There is continuing and widespread coverage of the various ways that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – and rising energy prices – are combining to having a profound impact on the world’s energy supply choices. Reuters reports that the “European Union plan to charge fuel suppliers for the CO2 emitted by cars and heating buildings is emerging as the most contentious element in a raft of climate change policies the bloc’s member states are negotiating this year”. It explains that “EU countries are negotiating the package of measures, which Brussels says will both fight climate change and help cut dependence on Russian fossil fuels”, adding: “At a meeting of environment ministers from the 27 EU countries on Thursday, countries including Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Austria supported the new carbon market…Poland and Hungary opposed it, while states including Belgium, Romania, the Czech Republic, Spain, Slovakia and Slovenia raised concerns – all focused on the potential costs for citizens…A majority of EU countries and the European Parliament must both approve the new climate policies. Politically sensitive proposals may be escalated to EU leaders, who take decisions by unanimity, raising the bar for approval.”

In other news from Europe, Reuters reports that “Poland is rethinking the role of natural gas in its transition away from coal-fired energy as it seeks to avoid dependence on Russian fuels, the country’s undersecretary of state for climate said on Thursday”. The newswire adds: “Shrinking the role of gas could herald a bigger role for nuclear energy. Warsaw plans to have its first nuclear plant operating in 2033.” Another Reuters report says that “Belgium may extend the life of its nuclear sector, deferring an exit planned for 2025 after the Russian invasion of Ukraine forced a rethink by the governing coalition”. The Times says that “a long-delayed reactor started test production in Finland this week – the first new nuclear power plant to open in Europe for nearly 15 years”.

Separately, the Times reports that France’s President Macron promised yesterday he, if re-elected this year, would “make France a more independent nation” by cutting dependence on foreign energy and fossil fuels. The newspaper says he said the state would “take control” of certain energy companies: “That implied that the government would fully nationalise EDF, the electricity giant that is about to build up to 14 nuclear reactors.” Politico quotes Macron saying: “I’m not afraid to say I want to plan the production of energy and the deployment of new industrial sectors.”

Meanwhile, in other related news, the Financial Times reports that “Russian oil exports to India have quadrupled this month in a sign of the vast reshaping of global energy flows since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”. It adds: “India, the world’s third-largest energy consuming country, has snapped up multiple cargoes of Russian oil from traders as buyers in Europe shunned the country’s vast commodities market following western sanctions on Moscow.” Argus Media says that Turkish energy regulator EDPK is to “offer protection against strong coal prices”, adding: “This could improve Turkey’s power sector coal demand outlook significantly, given that some plants have been reducing their output amid unfavourable economics.” Wired carries a feature under the headline: “Coal threatens a comeback as the EU pulls away from Russian oil.” Reuters notes that Japan’s industry minister has said today that the government will accelerate its efforts to develop offshore wind power projects, adding: “Officials in resource-poor Japan are concerned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing surge in oil prices could hit economic growth, although they say there has been no immediate major disruption to energy supply.” Another Reuters story says that “US Republican Senators on Thursday introduced a bill to ban US imports of Russian uranium to punish Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine”.

Finally, the Guardian carries a Q&A under the headline: “What would increasing Saudi Arabian oil production mean for the climate?” The article quotes Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans. And the New York Times reports on “how the war in Ukraine could slow the sales of electric cars”.

Bloomberg reports that “the UK is planning to significantly raise targets for offshore wind power as part of its drive toward energy self-sufficiency in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”, according to “two people familiar with the matter”. It continues: “The goals – including for floating wind turbines – will form part of an energy security plan that was promised earlier this month by prime minister Boris Johnson, which is set to be unveiled next week by the government. The strategy’s focus will be on accelerating deployment of technologies that the UK is already pursuing, according to the people, who requested anonymity talking about policy that hasn’t yet been announced. There will also be a component that aims to reduce demand for power and heating by increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, they said.”

In other UK news, the Financial Times says that the chancellor Rishi Sunak has “told colleagues” that an immediate EU-wide embargo on Russian oil and gas imports would “send economic shockwaves throughout Europe and cause at least £70bn of damage to the British economy”. It adds: “Sunak’s warning underlines that there is some relief in the Treasury that the EU is holding back from an all-out boycott of Russian oil and gas, despite Johnson and other senior ministers urging the bloc to do so.”

Meanwhile, the Times reports that Harbour Energy, the biggest oil and gas producer in the UK North Sea, has “said it should generate up to $1.7bn in spare cash this year if prices stay high, prompting renewed calls for a windfall tax”.

Der Spiegel reports that Robert Habeck, the German economics and climate protection minister, is considering help from Norway to “become independent of Russian energy imports”. Norway could help by increasing its liquified “natural” gas (LNG) exports, said the Green party politician during a visit to meet Norwegian prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre in Oslo. However, LNG is “just a short bridge, or a bridge that we want to keep as short as possible”, stressed Habeck. Imported gas should be replaced with hydrogen as quickly as possible, he added. In the medium term, he said Germany also wants to obtain hydrogen from Norway and the two countries have now formed a working group to explore possibilities. According to Habeck, this should deliver results in “about six months”. It is also being examined whether a separate pipeline to Germany needs to be built for this. But Politico notes that Habeck also says that “if we flip the switch immediately [away from Russian fossil fuels], there will be supply shortages, even supply stops, mass unemployment, poverty”. The Financial Times carries a Lex column which says: “Asking the Norwegians to build up their green hydrogen export capacity makes sense.”

Elsewhere, most of the electricity that fed into Germany’s power grid in 2021 came from “conventional” energy sources, according to new statistics released by the Federal Statistical Office and reported by Handelsblatt. Unfavourable weather conditions ensured that coal replaced wind power as the largest single energy source, added the office. Electricity generation from “conventional” sources, such as coal, gas or nuclear energy, increased by 12% over the previous year and accounted for 58% of total electricity generation. The supply from renewables fell by almost 8%.

Meanwhile, Clean Energy Wire (CLEW) reports that Germany backs an EU proposal to phase out the sale of combustion engine cars from 2035, dropping its earlier insistence on an exception for cars using synthetic e-fuels made with renewables. “The new German government stands behind the EU Commission’s draft and thus fully supports the end of the internal combustion engine for cars and vans in the EU from 2035,” the environment ministry said on Twitter.

A separate story by CLEW reports that, according to a report by thinktank Green Budget Germany (FÖS), the share of environmental taxes in Germany fell to a historic low last year and only covers a fraction of environmental costs. CLEW says: “Contrary to the myth that environmental and climate protection makes ‘everything more expensive’, the share of environmental taxes in public revenues has been declining for almost two decades.” The researchers add that, in 2021, the share was at a historic low of 3.7%, adding that they used a narrow definition that included energy taxes on motor and heating fuels, electricity tax, motor vehicle tax and aviation tax. All other EU countries have a higher share of environmental taxes, except Luxembourg.

Finally, Deutsche Welle reports that Germany is “drying up”. This is revealed, it days, by new data from the GRACE satellites, which Jay Famiglietti, director of the Global Institute for Water Security at the University of Saskatoon, Canada, has evaluated on behalf of NASA and the German Aerospace Center. “The water loss in Germany is about 2.5 gigatonnes or cubic kilometers per year. This makes it one of the regions with the highest water loss in the world,” says Famiglietti. He adds:“In plain language, Germany has lost water equal to that of Lake Constance [on the border with Austria and Switzerland] in 20 years, which is an incredible amount of water.”

Swiss Re, the world’s second biggest reinsurer, has said it will no longer insure most new oil and gas projects following mounting pressure on big business to do more to help the world cap global warming, reports Reuters. The newswire adds: “In its annual sustainability report on Thursday, Swiss Re said it would no longer insure projects that get the go-ahead from their parent company from 2022, unless the company has an independently verified, science-based plan to reach net-zero emissions. By 2025, Swiss Re said it wanted half of its overall oil and gas premiums to come from companies aligned with such a net-zero by 2050 plan, and by 2030 all its clients in the sector should have done so. Also, from 2022, the company said it will no longer insure companies or projects with more than 10% of their production in the Arctic, apart from Norwegian producers.”

A Chinese diplomat has called for China-EU cooperation in tackling global challenges, reports Xinhua, China’s state news agency. Zhang Jun – the permanent representative of China to the United Nations – said on Wednesday that “China and the EU have the responsibility and ability to strengthen global cooperation”, the agency reports. Zhang is quoted saying the two sides “should work together to address climate change, preserve biodiversity, and make a success of the second part of COP15 (UN Biodiversity Conference)”. Zhang made the remarks via video links at the China-EU webinar on women and biodiversity conservation, according to a separate report by Xinhua in Chinese.

Meanwhile, Economic Information Daily, an affiliation with Xinhua, examines how the soaring global oil and gas prices would mean for China – which, according to the report, imports 72% of its crude oil. By interviewing various Chinese experts and industry sources, the report explains the causes of the “roller-coaster-like” price hikes, their implications on Chinese oil prices and industries, as well as China’s measures to deal with the situation. Separately, the South China Morning Post reports that the Yankuang Energy Group, described as “the listed unit of one of China’s largest coal miners”, has announced a plan to “diversity its business” and develop wind and solar projects.

Elsewhere, the Economic Observer, a Chinese financial publication, reports that Shandong province in eastern China is creating an “integrated service platform” that will provide a series of functions to support a “unifying” system for calculating and verifying companies’ carbon emissions. The article says that the project can “propel” Shandong, described as “a major manufacturing province”, to follow China’s “dual-control” policy – which is expected to change from capping energy consumption and energy intensity to limiting carbon emissions and carbon intensity. (Last week’s China Briefing explained the planned “dual-control” shift.)

Finally, various Chinese outlets report the sentencing of Liu Baohua, former deputy head of the National Energy Administration, the state energy regulator. State-run China Energy News says that Liu was sentenced to 13 years in prison on Wednesday after being found guilty of accepting property worth more than 70m yuan (£8.3m) in bribes over 20 years, either alone or with accomplices. It notes that Liu had “used the convenience of his power and status” while working in a series of government positions related to energy. The Paper and Caixin also have the story.

Writing in the Financial Times, business columnist Helen Thomas notes that the “UK is working up a new energy plan, prompted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and soaring oil and gas prices, that seems likely to include just about everything”. She continues: “That’s no bad thing. Discussions of energy and the net-zero transition are fraught, even among believers: try mediating between the evangelists of hydrogen versus heat pumps. But the subject is reaching culture war status in British discourse, fuelled notably by loud sceptics of the UK’s net-zero target struggling to maintain their zeitgeisty relevance in the post-Brexit age. There should be some sensible middle ground. There are those arguing that we need considerable amounts of gas in particular for decades and that we now care about where it comes from. And there are those who argue that the best investment in our future energy security is in more cheap renewables and energy efficiency. Both are correct.” She adds: “[Quick] wins come in two areas: solar and onshore wind, which has been iced in England for years, and energy efficiency, marred by repeated policy failures over the past decade. The government could lift the 5GW cap on solar and onshore wind in the coming auction round, says Simon Evans at Carbon Brief, with over 600 projects with planning permission sat in the pipeline.”

In the Daily Telegraph, assistant editor Jeremy Warner argues that “Nigel Farage is only half right on ‘net-zero, net stupid’”, adding: “I’d be amazed if [Farage’s anti-net-zero] campaign ever advances beyond being an interesting distraction. Besides, there is a contradiction in Mr Farage’s argument. The idea that you need a lot more expensively priced oil and gas to deal with a cost-of-living crisis substantially caused by expensively priced oil and gas makes no sense at all…Whatever the fantasies of the fracking lobby, the brutal truth is that we can never be self-sufficient in these commodities, and even if we were, we wouldn’t escape the tyranny of the oil price, which every 10 years or so reaches the sort of punishing levels we see today. It’s not green energy that is responsible for today’s soaraway inflation, but our reliance on highly priced oil and gas.”

Meanwhile, an editorial in the Economist says that “windfall taxes on energy companies are a bad idea”. It continues: “The European Commission says that renewable producers, which are also benefiting from high prices, should pay up too. This is doubly misguided. If even clean-energy companies have their profits seized during periods of shortages then the incentive to solve renewables’ intermittency problem, for example by making batteries better or by storing energy as hydrogen, will be blunted…Hiving off the rewards that are on offer for supplying energy during today’s shortage will only make the next supply crunch – even a predictable one – all the worse.” Chris Giles – economics editor of the Financial Times – disagrees and says “windfall taxes can be justified when it is reasonable that those drawing up tax legislation did not foresee extreme circumstances that subsequently make them necessary”.

Finally, Politico has a long read headlined: “Britain’s net-zero sceptics reach for the Brexit playbook.” The feature quotes Joss Garman, the UK director of the European Climate Foundation [which funds Carbon Brief]: “Obviously don’t underestimate Farage, but it feels like a damp squib so far, and timing-wise it’s just terrible for them. He’s going out and making the case that we should use more gas when gas is six times more expensive than the clean energy sources that he’s trying to stop, and now he is doing that having described [Russian President] Putin as the politician he most admires. Voters aren’t stupid, he’s very exposed right now.” DeSmog has mapped the “extensive” ties between “anti-green politicians, climate denial groups and the backers of ‘hard’ Brexit”.

David Callaway, the founder of Callaway Climate Insights and the former editor-in-chief of USA Today, notes in the Independent that “Joe Biden’s climate agenda may take a final stand next week when public companies will be asked to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions”. He continues: “The Securities and Exchange Commission – the country’s top financial regulator – is set to propose rules on what companies must disclose about the climate risks for them and their shareholders. Failure to pass the rules, which will almost certainly face legal challenge, would be the final nail in the coffin of Biden’s climate plans. And it comes just months before the midterm elections, in which the President is widely expected to lose Democratic control of Congress.”

Meanwhile, in the Wall Street Journal, Christopher James, who is the founder of Engine No. 1, an investment firm that in 2021 backed the successful candidacies of three pro-climate action nominees to Exxon’s board, says that the shale oil and gas from the Permian Basin in the US “can be the cleanest hydrocarbon source in the world”. Another comment piece in the Wall Street Journal – by Kimberley Strassel, who is a member of the newspaper’s climate-sceptic editorial board – says “let’s see how long it takes Joe Biden to recognise that the Ukraine war has reset energy politics and that his climate agenda risks dooming his party this fall”.

In Germany, Lilly Bittner says on Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung‘s “klimablog” (climate blog) that the European Union is now relying on biogas to become independent of Russian gas as well as to become climate-neutral. There are currently around 20,000 biogas plants in Europe and more than 9,000 in Germany, says Bittner, who argues that “biogas plants can release other harmful greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide” and adds that around 5% of methane would escape into the atmosphere from the plants. However, despite this, she says using the biogas “saves about 400 grams of CO2 equivalents per kilowatt-hour” and that biogas replaces fuel oil and natural gas in the heating sector. She notes that it is important what material is used to produce biogas: “The more manure that is fed in, the more climate-friendly the biogas becomes.” In addition, the waste product of biogas is a “climate-friendly fertiliser alternative to liquid manure”, she argues.

New research finds that all regions of the US have become more affected by fires since the 2000s, with fire frequency in the great plains region quadrupling in the period from 2005-18 as compared to the prior two decades. Scientists gather data from more than 28,000 fires that occurred in the country since 1984 and analyse it for fire frequency and size. They find that on average, fires became three times more frequent and four times larger in the 2000s than they were in the previous decades. They also find that in the western US and across the great plains, the magnitude and frequency of the “most extreme” fires has increased, adding that this is “more worrisome” than the overall trends.

Temperature extremes – in both directions – “have a direct and immediate negative effect” on consumer spending, according to a new study, although excessively hot and excessively cold days generally affect different consumption categories. Researchers analyse bank transactions from China and match them up with weather and air pollution data, then use climate models to understand how consumption might change in the future. They find that without adaptation measures in place, climate change will reduce consumption overall by the end of the century. However, they write, “no evidence of consumption reduction arises once adaptation is accounted for”.