There is continuing coverage of the UK government’s failing “green homes grant” scheme with the Guardian reporting that the “flagship programme for a green recovery is in turmoil after it was revealed that hundreds of millions of pounds are being withdrawn from [the] programme”. The newspaper adds: “Ninety-five per cent of the £1.5bn pot provided for householders in England to make their homes less carbon intensive remains unspent due to long delays in giving out grants to householders and making payments to installers. Some householders have been waiting nearly five months for the grants to be approved and installers say they have had to lay off staff because they are owed tens of thousands of pounds by the scheme, which is run by an American global consulting firm, ICF. By 22 January, only £71m of the £1.5bn promised to householders had been given out – less than 5%. The grants have been extended to run until March 2022 because of the delays.” BusinessGreen notes that leading environmental groups have labelled the scheme a “shambles”. It explains that the scheme was launched last year with a “budget of £2bn – £1.5bn for householders and £500m for local authorities – to provide money off the installation of clean tech and energy efficiency measures such as solar panels, heat pumps, insulation, and double glazing”. It continues: “However, the scheme has been beset by troubles from the start, with reports of installer shortages and slow payments to accredited tradespeople, in addition to householders struggling to navigate the complex administrative process to secure the grants vouchers in the first place.” Bloomberg notes that UK prime minister Boris Johnson said yesterday the “annual underspend for the [grant] wouldn’t be rolled over into the next financial year because of lack of interest from consumers”. The Times says that ministers have confirmed that the Treasury will “claw back the unspent funds” and that the money available next year will be cut to £320m: “The move has been attacked by environmental groups and the shadow business secretary, Ed Miliband, who said it made a ‘mockery’ of the government’s commitments on climate change and a green recovery.”

Meanwhile, in other UK news, the Evening Standard reports that “Drax is set to pull out of developing a giant UK gas-fired power station amid environmentalists’ anger”. The London newspaper adds: “The company has had longstanding plans to turn two coal-fired units earmarked for closure at its vast Drax power station in North Yorkshire into gas generators. The remaining four coal-powered units there have already been shifted onto burning biomass wood pellets claimed to be more environmentally sustainable. Plans for the new gas plant met with huge criticisms from environmental groups who said it went against the spirit of Britain’s pledge to tackle climate change. Pressure group ClientEarth last month lost a legal challenge against the government for approving the plan. However, the 3.6GW gas plant’s development is now expected to be dropped as Drax moves into renewable-only energy, deploying carbon capture and storage on its biomass plants.” BusinessGreen and Bloomberg also carry the story. Climate Home News carries a comment piece by one of the 500 scientists who have signed a letter calling on “leaders in the EU, US and East Asia” to end subsidies for burning biomass harvested from forests. The Independent reports that the UK government risks ‘international embarrassment’ over its “failure” to protect carbon-rich peatlands, according to the Wildlife Trusts.

Separately, on day four (not all articles are online yet) of its new “Green Britain Needs You” campaign, the Daily Express says that construction industry bosses support the newspaper’s call for zero VAT on “climate friendly products”.

The Guardian reports on new analysis showing that “big-emitting Australian businesses that export to Europe could soon face steep carbon levies of more than $70 a tonne unless the federal government imposes emissions reduction policies”. The news comes, says the newspaper, as the “carbon tariff proposal was endorsed by the European parliament’s environment committee last week and is expected to form the basis for a European Commission policy due in June”. It adds that the RepuTax analysis shows that “the cost on importers would be equivalent to that on the European carbon market, which is currently trading carbon permits at a record high A$60 a tonne of CO2 – more than twice the maximum price of the abolished Australian carbon scheme. The EU price is forecast to reach A$71 next year and up to $139 by 2030.” A separate Guardian article says that “Europe will urge Australia to increase its 2030 emission reduction pledge in the lead-up to this year’s Glasgow climate conference, with the EU ambassador in Canberra saying all countries should embrace ‘more ambitious and emboldened’ policies”.

An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald says that “UK and EU border taxes are a useful tool to cut global emissions”. It continues: “The Herald…believes that these taxes could prove a useful tool, including for Australia, to force recalcitrant countries to cut emissions. There is nothing inherently protectionist about the taxes. Global trade rules already allow countries to impose tariffs to protect industries against so-called unfair dumping and in pursuit of environmental goals, providing it is done fairly and proportionately…The problem with the new taxes is that it will be very hard to determine a fair level that reflects the differences in relative carbon costs between countries.” And, in the Guardian, Australian economics commentator Greg Jericho argues that “with the EU now exploring a carbon border tax, all those years of refusing to act and obstructing action to notionally protect our economy are about to cause a massive economic shock”.

Shell has published today new details about its “accelerated strategy” for achieving its own net-zero goals. Bloomberg says the oil major says “its carbon emissions and oil production have already peaked and will decline in the coming years”. The outlet continues: “In a sign of how much the petroleum industry has shifted away from its mantra of growth and exploration, Shell said its oil production will fall by 1% to 2% a year. Output of ‘traditional fuels’ will be 55% lower by 2030. In a wide-ranging strategy update…the Anglo-Dutch company set new targets for electric-car charging, carbon capture and storage, and electricity generation. It also sought to reassure investors that it could maintain returns through the energy transition, reiterating its pledge for an annual dividend increase of about 4% and the resumption of share buybacks once its net-debt target has been achieved.” Reuters notes that: “The company had previously said it would reduce its net carbon footprint emission intensity metric by at least 3% by 2022, 30% by 2035 and 65% by 2050 from a 2016 baseline. Intensity levels represent emissions per unit of energy produced, technically allowing higher production.”

Egypt is interested in hosting the next round of UN climate talks scheduled for 2022, a country official has told Climate Home News. The website adds: “Under the UN system of regional rotation, it is the turn of an African nation to host the COP27 climate summit, which is expected to take place in November 2022, a year after COP26 in Glasgow, UK. Egypt has not yet made a formal application to UN Climate Change and other African countries could put themselves forward to host the talks. The African Group of Negotiators is expected to hold consultations to determine which candidate the group should formally support.”

A scientific “whodunnit” has been solved, reports Inside Climate News, through the publication of a new study showing that a rise in the production of CFC-11, a powerful greenhouse gas which was used primarily to make foam insulation, was curbed in 2019 after the halting of illegal CFC-11 production in China. BBC News says: “The conclusions of a chemistry-based detective story, based on work carried out over several years by an international team of researchers, are published in two papers in the journal Nature. It adds that, as a result, the “steady decline in the levels of ozone-harming CFC chemicals in the atmosphere has resumed”.

Many reservations about the deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection – a form of solar geoengineering – are “no longer supported by literature”, a new paper suggests. Assessing scientific literature on the topic, the researchers “evaluate several common reservations regarding the governance of pre-deployment research and testing including covert deployment, technological lock-in, weaponisation, slippery slope, and the blurry line between research and deployment”. The authors “do not argue that there is no reason for concern”, but argue that the even “well-grounded reservations” do not justify “restrictive governance of early-stage stratospheric aerosol injection research”. (Carbon Brief has an in-depth explainer on solar geoengineering.)

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the Daily Telegraph’s international business editor, argues that “capitalism will solve the climate crisis more efficiently – and more quickly – than austerity can ever achieve”. He continues: “There is a beautifully simple ‘market’ way to lift the price of carbon, and there is a very bad interventionist way. Choose the wrong one and you squander public consent for the net-zero transition…The UK must not repeat that mistake as the government draws up for plans for its post-Brexit climate strategy. Leaks suggests that the Treasury sees a carbon tax as money for the taking. Subtler statecraft is required. The good way to keep the public on side is a rising carbon fee imposed on emitters that is handed back to every household as a cash dividend. There is already such a blueprint in the US Congress – HR 763: Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act…One can understand why the Treasury has its eye on climate revenues but it does not need the money as urgently as supposed. The costs of the pandemic are already being paid in part by expropriating bondholders with negative real yields. The long-tail legacy costs can wait. Britain should opt for the Smithian purity of a tax-neutral carbon price, and let others bluster about green deals. That would be the proper showpiece for COP26 in Glasgow, where Adam Smith taught the world.” In the Guardian, economics editor Larry Elliot says: “Unless governments are going to use dictatorial powers, progress can be made only with the consent of the public. [Economist Mariana] Mazzucato cites the experience of the Australian Labor party, which put the climate emergency at the heart of its manifesto at the 2019 election only to lose because too many voters feared it would result in higher unemployment. Having a vision or a mission is not enough. Having a stronger, more confident, entrepreneurial state is not enough. Fostering innovation is not enough. Engaging with voters matters too.”

Meanwhile, Climate Home News carries a comment piece penned by Dennis Tänzler, Lina Li and Daria Ivleva – from the Berlin-based thinktank adelphi – who argue that “building coalitions on green finance and carbon pricing and putting climate at the heart of diplomacy will allow the big three emitters [EU, US and China] to deliver on net-zero goals”. They support the notion of a “carbon club”, adding: “As China and the US are crafting a new policy trajectory to deliver their net-zero ambition, all of the three powers are – at least in theory – concerned about carbon leakage. This carbon border tax discussion can be used strategically to forge a three-party dialogue on a ‘climate ambition club’. This could see the big three, as well as other major players, join forces for increasing climate ambition domestically. In addition, they can use the revenues raised by a joint carbon border adjustment mechanism to further invest in decarbonisation and build resilience in disadvantaged communities domestically and in developing and emerging economies.” Finally, the Independent‘s climate correspondent Daisy Dunne has a feature about the various challenges arising from relying on “negative emissions” to meet climate goals.

A new “short article” describes the meteorological conditions behind the UK’s wettest day on record on 3 October 2020. An average of 31.7mm of rain fell across the entire UK, the authors say, which was “enough rainwater to fill Loch Ness”. While there has not yet been a study to assess the contribution from human-caused climate change, the authors note that “a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour and, under a warming climate, autumn and winter rainfall over the UK is likely to increase, with individual rainfall events becoming more intense”.

The transition away from coal-fired power in the US “may reduce preterm birth rates” linked to air pollution, a new study says. The authors explain: “The byproducts of coal combustion, such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), have increasingly been associated with adverse birth outcomes.” Using air pollution modelling and county-level preterm birth rate data, the study finds “a positive non-linear relationship between coal PM2.5 and preterm birth rate, which plateaued at higher levels of pollution”.