In an in-depth interview with Carbon Brief, the chiefeconomist of the International Energy Agency – soon to be chiefexecutive – discusses coal, renewables, China and whether globalemissions are now starting to decouple from economic growth.

A day after the leaking of a draft of the papal encyclicalon climate change much of the media was focused on what impacttomorrow’s official publication might have on US politics.Davenport says that it “could put Catholics who question thatestablished climate science in a tough position, particularly in ayear in which at least five Catholics may run for the Republicanpresidential nomination”. MSNBCreports how Jeb Bush, aCatholic candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, tolda crowd in New Hampshire yesterday in response to the loomingencyclical that “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or mycardinals or my pope”. In his Dot Earth blog for the New YorkTimes, Andy Revkinurges cautiion amongthose hoping the Pope’s intervention might provide a majorbreakthrough in triggering action on climate change: “Francisremains a man, not a Superman.” Reutersreported on a new survey ofUS opinion on climate change by the Pew Research Center. It foundthat US Catholics are “split” on the causes, with 47% attributingwarming to human causes. It added: “Among Catholic Democrats, 62percent believe warming is caused by human activity, compared with24 percent of Catholic Republicans.” TheWashington Postalso takes a lookat the survey.ClimateProgresslooked through thedraft encyclical for the “new quotes from the Pope that couldchange the debate on climate change”. Meanwhile, theDaily Mailnotes that theArchbishop of Canterbury chose yesterday to “launch a crusade”against climate change calling on all faiths to “limit global risein average temperatures to 2C”.

The European Union is collectively on track to achieve itsgoal of sourcing a fifth of its energy from renewables by 2020,although the UK, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are lagging behindother states, according to European Commission analysis. It foundthat the the transport sector – which accounts for around a quarterof greenhouse gas emissions – remained a problem area and wasstruggling to curb the use of fossil fuels. BusinessGreensaid that “industryinsiders maintain that the UK renewable electricity sector faces anumber of risks as it seeks to build the pipeline of projectsneeded to meet the 2020 goal”. TheGuardianalso carries the story.

Rising green levies on energy bills risk causing a publicbacklash that will undermine efforts to tackle climate change, aleading left-wing think tank IPPR has warned. Ministers shouldoverhaul a series of badly-designed policies that will otherwiseleave consumers paying billions of pounds more than necessary forgreen energy over the next decade, adds the IPPR’s report. JossGarman, the IPPR’s senior research fellow on energy and climatechange, explains the thinktank’s thinking at EnergyDesk: “The government shouldoverhaul the funding model for low-carbon technologies to make itfairer. New research from IPPR shows that publicly-owned,privately-run new nuclear power stations could save billpayers upto £5.5bn. Adopting the development process that Denmark uses foroffshore wind could save a further billion pounds. More savingscould be made by extending emissions controls on coal-fired powerstations, and allowing continued growth in the deployment of themost cost-effective renewable technology, onshore wind.”

Thousands of people are set to converge on parliament todayto urge their MPs to back strong action on climate change. The masslobby is calling on parliament to support a global climate changedeal which will end carbon pollution from fossil fuels by midcentury and invest in warm homes, clean energy and sustainabletransport. Politicians are also being urged to end unabated coalpower in the UK by 2023. The Guardianalso interviews a handfulof climate campaigners. TheWestern Morning Newssays aSomerset farmer whose “land was devastated” by last year’s floodingwill address the crowd.

The White House has secured more than $4bn to boost cleanenergy and fight climate change from foundations, institutionalinvestors and philanthropies, doubling a goal set in February,administration officials said. Vice President Joe Biden told aconference on clean energy that a “staggering” number of long-termjobs can be created in the sector “if we make the investments.”TheGuardianalso carries the story.

Sandbu says the encyclical puts Pope Francis’s “considerablepowers of moral suasion on the side of the angels”. However, he”falls somewhat short of infallibility in his reportedly criticalattitude to technology”. He adds: “In truth, the positive effectsof technology on the economics of climate change policies are suchas to take your breath away – and once you regain it, to reassessthe best rhetorical strategy to put the best policies in place.”

“Any eco-campaigner who imagines that such a clear papalverdict will settle anything with the vocal climate change scepticsis expecting a miracle,” writes Stanford. But he adds that the textis not really aimed at audiences in the developed world. “This is abottom-up view of the impact of climate change by a Church and itsleader speaking up for the poor and marginalised…It is going tobe pretty hard to ignore.”

Monbiot looks favourably on the papal encyclical: “PopeFrancis, a man with whom I disagree profoundly on matters such asequal marriage and contraception, reminds us that the living worldprovides not only material goods and tangible services, but is alsoessential to other aspects of our wellbeing. And you don’t have tobelieve in God to endorse that view.”

The authors, two academics based in Australia, examine thenewly proposed US regulations aimed at tackling aviation emissionsand finds them wanting. “The US EPA has stated that its proposedregulations will only be implemented if international standards foremissions are agreed by ICAO. That’s a problem, because since 1997the ICAO has failed to agree on any kind of solid approach to theissue.”

A new paper explores whether climate policies should focuson increasing forest biomass, to sequester and store carbon, or onincreasing the use of the forest biomass as a source of energy, tosubstitute fossil fuels. The main finding at the global level isthat it is better to increase the forest biomass rather thanincrease the use of forest bioenergy, since the decrease in forestcarbon stock created by increased bioenergy harvests is not offsetby avoided fossil fuel emissions.

The issue of climate-related loss and damage is gainingtraction in international policy but the scientific evidence neededto link climate impacts with loss and damage mechanisms needsclarifying, according to new research. The authors conclude thatwhile linking loss and damage to anthropogenic emissions throughattribution studies is not a prerequisite for designing policies,such studies provide the most complete set of information.