The Guardian reports that the “world’s governments will meet in Madrid this December to discuss the climate emergency…after a last-minute intervention by the Spanish government to save the talks” following Chile’s decision to step back as host due to the country’s civil unrest. The paper adds: “After Chile withdrew, there was concern that the annual talks might have to be scaled down, postponed or even abandoned. However, on Friday afternoon, the UN’s top official on climate change, Patricia Espinosa, issued a terse statement that COP25 would go ahead on the original dates, 2-13 December, but in Madrid…Some activists who had set sail for Chile from Europe were planning to continue their journey. Others, particularly those from smaller organisations and delegations from poor countries, were likely to find it hard to meet the costs of the venue change.” The Independent reports that Greta Thunberg has been left “stranded” in the US and is now “appealing on social media for a ride back across the Atlantic to mainland Europe”. Politico says that the Spanish government has offered to help her cross the Atlantic. Separately, Thunberg has been meeting with climate campaigner and actor Leonardo DiCaprio, reports BBC News. He has praised the teenager for her work and said because of her he is “optimistic about what the future holds”.

Meanwhile, Climate Home News reports that “Donald Trump could formally begin pulling out of the Paris Agreement” today. But it adds that “despite abandoning the deal it helped broker, the US government will retain its seat at UN climate talks…present and former diplomats told Climate Home News they expect the US will continue to shape global policy on climate change from inside the talks, even after it leaves”. Separately, Climate Home News carries an opinion piece by Tasneem Essop of Climate Action Network International who writes: “The decision to move the Cop to a different country…cannot divert our attention away from the ongoing crisis in Chile…Civil society and the international community must not shift its gaze away from Chile and must remain deeply vigilant about the potential for continued or escalated government repression.”

There is continuing coverage of the Conservative government’s decision late last week to suspend its support for fracking in the UK. Sky News says it “marks a major U-turn by the Tories – including Boris Johnson, who once hailed fracking as ‘glorious news for humanity’.” But Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn has described the move as an “election stunt” telling reporters: “I think it sounds like fracking would come back on 13 December [the day after the general election], if they were elected back into office.” In the Observer, science editor Robin McKie reports that “ministers have been condemned for wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in a failed attempt to introduce fracking to the UK”. He adds: “The bid also cost the nation a decade of effort that should have been expended on other, more environmentally friendly energy projects, scientists and activists claimed yesterday.” In the Times, energy editor Emily Gosden writes: “Environmental campaigners will claim a victory today, and years of protests have certainly hardened public opposition, yet it is arguable that the shale gas industry itself precipitated the ban by breaking its promises on earthquakes.”

Meanwhile, several outlets report on the government’s decision not to intervene in the opening of the UK’s first new deep coal mine in decades. BBC News says: “West Cumbria Mining said the new [coking coal] mine – near the site of the former Haig Colliery in Whitehaven which shut in 1986 – would create 500 jobs. Cumbria county councillors gave it the go-ahead in March, but this sparked a number of objections, including a call for government scrutiny. However, ministers have now said the council should take the decision.” The Guardian notes that the decision has been taken in “the same week that the Treasury launched a review [reports the Independent] into how the UK can end its contribution to global heating”. It adds that the Cumbrian MP Tim Farron has called the decision “a kick in the teeth in the fight to tackle climate change”. The Independent reports the views of Trudy Harrison, Conservative MP for Copeland, who has described the decision as “fantastic news”.

Separately, BBC News reports that “letters are being sent to 30,000 households across the UK inviting people to join a citizens’ assembly on climate change”. The move has been hailed by Rachel Reeves MP, chair of the business, energy and industrial strategy committee, one of six select committees who commissioned the assembly. BBC News adds: “Once participants are selected, the assembly will meet next year, with the outcome of their discussions reported back to Parliament. The initiative, set up by cross party MPs, will look at what members of the public can do to reduce CO2.” The Daily Telegraph describes the move as “bowing to Extinction Rebellion’s demand”. It adds: “Of the 30,000 who receive invitations, 110 of those who reply saying they are available to take part will be selected to travel to Birmingham and sit on the assembly. This will be a representative sample of people from all walks of life.”

The Labour party has promised to make all new-build homes “zero carbon” within three years in an effort to curb housing shortages and tackle climate change, reports BBC News. It adds: “A Labour government would introduce ‘tough’ standards for new builds which would see homes fitted with solar panels and not having gas boilers. The party says it would save £200 a year per house in energy bills. The Conservative Party described the plan as “unrealistic” and said it would slow house building. The proposals would mean the day-to-day running of the new homes would not add extra carbon to the atmosphere.“ The Observer reports the Labour party’s claim that the pledge would be “the biggest overhaul of housing since the second world war, with a plan to install loft insulation, double glazing and renewable technologies in almost all of the UK’s 27m homes”. It adds that the party says that the “Warm Homes for All” scheme will create 450,000 jobs over the next decade, that there are “significant costs implied by the scheme”: “Labour calculates that delivering essential upgrades to the UK’s entire housing stock will cost about £250bn, or an average of £9,300 per house. The party pledged to provide £60bn of direct public subsidy for the programme, with the rest paid for ‘through energy savings’.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports today that the “Labour party is drawing up plans to penalise banks and hedge funds that ‘finance climate change’ and to incentivise them to invest in green enterprises, in a sign that the environment will be a big general election issue”. It adds: “John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, wants to use financial levers to help achieve a zero carbon economy by the 2030s, while the Tory government has a legally binding target of 2050.” City AM claims that the move would include making the Bank of England change its policy operations to avoid carbon bias and that this “has raised concerns about ‘skewing’ the Bank of England’s focus”.

Separately, today’s Times reports that Labour’s shadow chancellor John McDonnell said yesterday on BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show that the expansion of Heathrow could be ditched by Labour because climate change is the party’s “No 1 priority”.

There is widespread coverage of the formal start of Saudi Aramco’s initial public offering (IPO). Reuters says Saudi Arabia’s giant state oil company has announed “its intention to float on the domestic [Riyadh] bourse in what could be the world’s biggest listing as the kingdom seeks to diversify its economy away from oil”. But it adds: “In its long-awaited announcement, Aramco, the world’s most profitable company, offered few specifics on the number of shares to be sold, pricing or the date for a launch…Sources have told Reuters the oil company could offer 1%-2% of its shares on the local bourse, raising as much as $20bn to $40bn.” Bloomberg reports that “Saudi Aramco may be worth as little as $1.5tn or even less, well below the target set by the kingdom, according to research sent on Sunday to potential investors by the banks involved in the company’s initial public offering. The research, according to multiple investors who reviewed it, suggests the banks are struggling to pinpoint a precise valuation for Aramco.” BBC News says: “The firm said it has no current plans for a foreign share listing, saying long-discussed plans for a two-stage IPO including an offering on a foreign exchange had been put aside for now.” The Financial Times says the IPO is “a milestone in Prince Mohammed’s aggressive drive to deliver on his pledge to modernise the conservative kingdom”.

However, in the Guardian, money editor Patrick Collinson asks: “Why are we being herded into buying part of the world’s biggest polluter?” He adds: “The era of oil is coming to an end. The Saudi Arabians are cute, flogging it off now, because although it may be the world’s most profitable company at present, it could be worthless within 50 years. At some point there is going to be a global switchover to electric cars. Offshore windfarms, we’re told, can provide more electricity than the world needs. Aramco’s vast reserves will be left in the ground, and we’ll all be quoting Ozymandias…Yet the way our asset management industry runs, virtually every company employee with a pension scheme will, over the coming months and years, see it stuffed with Aramco shares – whether they like it or not.” Meanwhile, the New York Times has a feature on why a global “flood of crude will arrive even as concerns about climate change are growing and worldwide oil demand is slowing”, adding: “This looming new supply may be a key reason Saudi Arabia’s giant oil producer, Aramco, pushed ahead on Sunday with plans for what could be the world’s largest initial stock offering ever.” In the Times, energy editor Emily Gosden list the “key questions” for the IPO, which include what happens next: “If a domestic IPO succeeds, attention will then turn to the proposed secondary listing at a yet-to-be-determined international venue. London has been vying to host this, even adjusting listing rules to accommodate Aramco, but Tokyo was reported to be the favoured location and others such as Hong Kong have been in the running.”

New Delhi’s air pollution has reached such extreme levels over recent days, reports Reuters, that officials in the Indian capital have “banished from the roads cars with number plates ending in an odd number”. With the concentration of tiny PM 2.5 particles exceeding 500, the city government has declared a public health emergency: “Vehicular exhaust along with emissions from industry contribute more than 50% of Delhi’s air pollution on most days through the year, according to official estimates. The city also ordered schools shut on Monday. Authorities have also ordered all construction work to stop.” The Daily Telegraph says the pollution is at its “worst levels in recent years – with flights diverted or delayed as politicians blamed each other for failing to tackle the crisis”. It adds: “Every winter, the megacity of 20 million people is blanketed by a poisonous smog of car fumes, industrial emissions and smoke from stubble burning at farms in neighbouring states.”

Meanwhile, E&E News via Scientific American reports on a new study which “predicts there’ll be more than one million deaths a year from extreme heat in India by the next century if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current level”.

Axios reports that Donald Trump has “lashed out” at Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, in a series of tweets in which he threatened to cut US funding to California for the wildfires that have engulfed the state. Trump tweeted that Newsom had done a “terrible job of forest management”. However, Newsom has hit back on Twitter responding: “You don’t believe in climate change. You are excused from this conversation.” BBC News adds: “Increased temperatures due to global warming are causing huge wildfires in California regardless of how wet the previous winter was, according to a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Drier, warmer conditions lead to vegetation drying out and becoming more flammable.”

There is reaction in the UK media to the news that the government has suspended its support for fracking. An editorial in the Daily Telegraph today says: “Green campaigners are overjoyed, but the majority of the population are entitled to feel somewhat perplexed. Here was a great opportunity to emulate America’s success in cutting prices for consumers, reducing dependence on imports and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. But now it has been abandoned on what look to be as much political as scientific grounds…The Government and the other parties contesting the election now owe it to voters to spell out where Britain’s energy future – especially the security of supply – now lies. They are keen to tell us what they are against, whether it be shale, nuclear, oil, gas or even wood. What we want to know is how they propose to keep the lights on.” An editorial in the Independent takes a very different tone: “The suspension of fracking gets this climate-crisis election off to a good start.” In the Financial Times, Nick Butler writes: “Our leaders should not be choosing or rejecting particular technologies on the basis of limited knowledge. As we enter the election season in the UK and the US, energy is higher on the agenda than usual because of climate concerns. Beware of politicians who think their role is to make technical choices in areas which they do not understand.” A feature in the Financial Times also examines whether the decision was about “electioneering or geology”. In the Sunday Times’s business section, Alistair Osborne asks: “How does a big push into fossil fuels fit with the UK’s pledge to have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050? If the industry’s got a case for drilling, it’s fracked up making it.” In the Sunday Telegraph, Madeline Grant is critical: “Astute politics, perhaps, but in the long run, ignoring the environmental and economic benefits of shale gas will impoverish us all…Idealists may say that we shouldn’t burn fossil fuels at all, but this is simply unsustainable. Our renewables are not yet ready and shale gas remains the best option to plug the gap until eco-technologies catch up…This isn’t the first time that the Tories have caved to eco-propaganda. Theresa May pandered to Extinction Rebellion by implementing, with a staggering lack of scrutiny, a net-zero carbon target by 2050.”

Meanwhile, in the Financial Times, Jonathan Ford looks at another source of energy: “If nuclear power is to play a major role in decarbonisation, plants will have to come in faster and at lower cost. But what we should not do though is reject nuclear power out of irrational fears about its riskiness. That would be to repeat on a grander scale the mistakes made after Fukushima. Decarbonisation will be hard enough without zapping our one concentrated and reliable zero-carbon source.”

Agricultural irrigation could help explain why the Kunlun Shan and Karakoram glaciers in the High Mountains of Asia are not receding at the same rate as other glaciers in the same region, a study suggests. The glaciers in the High Mountains of Asia, which are relied on by around two billion people for freshwater, are acutely threatened by climate change. However, while most of the glaciers in the region have been rapidly losing ice in the last few decades, Kunlun Shan and Karakoram have seen slight gains. The new research finds that changes to local irrigation patterns could have caused snowfall levels to increase, which could, in turn, be counteracting the loss of ice from these two glaciers.