The Financial Times is among many outlets covering the findings of a group of international scientists which show that human-caused global warming made the winds associated with Hurricane Milton “about 10% stronger” and increased rainfall “by 20-30%”. The rapid analysis was conducted by the World Weather Attribution group. The FT quotes one of its members, Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at Leipzig University, who says: “The total number of hurricanes is not expected to change, but the number of very strong hurricanes (category 4 or 5) is. Hurricanes require a moist atmosphere, warm ocean temperature and little wind shear.” Haustein adds that Milton had been the “perfect example” of the tendency of hurricanes to “grow stronger quicker” as the planet warms. (See Carbon Brief’s explainer: “How hotter oceans can fuel more intense Atlantic hurricanes.”) The New York Times also covers a separate analysis by Imperial College London showing that Milton “may have caused roughly twice as much property damage as that hypothetical storm in a cooler world”. The newspaper notes that “neither group’s analysis has undergone academic peer review yet”, but both rely on methodologies that have.

The Associated Press says that scientists have warned that the Atlantic hurricane season is “far from over”. It continues: “‘As far as hurricane landfalls in the US, it’s been crazy busy,’ said Jeff Masters, meteorologist for Yale Climate Connections. So far five hurricanes have made landfall in the US – and the record is six. Masters said it’s possible that record will be matched since tropical cyclone activity is expected to be above-average for the rest of October and November.” The New York Times reports that, “after [Hurricanes] Helene and Milton, some small Florida companies risk bankruptcy”, adding: “Total economic losses from Hurricane Milton and Hurricane Helene could soar over $200bn, according to early estimates.” The Washington Post says: “A second catastrophic hurricane in as many weeks has forced the US government to grapple with a harsh reality: climate calamities are becoming more frequent, deadly and costly in a country already facing massive fiscal challenges.” Bloomberg notes that “back-to-back, catastrophic strikes by Helene and Milton in the southeastern US are reshaping the presidential race, putting climate disasters front and centre in the final stretch of vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump’s duelling campaigns”.

Meanwhile, the Independent reports that “President Joe Biden announced $612m funding for investments in the electric grid, including $94m for storm-battered Florida, during a visit on Sunday to the Sunshine State to survey the damage from Hurricane Milton”. The Associated Press runs a story from North Carolina under the headline: “Volunteers bring solar power to Hurricane Helene’s disaster zone.” And the Washington Post carries analysis showing “how Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps underestimated the risk homeowners faced in areas devastated by Hurricane Helene”.

Finally, the Guardian reports that “meteorologists tracking the advance of Hurricane Milton have been targeted by a deluge of conspiracy theories that they were controlling the weather, abuse and even death threats, amid what they say is an unprecedented surge in misinformation as two major hurricanes have hit the US”. 

European carmakers are “planning dozens of affordable electric models next year as they brace for an ‘EV winter’ driven by tough new EU carbon emission targets and fierce competition from China”, reports the Financial Times. The newspaper says that Europe’s automakers are facing pressure on “multiple fronts from intense competition to weak European demand and rising inventories in the US”. It adds: The pressure on the industry will increase again next year when new EU emissions targets come into force. These require carmakers to cut carbon emissions from their fleets – by increasing the proportion of electric and hybrid vehicles – or face large fines. Executives say meeting the emissions targets has been made harder by a recent slowdown in the growth of EV sales: consumers have become more cost conscious and subsidies have been cut in big markets such as Germany.” Relatedly, Reuters reports that Stellantis’s chief executive Carlos Tavares says that “current European Union carbon emission rules impose 40% higher costs on the car-making industry at a time when customers are reluctant to buy expensive electric vehicles”. The newswire adds: “Further pressure, particularly in the EV market, is also coming from Chinese competition, which Tavares said benefited from a further 30% advantage on costs. ‘This is generating unbearable tension’ on the industry, he said [last week], speaking before an Italian parliamentary committee in Rome.”

Many UK newspapers look ahead to the UK government’s investment summit which opens today in London, where low-carbon energy infrastructure is expected to feature strongly. The Times reports that the New Economics Foundation (NEF), a left-leaning thinktank, has called on the chancellor Rachel Reeves to “use the £7.3bn national wealth fund as one of the main vehicles to fund investment in clean energy as the government considers changes to its fiscal rules in this month’s budget”. The newspaper adds: “If the fund is given the power to issue its own investment bonds, mirroring state development banks such as the German KfW, it could raise up to 14 times as much money from private markets, totalling £100bn over the next ten years, the NEF said.” The Sunday Times reports that the Australian infrastructure giant Macquarie is “planning £20bn of fresh investment in the UK as the new Labour government tries to woo international investors to power economic growth”, adding: “The investments will include the country’s biggest solar farm and hundreds of new electric vehicle fast-charging points.” The newspaper also carries an interview with business secretary Jonathan Reynolds who “laud[s] the green energy provider Octopus, run by Yorkshireman Greg Jackson. Octopus was, he said, a business ‘where they are doing something that is a real contribution to society’.”

In other UK news, the Daily Telegraph reports that, in an open letter to Rachel Reeves, mortgage lenders including TSB, Leeds Building Society and Coventry Building Society have urged the government to “offer bigger incentives to help homeowners make urgent upgrades as part of the UK’s drive to get to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”. The Observer says “Labour’s new green rules for big companies face resistance in the City”, adding: “Few bosses dare to publicly disagree with Labour’s intent…But the party could face pressure from City lobby groups, including the influential UK Capital Markets Industry Taskforce (CMIT) and UK Finance. The concern is that mandates and extra regulation could disadvantage UK business and counter years-long efforts to cut red tape and return the London Stock Exchange to its former glory.” The Financial Times says that “British farmers are scaling back food production in favour of alternatives such as rewilding or growing crops for biofuels to keep their businesses viable, the president of the National Farmers Union has warned”. New YouGov polling for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, covered by Politics.co.uk, shows that “94% of MPs support the target of net-zero by 2050…compared to 76% of MPs elected to the previous parliament, which was Conservative dominated”. And the Observer reports the views of Dale Vince, a Labour donor and founder of Ecotricity, who argues that the “government risks a huge political backlash if it keeps pushing the public to install heat pumps to replace their boilers”. (His comments have received intense pushback from those pointing out that, as the article states, he has a vested interest in his proposed alternative – green gas, or biomethane, made from organic material – which his company Ecotricity develops.)

Meanwhile, the Sunday Telegraph leads its frontpage with a misleading claim that energy secretary Ed Miliband “‘wastes cash’ on net-zero pylon blight”. The article by the newspaper’s political editor claims that an “official report into the East Anglia Network – where a large-scale pylon roll-out from Norwich to Tilbury is planned  – has found that burying cables is cheaper over the longer term”. The article then quotes reaction from two Conservative MPs. However, the Economist’s Hal Hodson describes the reporting as “mortifying nonsense” and explains why in a thread on Twitter. The Sunday Telegraph, which aggressively campaigns against net-zero policies, also has a misleading article headlined: “The age of energy rationing is looming for Britain.” The author of the article has another in today’s Daily Telegraph headlined: “Labour adviser Mark Carney ‘lobbied Reeves for heat pump subsidies’.” Finally, DeSmog examines “Reform’s first 100 days of climate science denial in parliament”. 

Chinese authorities have “started to ask some overseas shipowners to report on their carbon emissions…follow[ing] the EU’s recent adoption of a carbon levy on vessels”, Bloomberg reports. It adds that “any decision…to force carriers to pay for emissions would be a major shift for the global maritime sector”. The state-run newspaper China Daily reports that Chinese firms have secured more than 70% of global orders for “green vessels” during the first three quarters of 2024. Business news outlet Yicai reports that new energy vehicle (NEV, including battery electric and plug-in hybrid) sales in China “rebounded strongly” in September, climbing 51% year-on-year to 1.1m units, lifting China’s auto market “out of the doldrums”. State-run newspaper Economic Daily reports that the number of NEVs in China exceeded 20.4m in 2023, adding that the “electrification rate of railways” reached 73.8%. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reports that Donald Trump pledged to “prevent Chinese carmakers from selling vehicles in the US” if reelected. Finance news outlet East Money quotes an executive at automaker BYD saying its EVs will initially sell in Germany at between €25,000-30,000 (£21,000-25,000). A Bloomberg editorial argues that the EU’s EV tariffs may undermine the bloc’s “focus on decarbonisation and competitiveness”.

Elsewhere, the Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily covers a speech by executive vice-premier Ding Xuexiang, in which he said the “Chinese government attaches great importance to international cooperation on environment and development”, adding that China is “willing to work with all parties to…build a clean and beautiful world” and that it will “promote the success of” the UN climate and biodiversity meetings COP29 and COP16. Speaking at the same event, former Chinese climate envoy Xie Zhenhua said “compared with mitigation, in developing countries, adaptation…needs to be solved more than anything else”, reports the Paper, a Shanghai-based newspaper. Norway’s climate minister has been interviewed by state broadcaster China Global Television Network (CGTN) about “the importance of deepening [bilateral] cooperation” on climate. France’s minister for European affairs, Benjamin Haddad, tells Bloomberg that there is “no reason” why the EU “should not be able to defend itself” the way the US did against “protectionism” from China.

Finally, industry news outlet BJX News reports that China has issued a notice seeking “public opinion” on the “development and construction of distributed solar power generation”. The People’s Daily says that China’s central bank, alongside other ministries, has published opinions on the role of “green finance” in serving the “construction of a Beautiful China”, calling for financial institutions to “enhance green financial services capacity”. 

Handelsblatt reports that Germany’s opposition centre-right CDU and CSU parties, known as the “Union”, have repeated their demand that the nation’s remaining nuclear power plants must “not be destroyed”. At the CSU’s conference over the weekend a motion called for the “continued use and further development of nuclear energy”, it says. The newspaper notes that Framatome, a subsidiary of the French energy group Areva, has confirmed that five nuclear reactors that have not yet been dismantled “can be easily reactivated and put back on the grid as quickly as possible”. Berliner Zeitung has an article in which “experts react to the plan”. Frankfurter Rundschau also covers the story, saying the union parties want to bring back nuclear power, if they win next year’s federal elections, “as soon as possible”.

Elsewhere, a group of German politicians want to remove the “increasing” CO2 regulations imposed by the European Commission on its automotive industry, reports Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). Economic ministers from Lower Saxony, Berlin, Saxony and Hesse are advocating for “adjustments” to fleet targets, citing the “extremely challenging situation” facing the German and European auto industry, says FAZ. They are seeking a “flexible reduction strategy” that does not undermine climate goals, it adds. In a comment piece for FAZ, the four ministers call for increased support for electric vehicles through enhanced charging infrastructure, purchase incentives and lower electricity prices. Meanwhile, the German environment minister Steffi Lemke has rejected calls to relax emissions targets, stating that all parties have committed to these limits, reports Stern. 

Separately, Ostsee Zeitung reports that the NGO Environmental Action Germany (DUH) has criticised the liquified natural gas (LNG) project in Rügen as a “waste of money,” claiming the costs outweigh the gas supplied, with only 1.5% of Germany’s gas needs being met by the facility. The outlet says this could “intensify discussions” about the energy project because the government still aims to replace Russian gas supplies amid the ongoing war on Ukraine.

An editorial in the Guardian says that “insufficient investment and the withdrawal of subsidies and incentives [for electric vehicles] are damaging a sector that is vital to the green transition”. It adds: “Brussels and proactive national governments should take the lead through a combination of subsidies and investment at scale to sustain industry and consumer confidence. This was the spirit of an analysis of Europe’s economic prospects by Mario Draghi, the former European Central Bank president, published last month. Yet as the EU reintroduces tight fiscal rules on national spending, the trajectory of policy is being determined by a shortsighted focus on balancing the books. Without a change of approach, the woes of the car industry are likely to deepen as it negotiates an era-defining transition.”

In other UK comment, the Times carries the views of business broadcaster Dominic O’Connell who says: “In the long term, [Ed] Miliband’s [net-zero] vision may well come to pass. For the next decade and a half, however, the loss of domestic gas production could end up being an extremely expensive policy.” And the Daily Telegraph clears spaces for Rosie Pearson, an anti-pylons campaigner, to argue that “the prime minister has set my blood boiling – along with my fellow East Anglians – [because he is] hellbent on his myopic plan for the country’s infrastructure”. 

Writing in Prospect magazine, editor Alan Rusbridger (and former Guardian editor) wonders why so many climate-related stories are not being routinely covered by the news media: “The day before [Hurricane] Milton made landfall a group of respected scientists issued a report which warned that ‘the future of humanity hangs in the balance’ and that we could be facing ‘partial societal collapse’. Now, it’s been some time since I worked in daily news, but this feels like what we call ‘a story’. Not just a story, but what is known in the trade as a ‘marmalade-dropper’ – a story so gripping that it could lead to a distracted breakfast accident. The internal machinations of the Conservative party are important, sure, but how do they compare with the future of humanity?”

An editorial in the Observer laments the fact that even devastating hurricanes cannot lead to a rational, united political response in the US: “[The hurricanes] should be galvanising Florida’s political leaders into taking urgent action to protect the state. Extraordinarily, this has not been the case…Such behaviour is disturbing.” Gillian Tett in the Financial Times says: “The real reason to feel angry is that America’s leaders have been so slow to acknowledge and plan for the reality of climate change. That has left the public unprepared, particularly since the financial ecosystem has inadvertently encouraged people to settle in dangerous places.” Also in the Financial Times, Rana Foroohar asks: “Why have Americans been moving closer to climate risk?” Lisa Friedman in the New York Times uses the damage caused by the hurricanes to walk through the “climate stakes” of the upcoming election. Also in the New York Times, Peter Coy asks: “How does Florida insure itself against hurricanes like these?” In the Independent, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy says the hurricanes show why “the Earth is facing a ‘code red’ – which is why [the UK needs] a Green New Deal”.

An editorial in the Financial Times notes that the “UN climate conference is again being hosted by an authoritarian petrostate”, adding: “Allowing countries such as Azerbaijan to host global events can in theory shine a spotlight that forces autocrats to behave better. But [president Ilham] Aliyev, who won a stage-managed fifth election victory in February, seems unfazed…International governments and attendees should use the opportunity to press the host country on its democratic record. They and the UN’s climate arm must ensure rights are respected during the conference. And reforms are badly needed to tighten the process of awarding COPs – and the obligations of the hosts.” Jim Armitage in the Sunday Times asks: “Is the business world going off ESG?” He answers by saying: “Just look at COP29. The cost of living crisis, the war in Ukraine and a surge in populist politics have left green investment flagging.” [Clean energy investment is due to reach record levels this year, attracting nearly twice as much money as fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency.]

Relaxing fertility policies and delaying retirement age would increase household carbon footprints in China by increasing the country’s population and labour supply, a new study finds. The authors estimate household carbon footprints for different age groups in China, and calculate the impacts of fertility and retirement policies on household carbon footprints until the year 2060. They find that, in general, younger Chinese people have higher household carbon footprints than their older counterparts, due to age-related income differences.