Several publications cover a new study published in Nature Communications which shows that, according to the Times, “all countries will benefit economically by the end of the century if they raise their targets to tackle climate change”. The newspaper adds: “A ‘farsighted self-preservation strategy’ would result in total global economic benefits ranging from $127tn to $616tn by 2100. If countries fail to deliver on their existing emissions targets, total losses could reach almost $800tn by 2100, according to research by Chinese scientists…The high upfront costs would mean some developed countries and regions, including the US, Russia, Japan and the EU, might not gain net economic benefits until after 2080. Countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, including Ethiopia, Algeria, Columbia and Venezuela, could break even by 2030.” The Guardian says: “The global economy would lose out by as much as $600tn (£476tn) by the end of the century, on current emissions targets, compared with its likely growth if countries meet the Paris goals.” AFP quotes the study’s lead author Biying Yu: “If countries are well aware of the huge losses they will suffer if they don’t reduce emissions…will they be more rational in making choices that will protect them, thereby boosting their response to climate change and driving the global climate governance process?”

There is continuing coverage of the volatility in the global oil markets as the coronavirus pandemic causes uncertainty about future energy demand. Reuters reports that “oil prices dropped sharply on Tuesday, with US prices sliding back toward $20 a barrel, as investors bet that fuel demand destruction caused by the coronavirus pandemic would be too much for producers embarking on record global output cuts to offset”. The newswire adds: “Global oil-producing nations are expected to reduce production by as much as 19.5m barrels per day, but those cuts are being implemented slowly and in some cases will not start for weeks. By contrast, demand plunged by roughly 30% worldwide several weeks ago, causing refiners and producers suddenly stuck with oil to stick it into rapidly filling storage.” The Financial Times focuses on the reaction in the US with an interview with Dan Brouillette: “The US energy secretary says Washington’s success in pushing Russia and Saudi Arabia to end their oil price war marks a ‘fundamental shift’ in global oil politics, which has been made possible by its own self-sufficiency.” Meanwhile, Reuters reports that “US natural gas futures fell over 4% on Tuesday as the market focused more on projections that steps to slow the coronavirus spread will cut future demand rather than short-term forecasts for cooler weather and higher heating use over the next two weeks”. In another Reuters article, it reports from France that “state-controlled utility EDF said on Tuesday it was withdrawing its financial targets for 2020 and 2021 as the economic turmoil caused by the coronavirus pandemic impacted key areas of its business”. It adds: “EDF operates France’s 58 nuclear reactors that account for about 75% of the country’s electricity needs.” Bloomberg has more details about how “a new alliance of ministers, chief executive officers and researchers [have] urged the European Union to build its recovery package after the coronavirus crisis around the Green Deal strategy of sustainable growth”.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports from Japan that “Mizuho Financial Group said it will stop financing new coal power projects and end all loans for coal by 2050, handing a victory to the global climate movement and adding pressure on the remaining two of Japan’s three largest full service banks”. However, it adds that the move by Mizuho, which is one of the world’s biggest lenders to coal power stations, “still leaves Japan’s third-biggest bank by assets a lot of wriggle room on lending to projects planned or under construction, while the 2050 cutoff is considered by many to be too late for a total exit from the dirtiest fossil fuel”.

In the US, MailOnline reports that “US energy consumption has dropped to its lowest level in 16 years amidst countrywide shutdowns due to the Covid-19 pandemic”. The New York Times says that “disregarding an emerging scientific link between dirty air and Covid-19 death rates, the Trump administration declined on Tuesday to tighten a regulation on industrial soot emissions that came up for review ahead of the coronavirus pandemic”. Reuters also covers the same story, saying: “The Trump administration on Tuesday said it rejected a recommendation from staff scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency to tighten air quality regulations governing soot pollution, arguing the current standards are adequate to protect human health.” The Hill has a different story: “Thirteen states and several environmental groups filed separate lawsuits against the Trump administration on Tuesday seeking to block a rule they say will impede efforts to make a number of products more energy-efficient.” Finally, Axios reports that “part of Bernie Sanders’ endorsement of presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden is a new plan for them to form joint ‘task forces’ on six big topics, including climate change”.

The UK’s climate advisory body known as the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has announced that, according to BusinessGreen, it will “present advice to the government on supporting a resilient, low carbon economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis as part of its annual assessment of the UK’s progress towards its 2050 net-zero greenhouse gas emissions goal this summer”. BusinessGreen adds: “However, [the CCC] also confirms that several key elements of [its] work this year have had to be pushed back as a result of the virus outbreak, including its much-anticipated advice to the government on the level of ambition and measures required for the statutory carbon targets in the mid-2030s.” The CCC has also announced that Pete Betts, the UK government’s former chief climate negotiator, is to help offer expert advice ahead of the summit. BusinessGreen says: “A veteran of 16 past UN climate summits, Betts also worked as lead climate negotiator for the EU for six years, including at the historic COP21 summit which delivered the Paris Agreement.” ChinaDialogue carries an interview with Betts conducted before the CCC’s announcement, where he explains some of the intricacies and tactics involved with landing an international climate deal.

In other UK-related news, an Unearthed investigation reveals that “UK aid money has been used to invest in oil and gas projects across the developing world”. It adds: “CDC Group, the government’s development finance institution, which invests aid money in businesses in poorer countries, has active investments in 16 oil and gas projects across Africa and one in south-east Asia.” The scoop is picked up by the Independent. BusinessGreen reports that “newly appointed Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has completed his front bench team, handing key green positions to a raft of experienced MPs”. Reuters reports that “Heathrow Airport, traditionally the busiest in Europe, forecast that passenger numbers would plunge by more than 90% in April, as coronavirus restrictions stop most people from travelling”. And the Mail on Sunday reports that former Conservative party leader and leading Brexiteer Sir Iain Duncan Smith has warned that “Britain’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 risks the UK becoming even more dependent on China”.

A special edition of Foreign Affairs is devoted to climate change containing a series of essays about how “wise public policy can still limit the scale of the eventual climate disaster”. Contributors include John Podesta and Todd Stern, William Nordhaus, James Baker and George Shultz, and Mohamed Adow. There is also an article by a group of climate researchers include David Victor on why they think that “technology can save the planet”.

The world could lose $150–792tn by 2100 if nations cannot meet their current climate pledges, a new study finds. Under the Paris Agreement, each country must submit a plan for climate action, known as a “nationally determined contribution” periodically to the UN. At present, the world’s pledged climate action would likely result in around 3C of global warming, which is not considered a “safe” amount for people and wildlife. Limiting global warming to 1.5C, the aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement, would lead to further large economic savings, the study finds.