “opportunities”.

In other China news, 23 provinces have laid out their plans to develop hydrogen energy, state-run China Energy News says. Finally, Communist Party-led People’s Daily reports that the installed capacity of electricity-generating units “in national infrastructure” amounted to 23.5 gigawatts (GW) in the first quarter of 2021. More than 50% of them would be powered by renewable energy, it adds.

Clean Energy Wire reports that Germany’s governing coalition has agreed on higher tender volumes for next year’s wind and solar PV installations. However, the publication adds that “parliamentarians did not make headway on a new renewables target for 2030, which has become necessary after the EU raised its overall 2030 emission reduction target to 55%, leaving this key step to the next government following the September elections”.

Separately, in other news from the European Union, Bloomberg reports that “the EU’s executive arm is mulling creating an additional system of pollution-cutting incentives known as emissions trading for buildings and road transport, according to a document distributed to diplomats in Brussels”. It adds: “The 23 April memo doesn’t say whether drivers and home owners, or the car industry and construction companies…will be on the hook to purchase permits for their emissions. The planned gradual introduction of tailor-made greenhouse-gas trading systems for housing and transport would come on top of carbon caps for utilities and manufacturers in the existing EU Emissions Trading System. It would not interfere with the carbon price in the current ETS, the commission said.”

There is extensive commentary reacting to Joe Biden’s climate summit. An editorial in the Financial Times says that “targets alone will not solve the climate crisis” and that the “Biden administration has kicked the agenda into a new gear but more is needed”. It continues: “Two measures in particular require immediate action. Subsidies for fossil fuels must end, and a meaningful price must be placed on carbon.” An editorial in the Guardian says: “Richer countries must make available resources and technology to allow poorer ones to autonomously green themselves. A COP26 deal requires rich-world concessions. The climate emergency will not be over for anyone until it is over for everyone. Mr Biden has made a definitive break in the US. It’s time to enable others to do the same.” Also in the Guardian, UNFCCC executive secretary Patricia Espinosa writes: “The US’s renewed commitment to the cause of climate change is a source of justified optimism. By promoting change within its borders and fostering stronger ambition overseas, the US government is helping to move the climate agenda forward.”

A range of analysis pieces and columnists also assess the two-day summit. The New York Times carries an analysis piece by its climate correspondents which says that “Biden’s bet on a climate transition carries big risks”, adding that “business leaders are fretting over the rapid timeline”. The Guardian‘s Oliver Milman writes: “At some point Biden will have to bring in ‘sticks’ as well as ‘carrots’, such as a tax on carbon emissions and a directive to utilities to phase out fossil fuels. Again, such measures face huge hurdles in Congress.” Politico looks ahead to the possibilities of “climate trade wars”: “Europe is adamant it will plow on alone [with a carbon border tax] and the more summits that end in blah climate announcements, the more likely it becomes they will try to wield the power of the largest single market on earth.” In Time, Ian Bremmer argues “why action against climate change is unlikely to improve US-China relations”. In the South China Morning Post, Wang Xiangwei says that “scepticism of China’s climate change promises is misplaced”. He adds: “Questioning whether Beijing’s ambitious targets are a PR trick to distract from its confrontation with Washington over human rights and Taiwan is disingenuous. China has a spotty record, but transitioning to a low-carbon economy offers it immense geopolitical, economic and business opportunities.” Vox has a piece headlined: “5 things to know about the new US climate commitment.” In the Guardian, Australia editor Katharine Murphy argues that the “global reset on climate action leaves Scott Morrison looking like yesterday’s man”.

Finally, the Financial Times has a special supplement today on the “future of energy”. It includes a range of articles including one on why a “carbon price is missing from Biden’s overhaul of climate policy”.

The UK publications carry a range of comment discussing how best to meet the nation’s newly tightened and legally binding climate goals. Martin Sandbu, the FT’s European economics commentator, argues that “Ending the carbon habit might affect our lives no more than giving up CFCs did after the 1980s”. He adds: “The point is not to underplay the challenge ahead of us, which is gargantuan. The carbon transition requires bold steps in politics and policy, and for people and businesses to change their behaviour from fossil-powered to carbon-neutral options. The cost of doing so must be reduced for the poorest, ideally by redistributing carbon taxes as ‘carbon dividends’.” In the Sunday Times, science editor Ben Spencer says the hard bit is yet to come and quotes Joss Garman, UK director of the European Climate Foundation [which funds Carbon Brief]: “The next phase will involve changes people are more likely to notice. There will also be a cost. Politicians will be reticent to approve any changes they aren’t confident will enjoy support from voters. But if ministers target investment carefully, costs should stay low for most households.” In the Observer, Jillian Ambrose runs through the “winners and losers in Britain’s climate plan”. She argues that nuclear power plants could be one of the losers: “Big reactors are highly controversial due to sky-high costs, long construction times and a risk of overspending by billions of pounds. A greater emphasis on cutting carbon by 2035 could add another argument against further large nuclear power plants in favour of options that can be built faster and cut emissions sooner. This bodes well for Rolls-Royce, which is hoping to develop a string of small modular reactors.” Paul Waugh, the executive editor of politics at HuffPost UK, asks: “Can [chancellor] Rishi Sunak act quickly enough to save the planet?” He continues: “With the Treasury’s net-zero review looming, critics fear the chancellor is not evangelical enough about the environment. But allies say he won’t run ahead of public opinion.” In the Independent, Mohamed Adow says that while the UK creates clean energy systems at home, it is “shackling poorer nations with dirty fossil fuels – now is the time for rich countries to support Africa’s clean energy transition”.

Meanwhile, several newspapers carry comment pieces warning about the possible costs of a net-zero transition. In the Times, economics editor Philip Aldrick cautions that “green markets cannot be just another gravy train if we are to save the planet”. Another Times article carries the views of columnist Matthew Parris who says: “Boris Johnson is right to push the green agenda but installing millions of heat pumps will be hugely costly and disruptive.” In the Sunday Telegraph, Jeremy Warner simply writes: “Going green will cost us all a lot of money.” He adds: “The big takeaway from last week’s Leaders’ Summit was not so much the new commitments as that most political leaders now see action on climate change as in their own self-interest. That there are also costs is, however, certain – costs to people’s pockets, and costs to established livelihoods made obsolete by the transition from one age to the next. In their newfound enthusiasm for all things green, the politicians would be wise to bear this in mind and design mitigating policies accordingly.” An editorial in the Sunday Telegraph concludes: “The Tories are also starting to take some of their supporters for granted. Woke environmentalism won’t grow the Vote Leave coalition, and the new emissions targets set by the Government are utterly unrealistic.”

Finally, several UK newspapers carry comment by climate sceptics. The Daily Telegraph has published the views of Douglas Murray (“climate extremists will never be satisfied”) as well as by Andrew Montford from the climate sceptic lobby group known as the Global Warming Policy Foundation (“Net zero is a disaster waiting to happen”). The Mail on Sunday has columnist Peter Hitchens arguing that “Boris’s green revolution will turn Britain into a third world country” and the Daily Express publishes the view of columnist James Whale (not yet online) who says “I’m fed up with hearing about [climate change]” and adds that “saving the planet isn’t realistic”.

A new study estimates that forests and the conversion of forests had a “near-zero” overall contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels between 2011 and 2020. Using data reported by individual countries to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020, the paper presents the latest update to estimates of carbon emissions and removals from forests around the world. The authors find a “significant reduction” in net global emissions from forest conversion over 1991-2000. They add that forests are a “significant carbon sink globally”, but decreased in strength from −3.5Gt CO2 in 1990 to −2.6Gt CO2 in 2020. The study also finds that forests and forest conversion combined were a net source of CO2 into the atmosphere between 1990 and 2020, with the exception of a period over 2011-2015 when “forest land removals counterbalanced emissions from net forest conversion, resulting in a global net sink of −0.7GtCO2 per year”.

Policymakers and stakeholders around the world widely expect the Covid-19 pandemic to accelerate efforts to decarbonise economies, according to a new study. The authors asked more than 200 policymakers from 55 countries about their expectations for climate policy over the next five years. They find that in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Asian countries, which contribute roughly 90% of emissions, “support for high-emitting sectors is not expected to dissolve completely”. However, they add that “commitment to policies supporting the transition to low-carbon energy and transport sectors is expected to increase substantially”.