Green groups and investment campaigners in the UK have criticised the “controversial claim” from Drax group that burning wood pellets is a carbon-neutral way to generate electricity, the Guardian reports. Over a dozen green groups including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have signed a letter to the government warning ministers against heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage, the paper adds, warning that the plans “will be costly” and “will not deliver negative emissions” after accounting for the full carbon footprint of the biomass sector. Meanwhile, more than 20 environmental groups have written an open letter to Drax shareholders to “urge them to vote against the company’s $625m (£450m) attempt to double its wood pellet supplies”. BusinessGreen notes that the government is currently designing its strategy on greenhouse gas removal techniques such as BECCS. It adds that whilst BECCS proponents say it could “lay a critical role in helping the UK reach net-zero”, campaigners and academics say that the government should instead “direct subsidies to more proven technologies”.

Separately, there is continuing coverage of EDF’s plans to close the West Burton A power station, with many outlets noting that this will leave the UK with only one coal-fired power plant. BBC News reports that the power station in Nottinghamshire will be decommissioned from September 2022, leaving only the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station still generating. It adds that the government aims to close all unabated coal-fired power stations in Britain by October 2025. The Independent reports that this brings the country “closer to its goal of ending use of the fossil fuel in electricity generation by 2024”. Coal will still be used in the West Burton A plant to meet peak demand in winter, Bloomberg notes, but BusinessGreen adds that only two of the four 500MW units will be called on over the next 18 months.

Meanwhile, BBC News reports that an electric vehicle charging point in Shetland that uses purely tidal energy to charge electric vehicles is considered to be “a first for the UK”. The tidal turbines are owned by Nova Innovation, according to the Press Association via the Belfast Telegraph, and the Scotsman adds the underwater turbines “have been powering homes and businesses in Shetland for more than five years”. The Scotsman also reports that the Scottish government has approved £40m funding to replace diesel buses with electric vehicles and a further Scotsman piece highlights that Scotland’s “ambitious plans to transform its railways to a zero emissions network by 2035 is helping to push forward innovation in green technology that could ultimately change the world”. A separate Press Association article in the Belfast Telegraph notes that a bill to introduce climate legislation to Northern Ireland has “commenced its legislative journey”.

In other UK news, the government may include emissions from shipping in the nation’s new emissions trading platform, according to Bloomberg. The piece notes that if it were a country, shipping would rank joint third as the world’s sixth largest emitter, but that “progress has been slow on helping the industry clean up”. Meanwhile, fears are rising that households are being misled about energy deals that are advertised as “green”, the Financial Times reports, leading UK ministers to examine how renewable electricity is marketed. CityAM reports a warning from MPs that “the government needs to lay out a 30-year plan for electrifying the UK’s rail network if it is to hit its climate targets”. This is based on a new report from the transport select committee of MPs. Meanwhile, BusinessGreen reports that the government has today announced a £562m cash boost to “make tens of thousands of the UK’s leakiest homes more energy efficient”. And the Times reports that several UK universities are now for the first time offering bachelor degree courses in climate change.

White House officials are preparing a $3tn infrastructure and jobs package that includes $400bn to combat climate change, the Washington Post reports. Around $60bn of this is related to green transit with $46bn to climate research and development, the paper notes, adding that the plan would also make electric vehicle charging stations available across the country. According to the New York Times, the plan will be presented to Joe Biden this week. The paper notes that yesterday Biden’s national climate adviser Gina McCarthy “discussed his infrastructure plans — and their role in combating climate change — in a meeting with oil and gas industry executives”. The proposal “provides evidence of how Mr Biden wants to use his next big legislative initiative to begin meeting his promises on climate change”, the New York Times reports. It adds that Biden plans to add 1m “affordable and energy-efficient housing units”, as well as focus on electric vehicle charging points and improve the electric grid. According to Reuters, the total “price tag” of the bill will be $3tn-$4tn.

The Wall Street Journal also covers Gina McCarthy’s meeting with oil and gas industry executives yesterday and says the executives “expressed support for putting a price on carbon emissions as a means to address greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change”. Bloomberg adds that the oil industry heads have been “pressing for discussions with administration officials” following Biden’s decision to pause the sale of new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters. Meanwhile, the Hill reports that, according to the White House, the parties discussed “shared priorities” and McCarthy “made clear that the administration is not fighting the oil and gas sector, but fighting to create union jobs, deploy emission reduction technologies, strengthen American manufacturing and fuel the American economy”. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that, by not paying for their damaging effects on the climate and human health, US coal, natural gas and motor fuel producers “implicit benefits worth tens of billion of dollars a year”.

Meanwhile, a Reuters exclusive reports that California’s two US senators sent a letter to Biden urging him to “set a firm date to phase-out gas-powered passenger vehicles” and to “restore California’s authority to set clean car standards”. The Wall Street Journal reports that “scores” of US fund managers are being “forced” to disclose the harm that their investments could do to the environment and society as part of “sweeping new European rules”. Meanwhile, the Hill reports that Ernest Moniz – a former energy secretary under Obama – told lawmakers that “recent extreme weather events in Texas underscored the need to better incorporate climate change risks into energy infrastructure.” And Bloomberg reports that Pennsylvania – “in the heart of US shale country” – has decided to source almost half of its state government’s electricity with solar power. There is ongoing coverage in Inside Climate News that the US “wants the EU to delay imposing trade penalties on carbon-intensive imports, but is considering imposing its own”.

In other US news, the Miami Herald carries an opinion piece by Frances Colón – former deputy science and technology adviser to the US secretary of state – entitled: “Florida can’t build higher seawalls forever. State leaders must encourage renewable energy.”

“Brussels is considering classifying gas as a partially sustainable technology under its landmark green labelling system”, the Financial Times reports. According to the newspaper, it has seen draft legal text from the European Commission which paves the way for “controversial technologies such as gas generated by fossil fuels to be recognised in its ‘taxonomy for sustainable finance’.” The paper adds that the plan raises “fears that Brussels is engaging in ‘greenwashing’”. The EU’s system is intended to be “the world’s first classification system for green financial products”, using a science-based criteria to determine what counts as “truly sustainable economic activity”, the paper adds, noting that the process is being “closely watched”. It says that the first draft text excluded technologies such as gas and nuclear power and was “roundly rejected by EU governments”, leading to the revisions. Reuters specifies that the proposal “would class gas-fuelled plants that generate power plus heating or cooling as a green investment if strict conditions on emissions are met and they are operating by 2025”. It adds that the Commission plans to finalise its sustainable finance rules by 21 April. Euractiv also covers the story.

China has “realised the decoupling of economic growth and carbon emissions”, but would still need to work hard towards its goal of peaking carbon emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060, according to China’s special envoy on climate change Xie Zhenhua. Xie made the remarks last week via video at a climate conference in Beijing, reports 21st Century Business Herald, a Chinese-language daily newspaper. Xie noted that “the most important task” for the country is to realise “the low-carbon transformation for its energy system”, the report says. 21st Century Business Herald also reports that Xia Guang, a researcher at China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE), laid out the country’s climate challenges at the China Development Forum (CDF) 2021 over the weekend. Xia said that China is facing a “very urgent” timeline for reaching carbon neutrality, the report writes. The researcher is also quoted saying that “a large number of policies” would be needed to provide a “driving force” for society to work towards the target.

Meanwhile, Chinese experts have noted the “urgent need” for the nation to strengthen its “top-level design” and overall planning to help fulfil its climate pledges, according to China Securities Journal. The financial news outlet, run by state news agency Xinhua, says that a group of experts proposed the advice last week during a meeting hosted by Zhao Penggao, deputy director of the environmental resources department of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The experts acknowledged that China faces a tight timeline and “heavy tasks” to reach its emissions goals. They suggested that the government raise climate-change awareness among “all parties” and highlight key works that would need to be prioritised. NDRC’s official social media account also carries the report. Separately, Xinhua reports that Li Gao, director-general of MEE’s department of climate change, has called for the nation’s iron and steel industry to plan “overall goals and tasks”, and formulate an action plan “scientifically”. Li expects these moves to facilitate the industry to reach carbon emissions “as soon as possible”, the report says.

Elsewhere in Chinese-language media, state-affiliated chinanews.com reports that Yi Gang, governor of the People’s Bank of China, has said that the country would “fully integrate” climate change “factors” into its policy framework. Yi added that in terms of foreign exchange reserve investments, China would continue to increase the allocation of green bonds and “control the assets” in high-carbon investments, the article states. “Climate risk factors” would be incorporated into the framework of investment risk management, Yi is quoted stating.

“More than a fifth of the world’s biggest public companies have made commitments to cut their emissions to ‘net-zero’”, the Times reports. This is according to a new report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and Oxford Net Zero, which finds that 417 of the 2,000 largest publicly traded companies have set net-zero goals, according to the newspaper. However, the authors warn that most businesses need to go further to avoid accusations of “greenwashing”. The newspaper notes that only 27% of the companies that set targets include emissions across all “scopes” including “scope 3” emissions, which include customers using their products. In related news, the Financial Times reports that, according to the “influential” Climate Action 100+ investor group, only “a handful” of the 159 companies responsible for over 80% of global industrial emissions have “set adequate targets”. Under 1% of the companies analysed had set 2025 emission reductions targets, it adds, although half promised to achieve net-zero by 2050. Meanwhile, BusinessGreen reports that, according to a different study, “over $50bn is at risk from deforestation – but just one per cent of firms are taking ‘best practice’ action”.

In continuing coverage of the flooding in Australia’s New South Wales, the Guardian’s Australian environment reporter – Graham Readfearn – discusses the possible link between the intense rainfall and climate change. He notes that the floods are striking the same areas that were “ablaze from unprecedented bushfires fuelled by global heating” just over a year ago and asks whether this is “another display of force from the long arm of the climate crisis”. However, he notes that “the answer is a complex and nuanced one.” According to a senior climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology, “while it is not unusual to have places with very high daily rainfall totals, it is unusual to see so many places with such extreme totals across such a wide area”, Readfearn says. He adds that, according to Australia’s latest state of the climate report, extreme rainfall events in Australia have already become more intense and further warming will “make things worse in the future”. However, he notes that attribution studies are “especially challenging when it comes to rainfall” because there are many contributing factors. According to the NSW premier, the mid-north coast is facing a “one-in-100-year event”, he says. However, he adds that, according to a senior risk scientist at Risk Frontiers, this terminology – whilst common – is “potentially misleading”, because “people think that if it’s a one-in-100 year flood, that the chances of them experiencing that in their lifetime is practically zero. And it’s not”. Readfearn concludes by quoting a general manager at Risk Frontiers, who says: “Floods in Australia are more damaging than bushfires and they kill more people in the historical record. They are often an under-appreciated hazard.”

Similarly, a Washington Post feature warns that some places are “seeing their worst flooding in 60 years” and that “nearly three times the average March rainfall has fallen in a number of locales”. Successive governments have approved the construction of houses in flood-prone areas, according to the paper. It concludes by exploring the drivers of both the 2019-20 Australian wildfires and the extreme rainfall, noting that “by speeding up evaporation, a warming climate can exacerbate weather patterns that lend themselves to both extreme dryness and excessive rainfall. ” The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the scale of this flood was hard to determine and that “predicting how climate change will juice the system up further is even trickier to forecast”. It adds that climate models are “much better at picking how extreme heat events are becoming more frequent, more extreme and last longer, than how rainfall events are shifting”. A separate piece in the Guardian reports that “catastrophe” has been declared in NSW as 117,000 insurance claims for floods have been submitted. Meanwhile, as water spills over the Warragamba dam in Sydney, a further Guardian piece reports that there are plans to raise the height of the dam by “up to 17 meters”, increasing its capacity by 50%. However, it adds that experts say this “won’t reduce the flood risk” during periods of heavier rainfall.

Meanwhile, the Sydney Morning Herald reports on a “first-of-its-kind analysis of the world’s top 167 greenhouse gas producers”, which finds that none of the 12 Australian companies analysed has disclosed its plans to align future investment decisions with its emission-reduction aims. It adds that, according to the analysis, no company’s decarbonisation target is “fully aligned” with the Paris targets. In other news, Bloomberg reports that the flooding is “hampering shipments from the world’s biggest coal export terminal”.

An editorial in the Washington Post praises the Biden administrations conduct in the first high-level talks with China last week. It says that the “sharp exchange” has “jarred some nerved in Washington”, but that the “tough opening moves by the Biden team were exactly the reset that was needed after the Trump administration’s confused and often contradictory treatment of China”. It adds that the administration made it clear that its “strong opposition” to China’s human rights abuse, among other things, “does not preclude cooperation on matters of mutual interest”. It notes that Biden is “looking for common ground with Mr Xi” on topics including climate change. “Mr Biden is rightly determined to show that democracy, with its emphasis on individual freedom, can still prevail”, according to the paper. It concludes that “US criticism and sanctions are unlikely to bring about any change in China in the short term. But over time, the regime, like the Soviet Union before it, is likely to find itself on the defensive”.

A further opinion piece in the Washington Post by columnist and writer David Ignatius says that, according to a top US official, “the Chinese appear so confident that the US is in decline that they’re pushing the limits and ‘unsettling the Asian operating system’”, marking “deeper danger” for US diplomats. The meeting was “formulaic”, according to Ignatius, who says the sides “exchanged sharp criticism”, but that the Chinese promoted “their eagerness for ‘win-win cooperation’ ”, while the Americans proposed working together on “mutual concerns” including climate change.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that, despite the “frosty” initial talks, the US climate envoy John Kerry will meet his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, at a virtual “Ministerial on Climate Action” today. This is an annual meeting of major economies and polluters set up by China, the EU and Canada after the US moved to exit the Paris accord in 2017, the paper reports, adding that Kerry’s decision to attend “is intended to signal that the US is back at the climate table”. Bloomberg adds that, although Kerry and Zhenhua will both attend, there is no separate virtual session planned for the two.

The Arctic is “becoming more influenced by lightning”, a new paper suggests. The researchers use World Wide Lightning Location Network (WWLLN) data to investigate the increase of total “lightning strokes” at Arctic latitudes during summer for the years 2010-20. The researchers find that the “ratio of strokes occurring above a given latitude, compared to total global strokes, increases with time”. Comparing the shift with data on global temperature change, the researchers find that the increasing fraction of Arctic lightning strokes “increases linearly with the temperature anomaly and grew by a factor of three as the anomaly increased from 0.65 to 0.95C”.