The US intelligence community has released a “bleak assessment” in its first-ever National Intelligence Estimate on Climate Change, reports BBC News, saying that warming will lead to “growing international tensions”. It continues: “Countries will argue over how to respond and the effects will be felt most in poorer countries, which are least able to adapt. The report also warns of the risks if futuristic geo-engineering technologies are deployed by some countries acting alone.” Reuters says the report identifies India as one of 11 “countries of concern” for being “highly vulnerable” to the effects of climate change. Bloomberg also has the story. The New York Times says the assessment shows “the warming planet will increase strife between countries and spur migration”. It adds that the report: “lay[s] out in stark terms the ways in which the warming world is beginning to significantly challenge stability worldwide”.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that climate change is an “emerging threat” to the US financial system, according to a report released by “top federal regulators”. Bloomberg also covers the financial stability report.

A summit of EU leaders has “exposed their differences” on how to tackle the surge in coal and gas prices, the Guardian reports, adding that a leaked draft communiqué from the talks says it is “essential to keep the 1.5C global warming limit within reach” and calls on all countries “to come forward with, and implement, ambitious national targets and policies”. The piece continues: “Yet the consensus on the EU’s international climate diplomacy risks being overshadowed by internal splits over how to manage soaring energy prices.” It quotes Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán saying of EU climate plans: “Utopian fantasy kills us, that’s the problem with energy prices as well.” The piece adds: “In recent weeks, Orbán has launched repeated attacks on the commission, blaming ‘those fine bureaucrats’ in Brussels for the global rise in energy prices – an account at odds with all independent analysis.” The Guardian also reports: “On the eve of the summit, Poland called on the EU to consider revising or postponing any aspect of the green deal that could have ‘a negative impact on the energy price’, including plans to increase taxes on fossil fuels, and a proposed overhaul of the bloc’s emissions trading scheme, which puts a price on industrial pollution.” Reuters also reports Orbán’s comments: “[He] dismissed European Union plans to tackle climate change as a ‘utopian fantasy’, and suggested green measures were pushing up energy costs in Europe.” It adds: “Analysts and the European Commission have said the main driver of high electricity costs in Europe has been soaring gas prices, while the EU carbon market has contributed up to a fifth of the power price rise. Brussels has proposed a package of new climate policies, which EU countries will need to negotiate and approve before they take effect.” Bloomberg reports: “Several EU leaders warned against hasty intervention to address the surge in energy prices, as pleas for immediate action from some of the bloc’s poorer countries went unheeded.”

Separately, Reuters reports that the European Parliament has “urged the EU to step up its diplomatic outreach to secure tougher commitments to fight climate change at the upcoming COP26 summit, and backed the bloc’s negotiating position for the talks”. Another Reuters article reports: “The European Parliament on Thursday asked the EU to legally require companies to fix methane leaks and impose binding targets on countries to cut emissions of the potent greenhouse gas, setting the scene for legislation Brussels will propose later this year.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that EU officials are “concerned that smaller side deals planned by the UK could give recalcitrant nations an excuse to avoid signing on to a global agreement” at COP26. Another Bloomberg piece reports that a US-UK “pact” on cutting methane emissions is set to be announced at COP26 with 35 signatories.

The South China Morning Post – a Hong Kong-based publication – reports on China’s efforts to reform its electricity pricing in response to the “power crisis”. It says that Zhejiang – a province on the east coast neighbouring Shanghai – has become “the latest regional government to raise electricity prices and change peak-demand hours following Beijing’s announcement it would liberalise electricity pricing”. Before Zhejiang, Guangdong – a southern Chinese province known for its manufacturing industry – had “hiked prices last month by as much as 25 per cent during peak-demand for industrial users”, the publication says. Reuters says that Guangdong “has raised on-grid tariffs for gas-fired power plants to help generators ease soaring fuel costs”. The newswire cites the provincial economic planner. A separate report from the South China Morning Post reports that China’s coal futures and mining stocks “tumbled” after the country’s top economic planning agency pledged to “rein in runaway fuel prices”. Bloomberg says that export orders for Taiwanese companies “accelerated to a record last month” as “power shortages in China forced factories to curb or halt output in September”. Citing experts, Fox Business reports that China’s “power issue” could exacerbate the car shortage “currently plaguing the United States and other countries”. Moreover, Market Watch notes that the electricity shortages “have hit factories that produce a lot of the goods we use every day, including Apple gadgets and furniture”. Separately, Reuters reports: “China sets 2025 efficiency goals for energy-intensive industries.” It adds: “The goals, published on the website of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), have been set to put China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, on track to meet its pledge to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and become carbon neutral by 2060.”

Continuing the China power shortages topic, the Wall Street Journal says that Beijing is “pulling out the stops to ease its worst power crunch in two decades, reversing course on earlier ambitions to curb coal use”. [China’s leadership has indeed issued orders to boost the production and supply of coal, which had been decreasing over the past few years. But the move does not equal increasing coal consumption. Read Carbon Brief’s analysis on how the power shortages may impact China’s climate goals.] A piece in the Financial Review says that “China’s crippling power shortages over the past two months, and a government edict to revive some coal production, provide just a taste of the challenges for a country not yet ready to sacrifice economic growth for the climate”. The Diplomat runs a comment piece titled: “Can Russia and Mongolia Replace Australia’s Coal Supply to China?” From China’s state media, Global Times, a state-run tabloid, praises the country’s “swift response” to power shortages. An article written by Wang Cong, a senior editor at the outlet, reads: “While power shortages and broader energy challenges will likely continue or even worsen during the winter, but China’s institutional strength – reflected in its swift response and its unparallel ability to mobilise – will once again help the country through the cold winter.”

Elsewhere, the Independent asks: “Will China’s Xi Jinping attend COP26?” The newspaper reports that Xi is “thought to be undecided on Glasgow summit and could send deputy in his stead”. (Read this week’s China Briefing for more on the topic.) New analysis on Forbes looks at how the US-China “green rivalry” comes into focus in the lead up to COP26. Separately, a comment piece in the South China Morning Post explains why carbon pricing is “crucial” to China’s climate change pledges. Finally, Hellenic Shipping News reports that a “zero-carbon terminal” has opened in the eastern Chinese port city of Tianjin.

An editorial in the Times reflects on news that the presidents of Russia and China are not expected to attend the COP26 talks in person, saying it means the summit “may fall short of its goals”, but adding: “ That does not mean it is doomed to failure.” The piece says: “Without the Russian and Chinese leaders, the chance of securing commitments to the emissions curbs needed to limit the rise in global average temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the target agreed in Paris in 2015, looks remote…However, just because world leaders are unlikely to deliver on the headline goal doesn’t mean the summit is doomed to failure.” Among the areas where it hopes for progress, it says: “Above all, richer countries need to deliver not only on the long-promised $100bn a year of financial support for poorer nations but put in place clear funding mechanisms to enable this money to be deployed in ways that will de-risk clean energy projects and maximise private sector investment.” The editorial continues: “And even if China and Russia deny Boris Johnson his moment of COP26 glory, it’s still possible that China in particular will commit to tougher emissions curbs consistent with the Paris target at some later date. Beijing has already committed to achieving net zero by 2060 and reaching peak emissions by 2030. The government had hoped to persuade President Xi to bring these deadlines forward to 2050 and 2024 respectively. Whether to avoid handing the West a diplomatic win or whether, as Beijing has insisted, it simply needs more time to assess the impact of the present energy crunch, Mr Xi refused. But China-watchers don’t rule out a unilateral commitment to new targets after the summit.” An article in the Economist says the COP26 summit “is the most important climate conference in years” but adds that it will be “hamper[ed]” by “[b]roken promises, energy shortages and Covid-19”.

An editorial in the Daily Mail is titled: “Don’t make it Flop26.” It says: “[Boris] Johnson deserves plaudits for ensuring the climate change crisis remains at the top of the global agenda. But if the worst polluting countries shun his critical Glasgow summit, COP26 will quickly turn into Flop26. Equally, the PM will quickly lose voters’ support for his ‘Net-zero’ nirvana if it inflicts huge disruption and deprivation on their lives.” An editorial in the Sun says: “We fear the worst for Boris Johnson’s ­crucial COP26 climate summit next week. China and Russia, the world’s first and fourth worst polluters, aren’t sending their presidents. India admits it will be burning coal for decades and has no Net Zero target. Saudi, Japan and Australia have urged the UN to back-pedal on the urgency of ditching fossil fuels. Much of the world is not singing from the Boris eco hymn sheet. And, for all that The Sun wants a cleaner planet, we fear that unless bigger nations follow suit his environmental measures will prove meaningless yet cripple our economy and impoverish the public. The PM is betting that Net Zero will make Britain richer. With our food and energy shortages, rising taxes and inflation and a £2.2tn national debt, who’s certain he’s right?” In a comment piece for the Daily Telegraph, international business editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes that net-zero is “no global burden, but a bonanza for those quick to seize it”.

Elsewhere, a comment in the Times is titled: “Boris Johnson’s green jobs won’t make Britain rich.” The Economist asks: “[I]s Britain serious about keeping its own promises? A flurry of government plans released this week suggest not.” A full-page comment in the Daily Mail by columnist Richard Littlejohn says “[Boris Johnson’s] eco dream is the longest economic suicide note in history.” For the Sun, Howard Cox of lobby group Fair Fuel UK – which is funded by trucking group the Road Haulage Association – argues against an increase in fuel duty ahead of next week’s UK budget. In the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph editor Allister Heath calls for a referendum on net-zero, saying: “As with membership of the EU, the political elite is imposing a revolution on the public without consent.” Separately, the Sun reports: “Climate change is now the number one concern for most Brits, landmark research reveals.” Another comment for the Daily Telegraph, by former Labour MP Tom Harris, is titled: “Ahead of COP26, don’t blame countries for defending their national industries.”