French president Emmanuel Macron has welcomed US president-elect Joe Biden’s pledge to rejoin the Paris climate deal on taking office by saying countries now have the chance to “make our planet great again”, Reuters reports. It quotes Macron saying: “[The US rejoining Paris] is proof that we had to stand firm against all the headwinds…‘Make our planet great again’ is a possibility, not just in words but also in deed.” It adds: “Biden has pledged to convene world leaders for climate talks within his first 100 days in office.” The newswire notes that “Make America Great Again” was a Trump election slogan. The Independent and the Hill also have the story. Analysis and reporting continues on the climate impact of Biden’s election victory. The Times reports comments from former prime minister Tony Blair saying the COP26 climate conference next year is a “‘huge opportunity’ for Joe Biden to rebuild the international coalition to cut emissions”. Axios presents the “bull case for Biden’s climate agenda”. It points to extensive preparations on how to address climate change ahead of the election, the more favourable economics of clean energy as costs continue to fall and the moves by some companies to start adopting stronger climate action. InsideClimate News reports that two US oil firms, ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum, have “join[ed] their European counterparts in making net-zero pledges”. Another InsideClimate News piece lists “four things Biden can do for clean energy without Congress”, including energy efficiency standards and making progress on offshore wind permits. (Reuters reports that the federal agency responsible for these permits has delayed them again.) Bloomberg reports that the Biden transition team is stocked with “policy experts, academics and former Obama administration officials, a contrast with the industry-friendly figures president Donald Trump sent into the government”. Reuters reports that a contender to run the US Environmental Protection Agency under Biden “says [the] agency should focus on environmental justice”. The Guardian reports that Tucson, Arizona, is making climate justice a centrepiece of its local plans. Another Reuters article says the future of the Dakota Access pipeline is “uncertain” after Biden’s win.

An editorial in the Economist says: “In place of Donald Trump’s wrecking ball, Mr Biden will offer an outstretched hand, working co-operatively on global crises, from coronavirus to climate change.” An editorial in the Guardian says: “A US president who recognises the threat [of climate change] will make a huge difference, but environmentalists must push hard.” Writing in Yale Environment360, Bill McKibben sets outAdd Brief his views on “what climate activists must do in the Biden era”. Scientific American has an article on “how scientists want Biden to take on climate change”, including by promoting electric vehicles and incorporating environmental justice.

The UK government has launched a “green jobs taskforce” as part of an ambition to deliver 2m green jobs by 2030, BusinessGreen reports. It adds that the announcement comes “as the prime minister gears up to shortly announce his hotly anticipated 10-point green recovery plan, which is expected to feature support for offshore wind, nuclear power, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage (CCS), among other areas”. Bloomberg reports on how climate change is “Boris Johnson’s chance to woo Joe Biden”, given their shared commitment to tackling the problem. It says: “The first real test of the UK’s influence will come on 12 December, when Johnson will co-host a conference with the UN that asks other world leaders to set their net-zero goals.”

Meanwhile, BBC News reports that No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings is set to leave Downing Street “by Christmas”, with an earlier version of its article including analysis from Newsnight political editor Nicholas Watt saying: “We can expect a less abrasive Downing Street and a strong focus on climate change.” In a comment for the Daily Telegraph, Spectator editor Fraser Nelson writes: “A lot of people have been thinking about this new post-Brexit era – and this is where [Boris Johnson’s partner] Ms Symonds comes in. As a former Tory spin chief she has her own views on a good communications strategy and a formidable contacts book. She’s also a keen environmentalist and No 10 officials suspect this explains why the prime minister has a sudden interest in building zero-emission jumbo jets and hydrogen-fuelled cars. Rumours started to circulate around Whitehall that she regarded Cummings and the Brexit boys as too abrasive and ideological and she wanted regime change.” Press Association reports on the latest government public attitudes survey, which it says shows that: “Concern over climate change has remained high and even grown slightly even as the UK has been gripped by the coronavirus pandemic…[M]ore than four-fifths of people (82%) are either very or fairly concerned about current climate change.”

Separately, according to Reuters via the Economic Times, the UK has yet to choose between a carbon tax or a national emissions trading scheme after it leaves the EU’s system on 31 December. It quotes business and energy minister Kwasi Kwarteng saying, with just seven weeks to go until 2021, that neither option has been taken off the table and that the final decision depends on the outcome of talks with the EU over any Brexit deal with the bloc. Reuters adds: “He did not say when a decision was expected but said a long-awaited energy white paper would be published at the end of November or beginning of December.” An article in the Economist reflects on the “do-or-die moment” for the UK nuclear industry as “Boris Johnson weighs up whether to throw his support behind a new power station”. The article says: “Even if Boris Johnson announces his support for Sizewell C, additional barriers remain. EDF won’t complete the government’s planning process until 2022 at the earliest. Its approval will also take time. A method of financing the plant’s construction must still be worked out and private investors found.” It concludes: “The risk of overruns is considerable, but the risks of failing to decarbonise are much greater…Wind power is cheap and getting cheaper; nuclear power is yet to start moving in the right direction. But it may; and given the danger of global warming, there is an argument for keeping the nuclear option open.” In the Daily Telegraph, senior business reporter Julia Bradshaw says: “Nuclear power can help the UK hit its net-zero emissions target by 2050, but there are plenty of challenges to overcome.”

Finally, there is a range of comment on the UK’s climate plans, with an article in the Independent by Donnachadh McCarthy saying: “The public is being misled about the prime minister’s commitment to tackling the climate crisis.” He notes that the UK is falling short on most indicators of climate progress and concludes: “It is time Johnson’s Trumpian bluster on climate inaction was exposed. The public deserves the actual truth so they can pressure him to take the depth of action necessary. ” BusinessGreen editor James Murray asks whether “the government [can] deliver on its green recovery rhetoric” and concludes: “The [prime minister’s upcoming] 10-point plan could be transformational and there is a lot riding on it, but if it is to deliver on its considerable promise then it is vital that offers a lot more than warm words about the importance of offshore wind or the potential of green hydrogen.”

There is widespread coverage of a new paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, which according to the Times: “claimed that global warming may already be unstoppable”. The Times continues that the journal “has been forced to issue a clarification [to its initial press release] after being accused of potentially causing ‘unnecessary despair’”. The piece quotes climatologist Sir Brian Hoskins saying: “This is the sort of investigation with a toy model that should be done and is fun, but should not be given this sort of publicity until the processes involved have been investigated using more complex models and representations.” An Independent factcheck of the findings, by climate correspondent Daisy Dunne, is trailed on the paper’s digital frontpage. She explains: “A new study claims we may have already reached a hypothetical ‘point of no return’, but other researchers say this is ‘at odds’ with what we know about climate science.” Dunne adds that the new study uses a “simplistic mathematical model” and that “leading climate scientists from across the UK and beyond have urged people to take the results of the new study with extreme caution”. The website stuff.co.nz also factchecks the paper under the headline: “Don’t panic: runaway global warming study ‘very implausible’.” MailOnline also has the story and, like the Times, has topped its coverage with the news that Scientific Reports issued a clarification to its initial press release. [MailOnline incorrectly claims “the journal revised its study’s findings”.] AFP via France24 reports the study results and interviews the lead author “Jorgen Randers, a professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School”. The article quotes climate scientists saying the research is a “thought experiment” that is “directly contradicted by more established and extensively evaluated climate models”. USA Today also reports the results.

South Korean conglomerate Samsung has pledged that its financial units will stop lending to coal investments, the Financial Times reports “bowing to growing pressure to reduce their exposure to fossil fuels”. An article for BusinessGreen looks at how “investors’ retreat from coal is gathering pace”. Reuters reports that UN secretary general Antonio Guterres has said he is “encouraged” by a joint declaration on sustainable finance from the world’s development banks, but adds that they need to go further. It quotes him saying: “I ask all development banks to commit to exit from coal, domestic and abroad, and urgently phase out fossil fuel finance. And call on governments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, with clear timebound targets and plans.” Politico has a feature on how “[b]reaking up is hard to do for Poland and coal”, while Fitch Ratings has a report on how Polish utilities are “reduc[ing] reliance on coal”. Elsewhere, DeSmog reports that some US politicians are “[t]ry[ing] to rally support for coal despite economics and Biden”. In Germany, Clean Energy Wire reports that gas demand is expected to rise as the country exits coal and nuclear, according to consultancy Rystad Energy.

Australia has already entered a new era “a new era of sustained extreme weather events, such as dangerous bushfires and heatwaves, courtesy of rising average temperatures”, the Guardian reports, according to a report by two government climate science agencies. The paper adds: “Among the key findings, the report said Australia’s climate had warmed by 1.44C since 1910 with bushfire seasons getting longer and more dangerous. Australia’s oceans had warmed by 1C and were acidifying.” The Sydney Morning Herald also has the story, under the headline: “Climate change is already here: major scientific report.” Reuters also covers the new report. Separately, Reuters columnist Clyde Russell writes that “Australia is turning into an example of what happens when the market leaves policymakers behind, with renewable energy attracting the investment dollars even as the conservative government clings to its vision of a natural gas future”.

Writing in the New York Times, contributing opinion writer Justin Gillis and Michael O’Boyle of research firm Energy Innovation argue that electricity firms in the US should stop investing in gas-fired power stations. Some 235 such plants are being planned, they note, a “foolhardy” potential investment of more than $100bn. They add: “If the plants are built, along with the pipelines to support them, they are likely to run for 30 or 40 years – long past the point that emissions from the electrical grid need to approach zero if we are to have a reasonable climate future.” Instead, they argue: “To the extent new power is needed, wind and solar plants, coupled with large batteries, are generally cheaper options.”

As part of a special issue on “cooling in a warming world”, Prof Steven Sherwood has a perspective in the journal Science. He reflects on the way that “[r]ising heat is creating new challenges for humanity that will require new adaptation and protection measures”. Despite the complexity of predicting factors including the duration and humidity of heat extremes, Sherwood concludes: “Past studies do point to a couple of robust conclusions. One is that impacts will increase nonlinearly with mean warming, as extreme thresholds are crossed with rapidly increasing frequency. This highlights the need for strong emissions mitigation to keep warming to a level that we can cope with. The other is that although no one will be spared, the world’s poor will be hit particularly hard. This highlights the need for low-cost adaptations and technologies as we seek suitable countermeasures to rising heat.” Other items in the special issue include looking at how to cool data centres and the development of new refrigerants.

A letter to the Guardian from former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, youth climate activists, climate scientists and others argues that reaching net-zero emissions will not be enough, given the “terrible impacts of the climate crisis” that we are already facing. The letter says: “This is why we believe the ideal solution to the climate crisis would be to go beyond net zero, and start to restore the climate. This would be done by, on top of reducing emissions to zero, removing huge amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere. As such, we aim to restore the climate to as close to a safe climate as possible.” They add: “Restoration is not about promoting one specific [carbon] removal technique, but supporting the basic aim of trying to restore the climate. ” The Guardian also carries a news story on the letter, which at the time of writing was on the frontpage of the paper’s website.

The Guardian has an interview with environmental campaigner Ma Jun, in which he says the last four years of Trump’s presidency has been “frustrating” and that Biden’s victory means the US and China can work together again on climate. Ma is quoted saying: “China has started changing its course. We have seen a lot more ‘walk the walk’ action. China has adopted some tough measures to try to deal with the pollution and environmental damage problem. And we have seen some progress made because of that.” Ma also says of the US and China: “I hope there’s healthy competition between the two countries…Hopefully they can see the opportunities, not just costs and risks, but also huge potential for a green recovery and green growth.” BBC Reality Check has a piece “[f]act-checking the US and China on climate and environment.”

The diurnal temperature range (DTR) – the difference between the maximum and minimum temperature within a day – is a climate indicator that affects health, agriculture and society. Understanding how DTR evolves under global warming is therefore crucial. Physically different drivers of climate change, such as greenhouse gases and aerosols, have distinct influences on global and regional climate. This study uses global climate models to assess future changes in DTR, and finds broad geographical patterns of annual change that are similar between climate drivers, pointing to a generalized response to global warming which is not defined by the individual forcing agents. Seasonal and regional differences, however, are substantial, which highlights the potential importance of local background conditions. For example, there are distinctly different DTR responses to aerosols and greenhouse gas perturbations over India and China, where present aerosol emissions are particularly high.