Key pieces of the EU’s climate legislation “failed to pass the European Parliament” yesterday, reports Politico. In what the outlet describes as “a series of dramatic votes”, lawmakers refused to adopt positions on the reform of the EU’s carbon market, the introduction of a carbon border tax and the establishment of a Social Climate Fund following “conservative-led efforts to water them down”. MEPs “rejected the final report by lead lawmaker Peter Liese on the expansion and revision of the Emissions Trading System – a key part of the European Commission’s Fit for 55 climate legislation package”, the outlet says, “causing uproar in plenary”. It continues: “Lawmakers then agreed to refer the text, alongside interlinked reports dealing with the carbon border tax and the Social Climate Fund, back to committee. The move to kill the ETS report came after MEPs passed a series of amendments pushed by the centre-right European People’s Party and its allies that would have resulted in weaker emissions cuts than proposed by the environment committee last month and delayed the phaseout of free carbon credits.” Bloomberg notes that the ETS report was rejected because “the greens and socialists considered the changes as weakening the reform too much, while the conservatives deemed them too ambitious”. Liese said the far-right, the greens and social democrats had “wrecked compromises on emissions trading…I hope that we can correct the mistake”, reports the Financial Times. The paper says that “observers said the lack of agreement sent a bad signal on Brussels’ ambitions to become a world leader on environmental policy through its Green Deal laws”. And it adds that MEPs were last night “working on a new timeline after the series of rejected measures, including the possibility of a fresh vote”. Reuters says that “the rare rejection could set back the timeframe for finishing the law – which the EU is racing to do this year, so it can apply in 2023”. Further reporting by Politico says: “The chaotic session, which saw emotions run high, also laid bare a key split between political camps, with a conservative coalition seeking to protect industry from significantly stricter climate measures and a left-leaning bloc balking at a slower pace of decarbonisation.”

Despite other failed proposals (see above), the European Parliament yesterday “threw its weight behind” a proposed effective ban on cars with a combustion engine in 2035, reports the Associated Press. It explains: “The European Union assembly voted in Strasbourg, France to require automakers to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 100% by the middle of the next decade. The mandate would amount to a prohibition on the sale in the 27-nation EU of new cars powered by gasoline or diesel. EU lawmakers also endorsed a 55% reduction in CO2 from automobiles in 2030 compared with 2021. The move deepens an existing obligation on the car industry to lower CO2 discharges by 37.5% on average at the end of the decade compared to last year.” The target and effective ban were proposed last year by the European Commission, the AP says. It adds that “the governments of EU member nations need to give their verdicts in the coming weeks or months before a final EU agreement on the tougher car emission requirements is approved”. The parliament’s vote “increases the pressure on governments for a clear end to the internal combustion engine in the EU single market of 447 million people”, the Guardian says. Politico notes that “an alternative amendment pushed in plenary by the European People’s Party would have set the 2035 emissions reduction target at 90% without any clear engine end date, but that was rejected”. It adds that the plan “would have allowed the continued sale of a limited number of combustion-engine vehicles but was fiercely opposed by green groups”. Carmakers including Ford and Volvo have publicly supported the EU 2035 plan, reports Reuters, although the newswire says it has seen emails that “show industry groups including German auto association VDA lobbied lawmakers to reject the 2035 target, which they said penalised alternative low-carbon fuels and was too early to commit to, given the uncertain rollout of charging infrastructure”.

The UK government has given the go-ahead for drilling to start to establish the size of a gasfield on the edge of the Surrey Hills just south of London, reports the Financial Times. It continues: “The ruling, which was announced in a written statement by housing minister Stuart Andrew, overturns a decision by the local Tory-run council to block the project and angered environmentalists and the Liberal Democrats. Although the minister agreed that the proposal would cause ‘significant harms to the character and appearance of the landscape’, Andrew said this was mitigated by the ‘short-term’ nature of the three-year appraisal project.” While gas was first found on the site at Loxley, near Dunsfold, in the 1980s, no work was carried out, the paper explains. But the company that bought the rights – UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) – has been pressing to develop the area since 2020, which it estimates could hold 43bn cubic feet of gas, the paper says. (This would amount to around 1.5% of UK annual demand.) The ruling allows UKOG to drill to determine the extent of the reserves and the firm says it hopes to start work next year on determining whether the prospect was viable, the publication adds. The Guardian notes that the “non-fracking” gas well would be close to an area of outstanding natural beauty and would be accompanied by a new road junction, access route and boundary fence. Welcoming the decision, UKOG chief executive Steve Sanderson said the site could offer “a secure, sustainable energy source with a far lower pre-combustion carbon footprint than imports”, reports BBC News. The planning application has been opposed by campaigners and Jeremy Hunt, the local Conservative MP, the outlet says. Hunt, who attended protests against the drilling in January, said: “It’s absolutely extraordinary after COP26 in Glasgow that we are even thinking about drilling for oil and gas in this area.” The Times and Independent also have the story.

UK cabinet minister and COP26 president Alok Sharma is in the running to be the UN’s next global climate chief, reports the Guardian. With current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) executive secretary Patricia Espinosa set to step down next month, Sharma is “understood to have been approached about the pivotal role”, says the paper, and “would be willing to take it on”. It would be the first time the UK has occupied “such an important UN role”, the articles notes, and “would be a coup for prime minister Boris Johnson’s attempt to position ‘global Britain’ on the world stage post-Brexit”. The paper says that “no-drama Sharma” won plaudits for his “calm” stewardship of the COP26 talks in Glasgow last year. However, he would face “stiff competition” as some developing countries would prefer a candidate from the Global South, it adds: “There is an unspoken understanding that top UN roles should be shared among rich and poor countries. Applications for the three-year job, which carries a salary of $207,000, close on 24 June and the form says women would be ‘especially welcome’.”

A new report details how the world is witnessing a “gold rush” for new fossil fuel projects following soaring energy prices and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, BBC News says. The report, by Climate Action Tracker (CAT), says that “new liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities are now proposed in Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and Canada. The US, Qatar, Egypt and Algeria have all signed deals to export LNG to different parts of the EU, while gas projects are being revived in west Africa”, the outlet explains. It quotes the CAT report saying that “if all these plans materialise they will either end up as massive stranded assets or they’ll lock the world into irreversible warming”. Niklas Höhne, of NewClimate Institute, one of the partners behind the Climate Action Tracker, is quoted by the Guardian: “We’re about to witness a ‘gold rush’ for new fossil gas production, pipelines and LNG [liquefied natural gas] facilities, locking us into another high-carbon decade.”

In related news, Inside Climate News covers a report by the Environmental Integrity Project – a US nonprofit – which shows that “since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 14 February, there has been a bustle of business activity, as American companies have secured at least 19 agreements to supply nearly 24m tonnes of LNG per year”. In addition to those 19 agreements, “construction continues on four new LNG export terminals expected to begin operating by 2026”, the outlet notes. At the same time, the Financial Times reports that “one of the biggest US liquefied natural gas plants will be closed for at least three weeks after an explosion, dealing a blow to exports at a time when the industry is trying to boost supplies to Europe”. Reuters senior market analyst John Kemp notes that “Europe’s gas inventories are accumulating at a record rate and are now significantly above the 10-year seasonal average as the region tries to protect itself against a possible disruption of supplies from Russia”.

In a story that makes a series of frontpages of UK newspapers, the price of petrol at UK forecourts has made its biggest daily jump in 17 years, “as the cost of filling a family car threatens to exceed £100 for the first time”, says the Guardian. It continues: “A litre of petrol cost an average of 180.73p on Tuesday, according to the data firm Experian Catalist – up an astonishing 2.23p compared with the previous day. A similar increase on Wednesday would break the £100 barrier for the average cost of filling a tank for a 55-litre family car. Some forecourts are already selling petrol above £2 a litre.” The government’s 5p fuel duty cut announced in March has “already been effectively wiped out by soaring prices”, says the Daily Telegraph, “triggering calls for another intervention”. However, BBC News notes that “motoring groups have raised concerns retailers are not passing on the cut to customers”. It continues: “On Wednesday the prime minister’s official spokesman said the government was ‘not confident’ this was happening at all petrol stations. He said the government was ‘continuing to look at all possible options’ and ‘transparency may have an important role to play’ in ensuring the cut is passed on. It comes after a government source told the BBC a plan to name and shame petrol stations that fail to do so is ‘still in the works’.” There is further coverage in the Independent and Sky News, while the Times reports on petrol prices across Europe. There is also further reporting in the Guardian.

Chinese premier Li Keqiang hosted an executive meeting of the State Council – the nation’s state administrative agency – yesterday which stressed that the “downward pressure on the economy is still prominent”, China Electric Power News reports. The meeting also mentioned that the nation should ensure a “stable supply of coal and electricity”, the state-run industry newspaper says.

Meanwhile, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) – China’s top economic planner – and the National Energy Administration (NEA) – the country’s top energy regulator – jointly issued a notice on Tuesday which mentions that “new energy storage can participate in the electricity market as standalone energy storage”, China Energy News highlights. Jiemian – a Shanghai-based outlet – says that “standalone energy storage” was mentioned “13 times” in the notice. The article adds that “without bearing transmission and distribution prices”, the operating costs of standalone energy storage projects will be “further reduced” with “improved market competitiveness”.

Elsewhere, China Daily writes that, according to “industry insiders’‘, the US government’s “decision to lift some tariffs” imposed on solar products during the Trump administration will “further stimulate” import of solar power equipment into the US and that China – the world’s largest producer of solar products – might “benefit” in the process. The state-run newspaper says that China’s solar industry supplies components to “photovoltaic producers in Southeast Asia”. It adds, citing “observers”, that “if the latter benefit from the US move, part of such gains may percolate down to Chinese suppliers”. Finally, Nikkei Asia says that China and India have “increased Russian oil purchases as prices decline due to Western import bans’‘, according to the “latest” data. The outlet adds that the moves of the two countries create a “loophole that allows Moscow to secure export revenue”.

EurActiv reports that German chancellor Olaf Sholz dismissed the idea of finance minister Christian Linder to postpone the retirement of nuclear reactors, proposed despite the previous decision to phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022. It adds that due to Germany’s energy dependence on Russia, Lindner “argued that the current spike in energy prices could be tackled by prolonging the running time of Germany’s nuclear power plants”. According to the outlet, Scholz said that he understands Lindner’s “unideological approach“, but the government would still stick to its approach to “phase out nuclear energy”. Associated Press also covers the story, noting that “Germany shut down half of its [last] six nuclear plants in December and the remaining three are due to cease production at the end of this year as part of the country’s long-running plan to phase out conventional power plants in favour of renewable energy”.

Meanwhile, the Independent reports about Germany’s plans “to temporarily keep additional coal-fired power plants on stand-by for almost two years to stave off a possible electricity shortage in case natural gas supplies are suddenly reduced by Russia”. The outlet adds that “a draft law agreed by Cabinet would ensure that coal-fired plants previously scheduled for closure remain in functional condition”.

Finally, EurActiv reports that German agriculture minister Cem Özdemir has presented plans for a mandatory animal welfare label, explaining that “every product produced and sold in Germany will soon have to indicate the conditions under which animals were kept”.

“Dangerous and potentially deadly heat” will hit the south-western US in the next few days, reports the New York Times, “with temperatures in some locations expected to break records and exceed 110F” [43C]. It continues: “More than 22 million people in California, Nevada and Arizona are under some sort of heat-related alert through at least part of the weekend, the National Weather Service said. A heat wave is defined as a period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot and unusually humid weather that lasts for two or more days.” The paper notes that “this is the beginning of a potentially scorching summer”. Reuters also covers the story and has a second article on how “power demand in Texas broke the June record on Monday and Tuesday and will keep rising this week until it tops the all-time high as economic growth boosts usage and hot weather causes homes and businesses to crank up their air conditioners”. And Axios reports on a growing campaign to “name and categorise heatwaves the way we do hurricanes”.

Britain’s biggest fertiliser producer and supplier of CO2 to the country’s meat, beer and soft drinks sectors is to close one of its plants as soaring energy costs continue to bite, reports the Financial Times. The paper continues: “US fertiliser group CF Industries said it would permanently shut its Ince plant in Cheshire and restructure its UK operations, leading to the loss of about 350 jobs. The company is an important part of the UK food supply chain, supplying fertiliser for farmers as well as CO2, which is used in the meat industry for slaughtering livestock, food and drink production and packaging.” The Ince plant had been closed since September “when soaring gas prices in Europe made the production of fertiliser uneconomical and CF shut down the facility, along with the Billingham plant”, the FT says. The Times notes that CF “received millions of pounds of government support last September”, which it used to restart production at Billingham on Teesside “to address a CO2 shortage it said could have severely impacted the food processing sector, the NHS and nuclear power generation”.

In related news, a Reuters “exclusive” reports that investors managing assets worth $14tn have written to the United Nations urging them to “create a global plan to make the agriculture sector sustainable and curb one of the biggest sources of climate-damaging emissions”.

The Big Issue reports the comments by UK environment minister George Eustice to a Lords select committee on climate change yesterday. He said the government has “no intention” of encouraging the public to eat less meat to combat climate change, that the science around the environmental impacts of meat-eating is “disputed” and that the government would not “lecture” people on consuming less. The outlet notes that “his comments stand in contrast to recommendations from the government’s own climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with both groups saying a reduction in meat and dairy consumption is necessary to limit global warming”. The MailOnline also has the story.

Finally, an editorial in the Washington Post warns that Russian president Vladimir Putin “threatens to inflict hunger and food shortages far and wide” and “the time has come for the rest of the world to take concrete actions in response”.

In a “big read”, Financial Times US energy editor Derek Brower looks in detail at Canada’s oil sands and “why some of the world’s dirtiest fuel is now in hot demand”. He writes: “When Joe Biden scrapped a permit for the huge Keystone XL pipeline just hours after entering the White House last year, a death knell seemed to be ringing for Canada’s oil sands, by far the largest supplier of foreign oil to the US…Yet, 18 months later, the mood is brightening as surging oil prices start to revive the economy. Alberta’s producers – forced to contend with sub-zero oil prices just a couple of years ago – are using the windfall from $100 a barrel crude to repair their balance sheets and beef up dividends. Production is rising again. So is export capacity: a pipeline system to the Midwest has been expanded and another to the west coast is due online next year. Across the province’s oil patch, business is suddenly brisk.” However, “even if the political winds are changing, there is a bigger test facing the oil sands”, says Brower – “whether its operations can be greened sufficiently to remain viable in a future that may demand much less oil, and certainly a lot less carbon”. He continues: “Producers say they can, and have outlined ambitious carbon capture plans to do so, with an aggressive timeline that will deliver results (or not) within the decade. Analysts are also hopeful, saying the projects, which currently produce some of the world’s dirtiest oil with a per-barrel carbon content higher than other forms of crude, could soon offer much cleaner supplies. Environmentalists remain sceptical.” Brower also notes that “total greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands projects are running at about 80m tonnes a year, according to the federal government – more than Austria’s annual emissions. As production rises over the next few years, so will the pollution”.

A new study explores how rising temperatures are affecting residential energy use for air conditioners, fans and refrigeration in China. Using a “high-quality provincial-level monthly dataset” for China, the researchers find that an additional day with a maximum temperature exceeding 34C brings an average 1.6% increase in that month’s per capita residential electricity use (when compared to the energy use if the maximum temperature had been in a 22–26C range). Under a “high global carbon dioxide emission trajectory”, the study estimates that the “expected temperature increases would lead to more than a 25% increase in residential electricity use in July in some provinces by the end of the century”.