New research warns that human activity and drought may have degraded more than a third of the Amazon rainforest – “double the previous estimate”, reports the Guardian, which says the work “heightens concerns that the globally important ecosystem is slipping towards a point of no return”. The review study, published in Science, says that fires, land conversion, logging and water shortages have weakened the resilience of up to 2.5m sq km of the forest, an area 10 times the size of the UK, the paper says. This has left the area “drier, more flammable and more vulnerable than before, prompting the authors to warn of ‘megafires’ in the future”. The paper continues: “Between 5.5% and 38% of what is left of the world’s biggest tropical forest is also less able to regulate the climate, generate rainfall, store carbon, provide a habitat to other species, offer a livelihood to local people, and sustain itself as a viable ecosystem, the paper observes. This degradation is on top of the 17% of the original forest that has been completely cleared over the past half century.” The i newspaper quotes lead author Dr David Lapola, who says: “Even in an optimistic scenario, when there is no more deforestation, the effects of climate change will see degradation of the forest continue, leading to further carbon emissions…However, preventing the advance of deforestation remains vital, and could also allow more attention to be directed to other drivers of forest degradation.” The Times, Independent, Axios and MailOnline also cover the study, while the Agence France-Presse, via the Independent, reports on separate research that warns “climate extremes in the Amazon rainforest are directly affecting those in the Tibetan Plateau”. Bloomberg also has the story.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva yesterday urged his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, to have France attend the summit of the Amazon countries that he aims to host in coming months. The newswire says that Lula “discussed in a phone call with Macron efforts to combat the threat posed by climate change, according to a statement from his office…He talked about the importance of France attending a summit of the countries of the Amazon forest that Brazil plans to host in the next few month, as it is the only European country to share the biome, through its overseas territory of French Guiana”.

The National Grid has stood down coal-fired power stations that had been instructed to warm up yesterday “after France’s network operator sounded the alarm over the impact of strike action”, reports the Guardian. Two units at Drax in Yorkshire and one at West Burton in Nottinghamshire were initially asked to fire up just before midnight on Wednesday, the paper says – “the third time in a week that the National Grid’s Electricity Supply Operator (ESO) had asked coal-fired stations to warm up in case they were necessary”. ESO said the latest warm-up instruction was not a response to the recent UK cold snap, but instead came after the French grid operator RTE said assistance may be required after it was informed of strike action affecting electricity generation that “could place their network in an alert status”. ESO said it was later decided they were no longer needed “following analysis of network margins”, the paper reports, adding: “Britain’s electricity supplies are connected to France through subsea interconnector cables, which allow power to flow between the countries when there is demand. The ESO said the coal plants would have been available to help generate power for France only if they were not needed to prevent power cuts in Great Britain.” The Daily Telegraph also has the story.

Meanwhile, BBC News reports that “a major new grant scheme to replace gas boilers in England and Wales has got off to a slow start”. It says: “Under the boiler upgrade scheme households can apply for vouchers to help them switch to a heat pump. The government aims to give out 30,000 vouchers annually but only managed 9,888 between the scheme’s launch in May and the end of the year.” A spokesperson for the UK’s Climate Change Committee, the government’s advisory group on climate, tells BBC News that, although the number of retrofits is broadly in line with their models, “the government could increase uptake of the scheme, specifically by raising public awareness and providing further funding”. And the Financial Times reports that “small businesses have warned that UK government plans to slash energy subsidies will cause them acute pain, and claimed that mistreatment from energy suppliers has left them exposed to higher costs”.

Shell is considering quitting the UK’s household energy supply market, reports the Times, “putting 2,000 jobs at risk, after incurring hundreds of millions of pounds in losses over five years”. The paper continues: “The giant oil group cited ‘tough market conditions’ as it told staff that it had begun a ‘strategic review’ of Shell Energy Retail. The subsidiary provides energy to about 1.4m homes, ranking as Britain’s seventh biggest household supplier, and also supplies broadband to about 500,000 households. All options are understood to be on the table including a complete exit of the UK domestic retail energy market, which it entered with much fanfare through the estimated $200m acquisition of First Utility that completed in early 2018. The business, which was rebranded as Shell Energy Retail in 2019, has since racked up pre-tax losses of at least £300m.” Shell says it is also reviewing its household energy businesses in Germany and the Netherlands, says the Financial Times. These are smaller, serving 110,00 and 15,000 customers, respectively, the paper notes. Bloomberg says that the fact that Shell is “considering withdrawing from the tumultuous and low-margin home energy business, at a time when the company is racking up record profits pumping oil and gas underscores the challenge [new CEO Wael Sawan] faces delivering on pledges to curb carbon emissions while maintaining payouts to shareholders”. The Press Association notes that Shell Energy was told by regulator Ofcom yesterday to “get a grip” on its complaints after the business received many more of them than any other broadband provider. The Evening Standard, CityAM and Reuters all have the story.

Elsewhere, Bloomberg says that “Big Oil faces headwinds after record $199bn profit haul”. According to data it has compiled, the outlet says that Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, TotalEnergies and BP are “expected to report $198.7bn in combined 2022 profit in coming days, 50% higher than the previous annual record set more than a decade ago”. However, it says, “fears of an economic slowdown, plunging natural gas prices, cost inflation and uncertainty over China’s re-opening are dimming the outlook for 2023”. The Financial Times “Energy Source” column says that “the lion’s share of cash will continue to go to the dividend programmes and stock buybacks that have helped drive share prices higher”.

Finally, an investigation by Energy Monitor finds that “the future oil and gas extraction plans of just 25 companies are set to blow the world’s 1.5C carbon budget”. Their analysis “shows that the world’s 25 leading oil and gas producers are extracting oil and gas from more than 3,700 fields around the world, with a further 300 planned in the immediate future”. It explains: “The sum of these emissions (340bn tonnes of CO2) represents 90% of the world’s entire remaining carbon budget for 1.5C, which is the volume of carbon emissions scientists estimate we can still emit and avoid the most devastating, irreversible impacts of climate change.”

UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt “will set out his plan to boost growth” today, reports BBC News, “as criticism mounts over the government’s strategy for the economy”. In his speech in central London, Hunt will outline the opportunities in what he called “the growth sectors which will define this century” and he will pledge to build on “the freedoms which Brexit provides”. The speech will focus on key sectors “such as digital technology, green industries, life sciences, advanced manufacturing and creative industries”, the outlet says. 

In related comment, climate-sceptic Conservative peer Lord Frost writes in his Daily Telegraph column that he hopes prime minister Rishi Sunak “will soon set out a vision of where he wants to take the country. Otherwise he will be at the mercy of events: without forward momentum, he will be halted by every pothole.” Frost suggests: “For growth, we need a credible programme of tax and spending cuts; some Brexit reforms; a net-zero rethink, pushing back the deadlines on things like air pumps and electric cars; an NHS open to reform, with more private provision; more houses built; and an end to the attacks on private transport.”

The UK’s climate minister received campaign donations from one of the largest fuel distributors in the UK as well as an aviation consultant and recruiter, reports the Guardian in an “exclusive”. In 2019, Graham Stuart – the Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness, who was appointed climate minister by Rishi Sunak in September – “received a £10,000 donation towards his re-election campaign from JR Rix & Sons, a Hull-based business primarily involved in the distribution and sale of fuel, including heating oil, diesel and petrol”, the paper says, as well as “a £2,000 donation from Bostonair, a Hull-based aviation consultant”. The paper continues: “The revelation, which is a matter of public record, comes shortly after Stuart told the all-party parliamentary group for the environment that he firmly supported a new coalmine in Cumbria and backed the latest oil and gas licensing round. In backing the latter, Stuart said a more nuanced take on fossil fuels is required ‘rather than viewing all fossil fuels as the spawn of the devil’. In the same meeting, he said he had ‘time for climate change sceptics’ and does not believe that they should be ‘pushed out of the conversation’.” In response, a government spokesperson said: “The minister publicly declared the donations for election expenses in line with usual processes…It is not unusual for ministers to receive donations in their capacity as members of parliament and there are well established processes in place to manage conflicts of interest.”

Meanwhile, DeSmog reports that a £12,000 donation to the Labour Party from wood-burning giant Drax has “raised concerns among campaigners over the sway of big carbon emitters over parliament”. The outlet says: “The payment from the former coal-fired power station was registered on 12 September last year, and published in December in the Electoral Commission register of political donations. Labour has declined to comment on receipt of the donation.”

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports that, despite Germany being among the top 10 emitters in the world and ranking seventh with a share of 1.8%, “it looks much cheaper for Germany if the emissions are related to the respective economic output instead”. The outlet says that the institute for Applied Work Science (ifaa) in Düsseldorf has presented an evaluation of this based on the “parameter of labour productivity that is common in its field of activity”, so-called “CO2 productivity”. This analysis concludes that Germany achieves by far the best result among the 10 largest emitters, which, in addition to China and the US, also include Japan and South Korea. In Germany, every tonne of CO2 emissions generates $5,100 in economic output. Japan comes second with $4,200, then follows the US with $4,000 and South Korea with $2500, notes the newspaper.

Nevertheless, Corporate Knights reports that the largest chemical company in the world, Germany’s BASF, was ranked recently by the UK thinktank InfluenceMap, which tracks corporate lobbying activity on climate policy, as the third most “negatively influential” corporation in the world, following US oil giants Chevron and ExxonMobil. “The chemical sector is anchored in fossil fuels,” Will Aitchison, EU strategy manager for InfluenceMap, is quoted saying. The outlet adds that “the industry has a lot to lose from a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, and BASF more than most, thanks to its 67% stake in Wintershall Dea, the oil and gas producer that it co-owns with the Russian company LetterOne”. It explains that Wintershall Dea “is one of the five co-founders of Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline – whose certification Germany halted following the Russian invasion of Ukraine – and remains invested in several Russian gas fields, producers and network operators”.

Meanwhile, Die Zeit quotes German economy minister Robert Habeck saying that, “despite energy shortages and high inflation, the country averted a severe economic crisis…we now assume that the recession will be shorter and milder if it takes place at all”. However, another news article by Die Zeit says that Germany’s municipal utilities expect a permanent doubling of the gas and electricity tariffs for customers. In addition, Süddeutsche Zeitung reports that the president of the Federal Network Agency, Klaus Müller, wrote on Twitter that “in the third calendar week [of the year Germany is] sav[ing too] little gas due to the [cold] temperatures”, adding that “despite well-stocked gas storage facilities and important new LNG terminals, we need 20% savings for the winter of 23/24”.

Finally, Clean Energy Wire reports that, according to the German development ministry’s new Africa strategy, it “wants to promote the development of a climate and environmentally friendly economy in Africa”. The outlet adds that the government wants to create framework conditions to instigate the creation of new jobs – especially in the areas of renewable energy, climate protection, sustainable agriculture and health – and support a socio-ecological transformation of the economy in the continent.

The “rising” price of photovoltaic silicon might “drive a more than threefold jump in 2022 profits for some of China’s top producers of the raw material used to make solar panels”, Caixin Global writes, citing recent company forecasts. The article adds that while it could be “assumed that this would spell bad news for the industry’s downstream firms”, they are also “predicting bumper earnings as global demand for solar power equipment remained strong”. Separately, Foreign Policy says that, after a “decades-long push”, Beijing “wields considerable control over supply chains for lithium-ion batteries, which are critical to everything from electric cars to smartphones”, adding that this “dominance” has “transformed those powerful batteries – and the key metals they comprise of – into a thorny geopolitical flash point during a period of heightened tensions” between the US and China.

The state-run industry newspaper China Energy News carries an interview with Zhao Tianshou, academician of Chinese Academy of Sciences and director of Carbon Neutral Energy Research Institute of Southern University of Science and Technology. He says: “According to forecast estimates, to achieve [China’s] goal of carbon neutrality, the installed capacity of photovoltaic and wind power will reach 5 terawatts, with an annual power generation of 10 trillion units. As energy storage is equipped at 10%-50%, the energy storage capacity will be at 1-5 trillion units. Given such a large capacity demand, energy storage technology must meet the requirements of large-scale, high-safety, low-cost, long-life, no geographical restrictions, etc.”

Elsewhere, France24 writes that “climate-driven changes in the Amazon basin have knock-on effects on the Tibetan Plateau 20,000 kilometres (12,500 miles) away”, citing scientists in China, Europe and Israel. CNN says that a “deadly cold snap that is gripping East Asia has killed at least four people in Japan after sub-zero temperatures and heavy snow brought travel chaos during the Lunar New Year holiday”, with climate experts “warning” that such extreme weather events had become the “new norm”.

Writing in the Financial Times, three executive vice-presidents of the European Commission – Valdis Dombrovskis, Frans Timmermans and Margrethe Vestager – warn that “a tit-for-tat reaction” to the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) “risks significant economic self-harm”. They write that while the IRA sends a “strong message on climate action”, the act “incentivises the (re) location of industry to the US, thereby potentially putting the EU industrial base for clean technologies at a disadvantage” and “it has led some in Europe to call for an IRA-like response of our own”. However, the writers say, in order to “make Europe the home of industrial innovation as we transition to net-zero, we need common action through an EU green deal industrial plan. This should cover four pillars: the business environment, financing, skills and trade.” They add: “The EU applauds the American decision to get serious about action on climate change. It confirms sustainability will be central to future economic growth. Yet we remain concerned at the discriminatory aspects of the IRA. We need to see more progress in our talks with the US to remove these risks. Like-minded partners have so much more to gain when we work with each other to incentivise the development of green and climate-friendly technologies. The EU and US should be building an open, thriving transatlantic marketplace for our innovators and investors.”

Elsewhere, Sky News business presenter Ian King says the implications of the IRA present “a dilemma for the EU”. He writes: “Does it either seek to retaliate under WTO rules or does it respond with similar subsidies of its own…stand by for a classic dose of EU fudge, aimed at supporting the green economy in the way Mr Biden aims to in the US but that will, in the process, probably involve individual protection or support for favoured groups. An industrial equivalent, if you like, of singling out French cheese producers or Italian olive farmers for special help.” And Larry Elliott – the Guardian‘s economics editor – says that “the EU seems to have come round to an if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them approach”. He adds: “This makes sense. While the EU could clearly take a case to the World Trade Organization over Biden’s use of subsidies, the bigger picture is that it is welcome news that the US is getting serious about tackling global heating. If the IRA encourages other countries to do likewise, all well and good.”

In an editorial, the Guardian reflects on its joint investigation into carbon offsetting, published last week, which shows “how much is at stake when the effectiveness of market mechanisms in combating global heating is challenged”. The finding that “90% of the rainforest credits analysed are unlikely to represent genuine carbon reductions” is “a blow to anyone committed to the idea that emissions trading can help the world to reach net-zero”, the paper says. It continues: “The question is: can existing processes be improved? Here, academics and environmental campaigners are divided. Carbon markets have long been controversial, with some arguing that any attempt to protect nature by assigning it monetary value is doomed. According to this view, the focus on nature conservation and restoration of recent years has been co-opted and corrupted by corporate interests, including fossil fuel producers who are among the biggest purchasers of carbon credits. Defenders of emissions trading, however, insist that while such greenwashing must be called out, carbon markets have a role to play. Governments will not provide the necessary funds to protect the world’s rainforests. Therefore there is no alternative but to direct private capital towards them and other carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots. If the existing ways of doing this don’t work, better ones must be developed. Our investigation discovered three projects in Madagascar that were excellent. Carbon market optimists think these results can be replicated.”

In her latest newsletter, data scientist Hannah Ritchie “crunch[es through all the data” to compare the carbon footprint of electric vehicles (EVs) and conventional fossil-fuel-powered cars. Ritchie finds that, when the manufacture of the car and the battery are taken into account, “producing an EV emits more than a petrol or diesel one”. However, “as soon as you start driving, EVs start to pay back their carbon ‘debt’ quickly”, she writes: “The summary is that, yes, EVs emit less – often one-half to two-thirds less over their lifetime. EVs still emit less when the battery is produced in countries that rely heavily on coal.” This is true “regardless of whether you’re thinking about buying a new car, or a second-hand one”, Ritchie adds, noting that “as the world moves towards lower-carbon electricity, the emissions of EVs will fall even more. When run on renewables or nuclear, the footprint of EVs could be tiny”. Ritchie recommends that readers wanting “more in-depth analysis” should check out Carbon Brief’s factcheck on EVs from 2019.

In the Daily Telegraph, chief city commentator Ben Marlow reflects on the tenure of Akio Toyoda, who is stepping down as CEO of carmaker Toyota, a role he has held since 2009. Marlow says that Toyoda is “probably best known as an increasingly outspoken critic of the electric car revolution – something that may have ultimately cost him his job”. He writes: “While many of Toyota’s big rivals have embraced electrification, ploughing tens of billions into batteries and other green technologies, Toyoda has stood his ground, refusing to develop a vast range of pure electric models.” With “the vast majority of the industry now fully behind the shift”, this leaves Toyota “with a huge amount of catching up to do”, Marlow says: “Some analysts even question whether Toyota’s near-decade and a half as the world’s biggest carmaker is under threat.”

Taking a different view on EVs is financial columnist Matthew Lynn. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Lynn argues that “the great electric car con is becoming emblematic of a government machine that prioritises pious virtue-signalling over the needs of its citizens”. Lynn criticises a lack of charging points in the UK, but warns that “even if we did have the chargers, we wouldn’t have enough electricity to use them”. He adds: “Only this week, the National Grid started paying people to switch off their washing machines and kettles during peak hours to save on power.” (The National Grid notes on its website: “The most demand for electricity in recent years in the UK was for 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency. Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we believe demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002 and this is well within the range of manageable load fluctuation.”)

Finally, in a letter to the Times, Geoff Hoon – transport secretary in 2008-09 under Gordon Brown’s Labour government – warns that “p​​eople will not buy EVs if they have to wait in a queue and then wait again to charge”. He notes that he now often has to “wait in a queue” to charge his EV.

In a letter printed in Le Monde, a group of more than 1,500 climate scientists “denounce the exclusion from the scientific community” of two scientists who “unfurled a banner calling for citizen action during a conference”. The letter explains: “Dr Rose Abramoff, together with her colleague Dr Peter Kalmus, unfurled a banner that read ‘Out of the lab and into the streets’ before an art and sciences plenary talk about climate change at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Their action lasted less than 30 seconds. The response with which they were met was by far disproportionate: AGU immediately removed their scientific contributions from the meeting programme, thus erasing their work from the scientific discourse, and then launched an inquiry. Consequently, Dr Abramoff – an outstanding early career scientist – was fired from her job at a major governmental institute.” The scientists write that they are “appalled by the recent retaliation against colleagues who dared to exercise their civil and human rights”. They add: “Whether or not one agrees with the form in which Dr Abramoff and Dr Kalmus decided to protest, or even if they breached the decorum of the academic establishment, we cannot stay silent in the face of the AGU’s actions against them and the recent retaliation that followed.” In a Twitter thread, Dr Valérie Masson-Delmotte – co-chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a signatory on the letter – writes: “We stand by our fellow climate scientists who express frustration with the lack of meaningful climate action within the scientific community and the public, who bring attention to the urgency of the moment in a non-violent manner.”

A new study finds that ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula have different temperature thresholds at which they become vulnerable to surface melt. Scientists use simulations of both present-day and future Antarctic climate to project future ice shelf stability based on the rates of ice melt and snow accumulation. They find that while “relatively wet” ice shelves are viable up to -5C, drier ice shelves become vulnerable at much lower temperatures – “well below” -15C. The authors note that current climate models “predict that towards the end of this century these thresholds can be reached on many ice shelves, even on cold ice shelves and under moderate warming scenarios”.

The number of non-native plant species found at high elevations has increased by an average of 16% per decade since 2007, according to new research. Using repeat surveys from 11 mountainous regions across five continents, researchers determine the changes in the elevations at which non-native plants are found. They find evidence of “significant” upward shifts in 10 of the 11 regions studied and that these expansions are “especially” happening along roads, which provide favourable conditions for plants to move upslope. They conclude that “mountain environments are becoming increasingly exposed to biological invasions” and “emphasis[e] the need to monitor and prevent potential biosecurity issues emerging in high-elevation ecosystems”.