There is ongoing coverage of extreme weather events around the world, with BBC News reporting that the Italian island of Sicily “may have registered the hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe, at 48.8C (119.8F)”. The broadcaster says regional authorities reported the reading “which needs to be verified by the World Meteorological Organization”. It adds that the current record of 48C was registered in Athens in 1977. The piece continues by noting the extreme temperatures are part of a wider Mediterranean heatwave that “has led to the spread of wildfires” in Italy, Greece and Turkey. It says: “Climate change increases the risk of the hot, dry weather that is likely to fuel wildfires.” Turkish publication Hurriyet reports the comments of a climate researcher saying warming may increase summer temperatures in the country by 3.5-6.5C by the end of the century. A piece by BBC Reality Check is titled: “Wildfires: How are they linked to climate change?” It looks at fires this year in California, Turkey, Siberia, Greece and the Amazon. The Times reports on a “massive wildfire that is raging in Siberia [and] is the world’s biggest blaze this century”, citing a “Greenpeace expert”. It says the fire is “around 5,800 square miles in size and growing”. It adds: “The blazes come as UN climate experts warned on Monday that Russia, one of the world’s biggest producers of greenhouse gases, will witness more frequent and larger wildfires, devastating floods and other extreme weather events in the coming decades as a result of warming temperatures caused by human activity.” The Guardian also reports on the potential record heat in Sicily and quotes climate scientist Dr Friederike Otto saying: “Climate change is already here. There are things we can stop from getting worse, but there are a lot of changes that are already here.” The Times also has the story. Reuters reports that “at least 65” people have been killed by wildfires in Algeria, in an article that links the events to ongoing fires in Italy and Greece. Agence-France Presse, via the Guardian, reports that Algeria has declared three days of mourning in response to the wildfire death toll, which it says has reached 69. It adds: “Climate change amplifies droughts, creating ideal conditions for wildfires to spread out of control and inflict unprecedented damage.” Reuters reports that “blazes flare[d] anew” in Greece. Another Reuters article reports that a man has died in fires in southern Italy. A further Reuters piece reports that Tunis, the capital of Tunisia, has seen record temperatures of 49C, breaking the previous record of 46.8C set in 1982. It adds: “The northern cities of Bizerte and Beja also endured their highest recorded temperatures on Tuesday.” The New York Times reports on events in Europe under the headline: “Greek island is new epicentre of Europe’s summer of calamity.”

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that the “enormous” Dixie wildfire in California, which has been burning for nearly a month, has “burned down another 550 homes…becoming one of the most destructive in state history”. The Hill says the fire is covering 783 square miles and is the state’s largest wildfire in recorded history. Associated Press says it is “among some 100 large blazes burning across 15 states”. The newswire adds: “Heatwaves and historic drought tied to climate change have made wildfires harder to fight in the American West. Scientists have said climate change has made the region much warmer and drier in the past 30 years and will continue to make the weather more extreme and wildfires more frequent and destructive. The fires across the West come as parts of Europe are also enduring large blazes spurred by tinder-dry conditions.” The Hill says 34 states in the US are “dealing with heat advisories as Pacific north-west faces new heatwave”. The New York Times says there are “alerts from coast to coast” as cities on the east coast also face “an excessive heat warning for the rest of the week”. BBC News reports on the sixth named Atlantic storm of 2021 “hinting at an above-average [hurricane] season ahead”. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that a landslide has killed 10 people in India, where recent weeks have seen flooding. Reuters reports that officials in North Korea have been inspecting flood damage as more heavy rains arrive. And a Reuters analysis says: “Extreme weather sounds alarm for under-insured China.” Reuters also reports that in Argentina, a “once in 100 years” drought is affecting grain harvests.

Finally, a comment article in Scientific American by climate scientist Prof Drew Shindell runs under the headline: “Let’s start naming climate-related disasters for polluters and their enablers.”

UK government spending is “lagging behind what advisers say is needed”, BBC News reports, citing new analysis published by NGO WWF. The broadcaster continues: “A study by the pressure group WWF says new green policies in the March 2021 Budget add up to just 0.01% of GDP. But the government’s own advisory Climate Change Committee has said 1% of national wealth – or GDP – must be spent every year in the UK to ensure climate targets are met…WWF says its research also shows that some Budget policies that encourage pollution totalled £40bn – far more than the PM’s green plan.” The Guardian also has the story, reporting that just £145m in the budget was dedicated to the environment, according to WWF. It adds: “Tensions over the government’s commitment to net-zero emissions, and the potential cost of policies to meet the target, are said to be one of the chief bones of contention between the prime minister and the chancellor, Rishi Sunak. The two are said to have had at least one blazing row recently.” It quotes a Treasury spokesperson saying: “These misleading claims fail to recognise the £12bn we already pledged to spend in support of our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. The budget built on that with further funding allocations and ambitious plans on green finance, and the UK Infrastructure Bank, which will help finance green projects across the UK.” The Independent also has the story.

Separately, the Financial Times reports that prime minister Boris Johnson is “poised to backtrack” on a plan to ban new gas boilers from being installed after 2035. It says: “Boris Johnson is expected to water down plans to ban the sale of new gas boilers in the UK from the mid-2030s over concerns from ministers and Conservative MPs about the cost to consumers of transitioning to net-zero emissions. Replacing millions of gas boilers is a key part of the UK’s strategy to hit its 2050 net-zero target. Any move by the UK prime minister to backtrack would likely trigger a backlash from climate scientists and environmental activists, ahead of Britain hosting the UN COP26 climate summit in November.” The paper adds: “A final decision is not expected until the government publishes its long-awaited Heat and Buildings Strategy document, which is now expected this autumn.” Reuters picks up the FT reporting.

In other UK climate news, the Times reports that “blue” hydrogen made from fossil gas could be worse for the climate than gas itself, according to a new study. It explains: “The gas industry says blue hydrogen will be low carbon because the emissions produced when the fuel is made will be piped under the North and Irish Seas and injected into saline aquifers and depleted oilfields and gasfields.” But the paper adds: “The study, in the journal Energy Science & Engineering, concludes: ‘The greenhouse gas footprint of blue hydrogen is more than 20% greater than burning natural gas or coal for heat. The use of blue hydrogen appears difficult to justify on climate grounds.’” It quotes one of the study authors, Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell. [Howarth has previously published studies on the climate impact of shale gas, arguing “fugitive” methane leaks during production outweigh any benefits of replacing coal.] The Guardian reports: “Academics warn ‘fugitive’ emissions from producing hydrogen could be 20% worse for climate than using gas.” It quotes a government spokesperson saying: “Independent reports, including that from the Climate Change Committee, show that a combination of blue and green hydrogen is consistent with reaching net-zero but alongside the strategy, we will consult on a new UK standard for low carbon hydrogen production to ensure the technologies we support make a real contribution to our goals.” The i newspaper and Recharge also report on the new study. (For more on hydrogen – blue or otherwise – see Carbon Brief‘s in-depth Q&A.)

Meanwhile, a frontpage story for the Daily Telegraph reports that the government is to “crack down on ‘greenwashing’ energy firms”. It reports: “Energy companies that mislead consumers with ‘eco-friendly’ deals that are not as green as they seem will be targeted in a new government crackdown.” The Times also has the story. The i newspaper reports on how “clever carbon taxes could speed the UK’s transition to net-zero emissions”. BusinessGreen looks at what recent polling says about “[what] Britain really think[s] about net-zero”.

The US senate has “narrowly” passed a $3.5tn budget package that would be “the most significant legislation to tackle climate change in US history”, according to one expert quoted by Bloomberg. The package will now pass to the US lower house and would need to be enacted in legislation, the website notes. It says the package, as it currently stands, “sets the stage for a deluge of spending on electric vehicles, renewable power and clean energy initiatives meant to help combat climate change and wean the US off fossil fuels”. The clean energy provisions are yet to be finalised but could, Bloomberg says “compel 80% carbon dioxide-free electricity by 2030 and use a system of incentives and penalties to achieve it”. It adds: “The budget resolution passed on a party-line 50-49 vote and final adoption is far from guaranteed. It would require the Biden administration and Democratic leaders to satisfy the duelling demands of moderates such as Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, as well as progressives such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.” The New York Times also reports on the budget package passing the senate, saying it “passed along party lines and faces an arduous path ahead”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that the White House has called on the OPEC oil producers’ cartel to “boost oil production to contain fuel prices”. It adds: “Biden administration says higher prices at pump threaten global recovery.” The Times and Reuters also have the story. Bloomberg says the call to OPEC “is [a] jarring contradiction to lofty climate talk [on] Monday”. It adds: “The jarring contradiction highlights the challenges that politicians around the world face in pushing for a transition away from oil, while also seeking to keep a lid on prices at the pump.” Separately, Politico reports: “Dire UN report on warming planet leaves GOP senators cold.” Recharge reports findings from S&P that “Biden’s green push could strand $68bn in US coal and gas assets.” Reuters reports that California has “approved energy efficiency standards aimed at vastly expanding the use of electric appliances for space and water heating in new homes and businesses, in a shift away from using fossil fuels to heat and cool buildings”. The piece is titled: “New California rules move state away from natural gas in new buildings.”

China’s state broadcaster CCTV has run a 20-minute programme explaining the key findings of IPCC’s latest report. When asked by the presenter what China’s emission-reducing measures mean for global warming, Chao Qingchen – deputy director of the National Climate Centre – said that emissions have been accumulated “historically” since the industrial revolution, adding: “As a member of the world, our action and endeavour to reduce emissions have an important contribution to slowing down the accelerating global change.” Beijing News has an interview with Paul N Edwards from Stanford University, a lead author of the IPCC report, about the main messages from the assessment. (See Carbon Brief‘s in-depth Q&A for more details about the report.)

Meanwhile, the Global Times, a state-run newspaper, publishes an editorial to “refute” what it calls “some of the frequent charges” by western media against China’s emission-reducing efforts. The publication lists four sentences from three US and UK outlets and provides what it describes as “facts” under each of them. The topics range from China’s emission growth to its “love for meat”. 21st Century Business Herald reports that China’s central bank has recently discussed using a new tool to support “key” sectors to reduce carbon emissions. Although the authority has not explained what the tool is or if it has already been put into operation, “multiple insiders” believe that it is “green remortgaging”, the outlet says.

Elsewhere, a Mail On Sunday report focuses on China’s dominance in the global lithium supplies. The article, published via MailOnline, says that China “dominates both manufacture of batteries and the production of the one element without which no electric cars could move an inch – the lithium that is the irreplaceable component of battery cells”. A China Dialogue article explains what the world can expect from China’s first five-year plan for the marine environment, which is scheduled to be released this year.

A Guardian “exclusive” reports that Australia’s climate targets are “not sufficient”, according to Dr Jonathan Pershing, the deputy to US presidential climate envoy John Kerry. He said the country should be looking at a 50% by 2030 reduction, the paper adds, noting: “The Australian government’s 2030 goal of a 26-28% cut is unchanged since 2015, when it just copied the then-US target for 2025 but gave itself five extra years to meet it. It has resisted joining the more than 100 countries to set a net-zero goal for mid-century.” Meanwhile the Guardian reports that Australian prime minister Scott Morrison has “contradicted” his deputy, Barnaby Joyce, over whether the government would itself be involved in drawing up a plan to reach net-zero by 2050. It says: “On Wednesday, Morrison told parliament cabinet would develop the post 2030 policy, and it would be explained to voters before they went to the polls at the next federal election.” Another Guardian piece factchecks Joyce’s comments. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Australian energy group AGL has announced a “plunge” in profits due to “waning investor appetite for coal-fired power” as well as “higher gas costs and a slump in wholesale power prices to nine-year lows, with demand hurt by pandemic lockdowns and growth in rooftop solar”. The Guardian profiles “Scott Morrison’s favourite climate change protester”. And a comment for the Guardian by Greg Jericho, who covers economics in Australia for the paper, says: “Australia cannot afford another election campaign that views the science of climate change as something we can ignore.”

Coverage continues of this week’s IPCC report on the science of climate change, with CNN looking at the impact of methane, which it says was emphasised by AR6 “for the first time”. It says: “Methane, the main component of the natural gas we use to fuel our stoves and heat our homes, can be produced in nature by belching volcanoes and decomposing plant matter. But it is also pumped into the atmosphere in much larger amounts by landfills, livestock and the oil and gas industry.” Climate Home News says the IPCC report has “prompt[ed] calls to tackle methane at COP26”, in an article that notes only 13 countries have targets for the gas in the Paris climate pledges. An article for BBC News also covers the topic, under a headline that reads: “Climate change: Curbing methane emissions will ‘buy us time’”. [The piece has been described as “misleading” by one of the IPCC report lead authors, on the basis that emissions of methane and CO2 must both be cut urgently.]

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, former Conservative secretary of state for energy and climate change Amber Rudd notes that “every Tory MP” stood on a manifesto commitment at the last election to net-zero by 2050, adding: “The electorate knew what they were voting for. And support for such action is high – and rising. Almost four-fifths of the public support the net-zero target. But they also know that the disingenuous refrain we’ve heard recently – of costs, costs, costs when it comes to net-zero – is overdone. Some articles attacking the Government’s net-zero pledge read much like the ‘doomsters and gloomsters’ who said that Brexit would be a disaster.” She concludes: “Attempts to delay, distract and divert the government from its net-zero manifesto commitment are ill-considered. It is not the disingenuous points around ‘cost’ we should be focusing on but rather, as Mrs Thatcher put it, the question of ‘expense’. To live at the expense of future generations is a profoundly unconservative notion, and one for which the public will not stand.” She adds: “The same voices that once denied the science and lost in the face of evidence are pursuing denial via the back door, countering solutions without putting forward any credible ways of getting us onto a safer trajectory.” In the cover story for this week’s Spectator, climate sceptic columnist Ross Clark argues against the “true cost of net-zero”. A second comment for the Spectator by James Kirkup is titled: “In defence of net-zero: yes, we can afford it.” A Daily Telegraph comment by Clark argues that it is “greener” to keep driving an old diesel car than to buy a new electric car. [A new EV would start cutting CO2 within roughly four years, compared to continuing to drive an existing vehicle of average efficiency.]

In a comment piece for the paper, Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington responds to those that “balk at the cost” of meeting the UK’s net-zero goal, saying their assessment is “not just wrong, it is the exact opposite of reality”. Carrington says costs are “only one side of the balance sheet” and points to “huge cost savings due to more efficient vehicles and buildings, and the economic boost of many thousands of good jobs in the green industries”. He adds: ‘Getting to net-zero avoids the terrible costs and suffering that unrestrained global heating is beginning to wreak on the world, as starkly laid out in the week’s IPCC report. Cutting fossil fuel burning also brings benefits such as slashed air pollution, which still kills about 40,000 people a year in the UK…Basically, climate action is a bargain.“ Carrington concludes:”The delusions come from those with histories of climate change scepticism and could be dismissed as the latest mutant variant thrown up by the death throes of denial. But they are having a real-world impact, slowing action at the precise moment acceleration is needed.”

In another comment, Guardian economics editor Larry Elliot writes under the headline: “Fairness will be key to successfully tackling the climate crisis.” He adds: “Just as inequality fuelled the pandemic, it could wreck plans to cut emissions.” Elliot says: “Updating the New Deal for the modern age requires a green dimension. It also needs a social dimension to ensure buy-in from the low-paid people and those likely to lose their jobs in the inevitable low-carbon shakeout. If governments want people to switch from gas boilers to heat pumps they are going to have to foot the bill. If they want poor countries to skip the fossil-fuel phase and move straight to energy systems based on renewables, they are going to have to come up with a modern version of the Marshall plan. Building back greener means building back fairer.” Another Guardian comment, from Carys Roberts of left-leaning thinktank IPPR, says “[c]limate delayers are to blame for Britain’s lack of urgency in creating [a] green plan”. A final Guardian comment by political economist Mark Blyth is titled: “There is no ‘getting back to normal’ with climate breakdown.” In the Washington Post, climate sceptic columnist George Will writes under the headline: “With a closer look, certainty about the ‘existential’ climate threat melts away.” [His piece is full of “misinformation”, according to climate journalist Dana Nuccitelli.]

A piece for Politico looks at UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s engagement with the upcoming COP26 UN climate summit, which he will be hosting in Glasgow in November. It says: “Less than three months before the COP26 summit there’s worry the British prime minister has engaged too late.” It adds: “Boris Johnson wants to pull China, India and the biggest climate polluters into line. But so far he can’t control his own government.” It reports: “[A] Whitehall official said it was only within the past two months that No 10 had seemed to grasp the scale of the challenge of hosting a successful COP26. Johnson is beginning to step up his own involvement behind the scenes, including multiple recent calls to world leaders.” It also quotes a “senior government official” who “strongly denied the impression that Downing Street has, at least so far, been reluctant to pull out all the stops”. BusinessGreen reports that Johnson “has provided the clearest indication yet of the government’s priorities for the crucial COP26 climate summit, urging countries to deliver bold action on ‘coal, cars, cash, trees’”. It adds: “In a short video address responding to this week’s IPCC report, Johnson unveiled the new slogan, which sets out the government’s specific goals for the summit, alongside its long-standing call for all nations to adopt net-zero targets and strategies.”

In a timely paper, researchers argue that the summary for policymakers (SPM) element of the assessment reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could be made more engaging by “incorporating narrative features”. The researchers evaluate the SPMs from the fifth assessment report, published in 2013-14, for “narrative opportunities, which are elements that could be narratively restructured or strengthened”. They note that “storytelling does not compromise the goals of the IPCC, but rather helps public audiences understand and relate to the information”. The paper is part of a new topical collection on “climate change communication and the IPCC”.