The US National Academy of Sciences has backed further
research into geoengineering technologies that attempt to counter
climate change, but says cutting emissions remains by far the best
way to tackle warming. The work has garnered wide and varied
coverage from The Guardian, The Washington Postand Bloombergamong others. The report
is called “anti-geoengineering” by Climate Progresswhile Grist says
scientists are nervousabout what Ars Technica
calls “hacking the planet”. More coverage
comes from Scientific American, the Dot Earth blog, Natureand a Guardian comment. Climate scientist and
report author Raymond Pierrehumbert says geonengineering
remains “howlingly barking mad”.

Carbon emissions from Brazil’s steel industry have doubled as
a result of UN-backed measures to cut reliance on coal, RTCC
reports. A report published in Nature Climate Change found coal use
fell but emissions increased, because of growing reliance on
Brazil’s native forests for charcoal. These are not considered
carbon neutral, as unlike plantations they do not necessarily
regrow. Reuters also has the story.

A loophole in the Feed-in Tariff subsidy scheme for small
wind power projects is boosting the spread of larger turbines and
could cost consumers more than £400 million, according to thinktank
the Institute of Public Policy Research. Firms are deliberately
under-powering larger more efficient turbines in order to get
higher subsidy payments intended for smaller schemes, the IPPR
says. The Mailand The Timeshave the story. The wind
industry says the loophole critics are wide of the markin an article at
BusinessGreen.

UK Export Finance (UKEF), a small government department, has
given £1.13 billion in support for fossil fuel energy investments
overseas over the course of the current parliament, the Guardian
reports. This compares to £0.04 billion for green energy, breaking
a government pledge that UKEF would be a “champion” for green
energy firms “instead of” fossil firms.

Two state pension funds in California, America’s largest,
would be forced to divest from coal firms if a Senate bill passes
in the state. The funds hold a The bill is part of a larger package
of climate measures endorsed by Governor Jerry Brown, the Guardian
reports.

The Australian government could be adopting a more
conciliatory approach to domestic climate policy, reports the
Guardian’s Australian website. It is now negotiating over a
renewable energy target and post-2020 emissions goals, having
earlier indicated it wanted large cuts in ambition.

The Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical complex in
Scotland may not have a future if the Scottish government delays
fracking, according to the plant’s owner Ineos. The firm is hoping
to invest in shale gas exploration in central Scotland but would be
delayed by a planned Scottish moratorium. The Press Association
also has the story.

Climate officials have been warning that December’s UN talks
in Paris will fail to limit warming to two degrees. But the
meetings are being viewed as an opportunity to launch a wholly new
approach to global climate action, argues John Upton, and this
could eventually do far more to constrain temperature rise than the
Paris agreement alone.

The development of a UK shale gas industry is just about
compatible with UK carbon budgets for a limited time period, says
the Tyndall Centre’s Professor Kevin Anderson. But it would be
incompatible with the UK’s equitable share of a global carbon
budget for two degrees, he argues, even if shale gas is combined
with carbon capture and storage.

The New York Times asks if combating climate change requires
burning the world’s forests and crops for fuel in a feature article
based on a recent World Resources Institute report. The report was
co-authored by Princeton University scientist and long-time biofuel
critic Tim Searchinger.

The National Research Council committee has published a pair
of sweeping reports on climate intervention techniques. The reports
consider the two main ways humans could attempt to steer the
Earth’s system using geoengineering: We could try to reflect more
sunlight back into space, or we could try to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
The committee examines the socioeconomic and environmental impacts
as well as the costs and technological readiness of approaches in
each category. The researchers find that certain carbon dioxide
removal tactics could have a place in a broader climate change
response plan, but sunlight reflecting technologies are too risky
at this point. Both reports are available to download for free.