Nicaragua is set to sign the Paris climate agreement, in a move that will leave the US and Syria as the only two nations not supporting the accord. Nicaragua initially refused to join, arguing that the 2015 agreement did not go far enough to tackle the problem, but their president indicated last week that “It is time for Nicaragua to sign the Paris Agreement”. Rosario Murillo, Nicaragua’s vice president, commented: “It is the only instrument we have in the world that allows the unity of intentions and efforts to face up to climate change and natural disasters”. Nicaragua is believed to be especially at risk from climate change, and has vigorously pursued green energy policies, with more than 50% of its electricity coming from geothermic, wind, solar, biomass and wave power, the BBC reports. The Hill also has the story.

Disasters like fires, floods and hurricanes are already costing the federal government tens of billions of dollars a year, and will be exacerbated by climate change in coming years, a new study from the US Government Accountability Office warns. The office, which is Congress’s auditing arm, urges the Trump administration to take climate change risks seriously, the New York Times writes. The report estimates that rising temperatures could cause losses in labor productivity of as much as $150 billion by 2099, while changes in some crop yields could cost as much as $53 billion, although it acknowledges that it is difficult to pinpoint the costs of disasters that can be directly attributed to climate change. “My hope is the administration will take a look at this report and realise there is an economic impact here that is significant”, said Susan Collins, Republican senator for Maine, who jointly requested the report with senator Maria Cantwell, of the Democrats. “We need to understand that as stewards of the taxpayer that climate is a fiscal issue, and the fact that it’s having this big a fiscal impact on our federal budget needs to be dealt with”, Cantwell said. The senators noted that that extreme weather events over the past decade have cost the federal government $350 billion. Associated Press, Reuters, NBC and Time also carry the story.

Floods that used to strike the New York City area only once every 500 years could occur every five years, within the next three decades, according to new research published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers based their analysis on multiple models that factored in predictions for sea level rise and possible changes in the path of future hurricanes, AP reports. “We know that when Sandy hit in 2012, of course, subways, tunnels flooded, power was knocked out, parts of the city were just really devastated so studies like this provide some warning”, said Andra Garner, a scientists at Rutgers University, and one of the co-authors. Bloomberg, the Mail Online, the Washington Post and Carbon Brief also have the story.

American companies are still among the most ambitious in setting targets to combat climate change, despite president Trump’s hostility to the Paris climate agreement, according to a survey published today. The 2017 survey by the CDP found that US firms made up a fifth of 159 “A list” companies judged to have ambitious policies on limiting climate change and protecting water resources and forests. “The business case for climate action remains despite a lack of support in the federal level”, said Marcus Norton of the CDP. BusinessGreen also covered the story.

Analysis in the Telegraph considers the impacts of the UK importing more electricity than ever before. “Despite our pretension to green credentials, we have no idea how it’s generated”, writes Juliet Samuel. “It has allowed Britain’s under-investment in energy storage to go almost unnoticed”, she argues, continuing: “But relying on international electricity markets for up to a fifth of our total electricity at a time when European supply is expected to tighten is a recipe for rising prices and volatility”. “Rising imports are, in the short term, an easy way out for a government that has failed to deliver the investment in new gas plants that it promised”, Samuel concludes.

US citizens are willing to pay a carbon tax that would increase their household energy bills by an average of $15 per month, according to new research published in Environmental Research Letters. So “why doesn’t America have a carbon tax in place by now”, asks Dana Nuccitelli. He suggests that it is because “the wealthy and powerful have more influence over American policy than average voters”. The piece examines efforts to install a carbon tax, and discusses what might be done with the potential revenue. “Americans support a carbon tax because they want action to address climate change, and they want to spend the revenue on clean energy for the same reason. Or they at least want to spend the money on something they consider important”, he writes.

The campaign to persuade universities and other institutions to divest from oil and gas “is having no effect”, writes Nick Butler in the Financial Times. “Investment in oil, gas and coal continues…Selling out and walking off may be emotionally satisfying for the protestors and may cause the companies a small measure of embarrassment, but it is not changing corporate or consumer behaviour”, Butler writes. Instead, he suggests that campaigners focus on the “two things” that these organisations respond to: “pressure from shareholders and competitive pressure in the market place”. “The campaigners would do better to buy shares rather than sell them and use their shareholding to force the companies to explain their views and plans in detail”, he concludes.

People living in areas that may be negatively affected by climate change could choose to have fewer children, a new study finds. Sea level rise and an increase in global temperature could leave some parts of the world uninhabitable in the future, driving many people to migrate in search of safety, food and work. However, the threat of climate change could drive those living in affected areas to have fewer children and invest in education, the new paper argues. ” This may ultimately reduce local income inequality, partially offsetting some of the damages of climate change for low-income individuals who do not migrate,” the paper concludes.