Many news outlets around the world cover the fallout from the Australian election, for which climate change had been expected to be a deciding issue for many voters. The Sunday Times leads on comments from former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott, who lost his seat despite his party’s surprise victory, suggesting the result was down to constant questioning of the price tag attached to the rival Labor party’s ambitious green policies. Australia’s ABC News asks “what happened to the climate change vote we heard about?”, citing polls and surveys that had appeared to show climate as a key point that would push the result in Labor’s favour. The New York Times says that despite a few victories for candidates pushing climate change, overall the results will make it more difficult for the drought-prone nation to agree on a response to the issue. Reuters says the coalition win will mean the resurgence of “big coal” in Australia. The Sydney Morning Herald reports comments from a Labor frontbencher who says he warned the party about the emphasis on climate action over coal jobs, which he said would impact support in rural Australia. The Guardian notes environmental groups were pushing back against suggestions that the anti-coal movement had contributed to the Coalition government’s victory in Queensland.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace’s investigative journalism platform Unearthed reveal BP’s role in lobbying the US government to allow oil and gas drilling in two previously protected areas of the Alaskan Arctic. It says these findings, also reported in the Guardian, undermine international climate targets while posing a threat to the environment and Indigenous people. Elsewhere, the Mail on Sunday reports that the fossil fuel giant was being “forced to show how it will go green”, as city investors seek assurance from the company that its plans are in line with the Paris Agreement. Reuters also reports that BP is facing pressure to set tougher climate change targets, after already backing a resolution to be more transparent about its emissions, link executive pay to emissions cuts and show how future investments meet Paris goals. This morning the Evening Standard is reporting that Greenpeace has “shut down” BP’s London HQ with stone blockades to protest “a climate emergency”.

The UK prime minister is “searching for something her government can be remembered for” during her final weeks in power, according to the Times. It says besides measures to help those in Britain who are “just about managing”, one of the ideas being floated is action on climate change. Elsewhere the Guardianreports that moderate Conservatives are urging contenders for their party’s leadership to put climate change at the forefront of the contest. Meanwhile, the Mail on Sunday reports Sajid Javid is seeking new powers to crack down on climate protesters as he prepared his own bid for Tory leadership. The paper says the home secretary has “asked aides to draw up changes to public order laws in the wake of the Extinction Rebellion protests”. Another Mail on Sunday article, regarding the leadership ambitions of former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, reports that former prime minister John Major is to launch a “major Tory charge on climate change, joining the One Nation group of party moderates to demand that climate change is given the same level of concern as counter terrorism”. The paper quotes “a source” adding: “Boris will have no problem in jumping on all that, and it should give some moderates the fig leaf they need to climb down in their opposition to him.”

Among the coverage of presidential candidates’ plans for tackling climate change is a piece in the Hill looking at Democrat hopeful Pete Buttigieg’s plan to price carbon from polluters. According to the news outlet, he also listed investing in solar and wind technology and carbon capture as other areas of importance. Elsewhere, Axios looks at Joe Biden’s record on climate change over his long career in politics, and Vox lays out Washington governor and presidential candidate Jay Inslee’s strategy, describing it as “the climate plan the next president should adopt”. Meanwhile, polling covered by the Independent shows two-fifths of American voters from a sample of over 1,000 say climate change will influence how they cast their ballots in the next presidential election.

AFP reports that despite warnings of “climate catastrophe” and calls for transitions to green economies, “the world is still spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year to subsidise the fossil fuels that are causing the planet to overheat”. It cites the findings of an International Energy Agency report from last week, which was covered by Carbon Brief, showing that 2018 saw an increase in money going into new upstream oil and gas projects. Carbon Brief has previously published a piece looking at the challenge of defining fossil fuel subsidies.

In its Monday editorial, the Times reflects on the implications of the Australian election, which was “supposed to be the first election in which climate change was the decisive issue”. It attributes the ruling Liberal-National coalition’s victory to a traditional message that appealed to “the quiet Australians” mentioned by prime minister Scott Morrison in his victory speech, who were concerned about the economic impact of tackling climate change. The Sydney Morning Herald notes in its editorial that Australia’s future climate policies may depend on whether Morrison turns out to have an absolute majority or needs the support of more environmentally conscious “crossbench” MPs. However, on Monday the centre-right coalition’s parliamentary majority was confirmed, according to Reuters. An opinion piece by climate policy expert Frank Jotzo in the Guardian says that despite the result, strong international pressure will mean “coal is not the future” for Australia. In its editorial, the Wall Street Journal says American Democrats should heed Labor’s “election shocker” as they consider pushing a green new deal.

Coverage of Labour’s plan to nationalise the UK energy system continued into the weekend. In its business editorial, the Observer concludes that while the plan has widespread support, “and with good reason”, it would be difficult to make it a reality. It states that the “beautiful dreamscape of environment-friendly renewable energy” produced locally and supplemented by the national grid would struggle with bureaucracy, and that Labour will not necessarily be able to buy the industry “on the cheap”. An opinion piece in the Financial Timesconcludes the strategy of nationalisation would be “legally tricky”, while another FT comment says “Labour is right” about Britain’s private utility model being “broken”.

The Guardian announced on Friday its updated style guide, in which “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” are preferred over “climate change” and “global heating” instead of “global warming”. Among other changes to environmental vocabulary put forward by the paper is the term “climate science denier” rather than “climate sceptic”. It notes that these decisions take into account the language being used by scientists and key figures such as UN secretary general, António Guterres. The Guardian’s editor-in-chief Katharine Viner is quoted saying the plan is to “ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue”. Elsewhere, Al Jazeera asks if the media narrative around climate change is shifting, citing recent examples such as Extinction Rebellion and the green new deal. “The climate change story is also being told on platforms in ways it hasn’t been told before,” it says, noting recent high profile documentaries by the BBC and Netflix. In a comment at his blog, Joe Smith, director of the Royal Geographical Society, expresses doubts about the Guardian’s style decision.

The North American Monsoon rainfall, which affects the southwestern US and northwestern Mexico, has become more intense since the 1970s, according to long-term rain gauge data. The study uses rainfall data derived from daily observations from 59 rain gauges located in southeastern Arizona. “Our results highlight the need for long-term, high spatiotemporal observations to detect environmental responses to a changing climate in highly-variable environments,” the authors say.

Manhattan could see longer heatwaves by the middle of the century, a new study finds. The research combines climate projections with high-resolution population and urban planning data to explore future changes to extreme heat in New York City. “Event intensity changes are expected to be highest closer to the coast, where afternoon sea-breezes have traditionally mitigated summer high temperatures,” the authors say.