The UK’s prime minister is expected to commit to “net-zero” emissions by the middle of the century, a move that will have “broad parliamentary support”, according to the Independent. It reports that pushing ahead with the “net-zero” target will be “an attempt to create a ‘legacy’ achievement for a PM forced out of office for her Brexit failure”. However, it also highlights concerns about a “get-out clause” that would mean May’s actions could potentially be rolled back by her successors and notes that the commitment was not confirmed by the prime minister’s spokesperson. Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports criticism from Downing Street for chancellor Philip Hammond’s warning about the financial burden of such a goal. BBC News, Reuters and the Guardian pick up on the previous day’s story, first reported by the Financial Times, about Hammond’s letter, which said the “cost” would be £70bn a year, 40% higher than the CCC estimate of £50bn. Dimitri Zenghelis at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, who used to be head of economic forecasting at the Treasury, warns in a comment piece that the chancellor’s action could “imperil the country’s climate ambitions” and describes the conclusion as “simply incorrect”. This comes as energy giant Scottish Power calls for “tough new laws” to enable the UK to meet the net-zero target by 2050, according to BBC News. In light of Hammond’s letter, the Daily Telegraph reports divisions among Conservative leadership candidates over the strategy, quoting Esther McVey, Dominic Raab and Matt Hancock. Press Association carries a story about leadership hopeful Andrea Leadsom’s comments on her “very big headline policy” to declare a climate emergency and use climate action to boost the UK economy. This comes after parliament passed a motion in May to declare just such an emergency. Meanwhile, DeSmog UK examines some of the candidate’s connections with “climate change denial”. Finally, Business Green looks at new analysis by Aurora Energy Research exploring the merits of state-led investment or market based intervention to decarbonise the UK’s electricity system.

The world largest car-manufacturers have warned Donald Trump that his plan to weaken tailpipe emissions standards threatens their industry, according to the New York Times. It reports a letter signed by 17 major companies including Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Volvo warning about cuts to profits and instability resulting from the current US administration’s plan to roll back one of Barack Obama’s key strategies for tackling climate change. According to the paper, the companies are urging the president to “go back to the negotiating table”. Reutersalso reports on the letter, sent to California governor Gavin Newsom, as well asthe move by a top EPA official, Chris Grundler, from overseeing vehicle emissions to the office overseeing the agency’s climate change programmes.

Meanwhile, DeSmog UK reports on a letter from Democratic Congressional leaders admonishing EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler for “knowingly deceiving the public and Congress on the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule” – the strategy intended to roll back Obama-era policies. In a separate analysis piece for Yale Environment 360, Beth Gardiner writes that the Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration is seeking “to slash regulations governing power plant emissions and weaken other environmental laws”.

The quarterly Australian greenhouse gas emissions update, taking in the period from December 2018 to March 2019, reveals a 0.7% increase in emissions, according to Climate Home News. It notes that emissions had risen in all sectors except for agriculture and electricity, with hikes of as much as 6% in areas such as domestic heating and manufacturing. The Department of the Environment and Energy figures were released five days past their due date, according to the publication, although they did appear alongside an interview with energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor in The Australian. The Sydney Morning Herald reported the minister had “shrugged off” the data, which showed emissions rising for a third year, saying they did not take into account the contribution of gas exports to lowering pollution overseas. The Guardianreports expert comments that the minister’s statement was “grossly exaggerated” and “likely wrong”. The news comes after an election in which tackling climate change was thought to be a major deciding factor, although ultimately the Coalition government held on to power in a victory many news outlets regarded as a shock. In the run up to the election, Carbon Brief assessed the different commitments the major Australia parties had made to tackling climate change. In a comment piece for the Guardian, Australian Greens’ senator for South Australia Sarah Hanson-Young makes the case for urgent political solutions to address “Australia’s climate and extinction crises”.

The Independent reports that Democrat hopeful Elizabeth Warren and Washington governor Jay Inslee have “found some common ground” in calls for an official Democratic debate on climate change ahead of the 2020 election. “The moment of agreement came online after Mr Inslee tweeted that he had been informed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) there would be no debate focusing on the topic,” it says, noting tweets from the politicians. Axios reports on the DNC’s denial of a debate to Inslee. After candidates Joe Biden and Warren releasing their proposals, Fortune documents the climate commitments made so far in the Democrat race.

As of 2021, Poland is prepared to stop handing out free carbon permits to utilities companies and instead sell these allowances in order to boost state funds, according to Bloomberg. Market rules set by the EU allow electricity producers these free allowances, which in Poland are worth around €6.5bn between 2021-2030, it notes. However, according to the news outlet Poland will forgo this exemption, making it the second EU company to do this year after the Czech government decided it would put such securities into an EU modernisation fund.

Several UK papers consider the back-and-forth at the highest levels of government concerning the UK’s commitment to net-zero emissions – and the associated “costs”. In its editorial, the Daily Telegraph dismisses the target as the “right idea but the wrong approach”, warning that “targets set in law now could turn the PM’s hunt for an eye-catching legacy into a curse”. It cites the comments from chancellor Philip Hammond about the price tag attached to such a transition and says “unless Britain’s competitors also decarbonise, already struggling industries will go under”. An editorial in the Sun carries a similar message of economic turmoil, arguing voters will not back such a move unless every other major country – “many far worse polluters than us” – also commits to it. “We doubt the chancellor’s £1tn cost estimate — but even if it’s half, that’s money we cannot spend on health, schools or police,” the editorial notes. However, in its editorial, the Times contrasts these economic worries with the rising support for green politics and the need to decarbonise. “Just because the transition to a low-carbon economy is difficult is not a reason not to do it. But it does mean that it needs to be done carefully with consideration of the impact on the economy and society,” it says.

Meanwhile, writing in the Guardian, environment correspondent Fiona Harvey says it is “absurd” to question “whether or not it makes economic sense to save the planet”. Also in the Guardian, Green MEP Molly Scott Cato dismisses the chancellor’s grievances and emphasises the need to a “green new deal” to create “high skilled, well-paid jobs and improve welfare while addressing the climate emergency”.

In light of Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s climate agenda, intended to be pitched at the “middle ground”, the Wall Street Journal carries an editorial on the subject. “Well, either the middle or the ground or both must have shifted, because on Tuesday the former vice president unveiled a sweeping ‘Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice’,” it says. The paper notes that strategy will “play on the coasts but it gives Trump an opening”.

Meanwhile, climate scientist Michael Mann writes in Newsweek about the president’s visit to the UK, in which he talked to Prince Charles about climate change. “To say that Donald Trump’s jaw-dropping display of environmental ignorance while in the United Kingdom is an embarrassment to all Americans would be an understatement,” he writes.

Climate models project that extreme precipitation events will intensify during the 21st century. The identification of the causes of this phenomenon nevertheless remains tenuous. This paper finds that the larger increases in more extreme events are primarily due to atmospheric circulation changes. Circulation changes weaken moderate events over western interior regions of North America, and enhance them elsewhere. The weakening effect decreases and even reverses for more extreme events, whereas there is further intensification over other parts of North America, creating an “intense gets intenser” pattern over most of the continent.

The Ming-Qing transition (MQT) was a watershed in Chinese history. Events in three critical regions paved the way for political change in the latter years of the Ming dynasty. These developments occurred in part as a response to climate change. This study found that in the last decades of the Ming dynasty, both the Ming and Mongolian steppe suffered from the most severe drought and winter cold of the past 500 years. Under the stress of this event, the political and economic systems of the Ming dynasty collapsed, although drought and cooling in the Liaodong Peninsula were not so intense. This allowed for enhanced precipitation by typhoons, and sustained agricultural development. During this period, the Qing seized an opportunity and occupied the Liaodong Peninsula, and helped lead to the establishment of a new dynasty.