A report by 11,258 scientists from a range of different disciplines across 153 countries warns that the planet “clearly and unequivocally faces a climate emergency,” according to the Washington Post. The “viewpoint”, published in the journal Bioscience and covered widely by news outlets around the world, also provides six key policy goals that will be vital to addressing this challenge, the Post continues. After analysing 40 years of data on a range of measures, BBC News reports that the authors’ conclusion is that governments are failing to adequately address the crisis facing them. “Profoundly troubling” trends include the amount of meat consumed per person, the number of air passengers and global tree cover loss, as well as carbon emissions and fossil-fuel consumption, according to the Press Association. The Sydney Morning Herald notes the researchers involved are members of the Alliance of World Scientists, and says strategies suggested include leaving remaining fossil fuels in the ground and pursuing negative emissions, for examples by “enhancing natural systems”. Coverage in MailOnline notes prominently the suggestion that more should be done to stabilise – and “ideally gradually reduce” – human population growth, with the global number “currently increasing by over 200,000 people a day”. The Financial Times notes that the warning of “untold human suffering”, unless fundamental changes were made, came just a day after US president Donald Trump officially began the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. “Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament,” the scientists concluded, according to Al Jazeera: “Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature’s reinforcing feedbacks…that could lead to a catastrophic ‘hothouse Earth’, well beyond the control of humans.” Other outlets reporting the story include the Independent, Guardian, CNN and the Daily Telegraph.

Separately, Reuters and the Guardian both report on a warning from the Universal Ecological Fund that nearly 75%, or 136, of the pledges made so far by countries under the Paris Agreement are “totally inadequate”. These include commitments made by major emitters including China, the US and India, according to Reuters, while other nations, such as Brazil and Japan, have only made “partially sufficient” pledges.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Earth has just experienced its hottest October on record, marking the “fifth straight month with record or near-record heat”.

Coverage continues of Donald Trump’s long-expected move to officially begin the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. A statement from the European Commission reported by Reuters expressed “regret” about the decision, but said the door of the agreement “remains open and we hope the US will join it again one day”. Similar sentiments were expressed by Germany, according to the Associated Press, with environment minister Svenja Schulze noting the US had announced its plan two years ago and “luckily it has remained alone in doing so”. Politico describes the reaction to Trump’s decision as an “EU shrug”. BusinessGreen says the announcement by US secretary of state Mike Pompeo “brought an incredulous and stinging response”, with former UN climate change chief Christiana Figueres accusing him of continuing “the process of endangering the future of humankind”. These comments come as China and France have issued a joint statement reaffirming their support for the Paris Agreement, saying they consider it an “irreversible process”, according to Reuters. Also in Reuters are two pieces documenting fossil-fuel advocates making reassurances about the status of the world’s key international climate treaty. One features the US assistant secretary for fossil energy stating that technology developments will be enough to tackle climate change, whereas another reports on Opec secretary-general Mohammad Barkindo saying the oil producer group fully supports the Paris Agreement.

An opinion piece by Robinson Meyer in the Atlantic reflects on the ideology behind Trump’s decision to withdraw from Paris, which he describes as “carbonism” – a belief that fossil fuels “have inherent virtue” and are better than other energy sources. Vox has an article suggesting the whole Paris Agreement “is at risk of falling apart in the 2020s”.

Meanwhile, Gina McCarthy, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under Barack Obama, has been announced as the new president of the Natural Resources Defense Council – an organisation the Washington Post notes has sued Trump nearly 100 times”. She told the Post her goals are to “fight for stronger environmental protections and address the challenge of climate change”.

Finally, following the last-minute decision to move the upcoming UN climate conference from the Chilean capital of Santiago to Madrid amidst on-going protests in Chile, Spain’s acting economy minister has described the move as a great challenge, but also an “amazing” opportunity to ensure sustainable finance is part of the agenda, according to Reuters.

An “exclusive” story in the Guardian based on “a leaked internal document from party headquarters” reports that Conservative candidates in the upcoming election will be told not to sign up to specific pledges on tackling climate change. It comes ahead of what BBC science editor David Shukman speculates could be the first UK general election “where climate change plays a defining role”, in an analysis piece for BBC News. In the piece, Shukman notes that while Brexit is bound to be the key issue, recent polling suggests people are taking climate change more seriously than ever, and policy proposals by different parties appears to be reflecting this. (Carbon Brief published a piece earlier this year looking at the surge of environmental concern in public polls in recent months.)

In another story first reported “exclusively” by the Guardian – and subsequently by BBC News – the Green Party has pledged to spend £100bn a year on tackling climate change in what they hope to frame as “the climate election”. Plans include halting airport expansion and HS2, investing in local buses and rail electrification and moving the net-zero target from 2050 to 2030.

The UK government has also launched a £315m fund to help find new technologies that can reduce the carbon footprint of the nation’s most polluting factories, in a move it hopes will save £1bn a year on industrial energy bills, according to the Guardian. Reuters reports three energy firms are planning world’s first net-zero emissions industrial zone in the north east of England by 2040.

A piece by US Democrat presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, coming in the wake of Donald Trump’s move to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement, says a priority for the next president must be to rejoin the treaty and establish the nation’s place on the international stage again. She writes: “President Trump surprised no one with his decision to withdraw from the agreement. It is yet another reckless choice in line with his steps to rollback our bedrock environmental laws, which have cleaned up our water and our air for decades. But that doesn’t minimise the gravity of his latest move. Trump is not only ceding American leadership at a critical juncture in the fight against climate change, he’s also giving away American jobs in the clean energy economy of the future – walking away from the greatest economic opportunity of our time.” She outlines the cost of inaction in the US, in the form of wildfires and floods, as well as around the world. Warren continues by outlining her own “Green Manufacturing Plan” to “jumpstart clean energy development” by investing $2tn to grow clean energy around the world and in the US, “while creating millions of new, good paying, union jobs”. “The world is facing one of the biggest threats we have ever encountered. But Americans do not walk away from a fight. We lead.”

Writing in the Financial Times, the veteran commentator Martin Wolf outlines the need for “dramatic policies that are effective, legitimate and global”. He laments the actions of Trump and others who are sceptical about climate change, but also dismisses some of the more extreme calls for emissions cuts by activists like Greta Thunberg as being “inconceivable”. He adds: “Unfortunately, the outright opposition of people such as Mr Trump, and the indifference of much of the population, are not the sole obstacles to success. Even some who favour action are a problem, because the climate cause is for them part of a wider campaign against the market…Thus, many supporters of the Green New Deal view climate as a justification for the planned economy.” In Wolf’s opinion, to be effective, policy must “combine planning, regulation, research and incentives…There is strong justification for government actions in research, spatial planning and finance. But there is also a need for incentives aimed at shifting behaviour. Command and control are rarely as effective all on their own.” He calls for a programme of action over three decades, including market-based incentives, “use of the revenue raised from carbon pricing to compensate losers” and “a commitment to climate as a shared global challenge”. “In an era of populism and nationalism, is there any chance of all this? Not obviously, alas. If so, we will indeed have failed. But the young are surely right to expect better,” he concludes.

Dismissing the UK government’s decision to call a pause on fracking as a “hollow electoral ploy”, Adam McGibbon in the Times cites growing awareness of climate among the public and asks if the Conservatives will stick to their position after the election. “By far the biggest question is, if the Conservative government no longer supports fracking why is it still using taxpayer money to fund it overseas?” he asks. McGibbon concludes by looking ahead to next year’s Glasgow climate summit, which he says the government cannot go into “while still funding climate change all over the world”. Meanwhile, a comment piece on the Guardian says the decision on fracking is a testament to the power of public protest.

Elsewhere, other fracking stories include the Guardian reporting on an accusation of police “groping and manhandling female anti-fracking protesters”, and the Times carrying comments from Opec that it thinks its share of the global oil market will shrink in future as American shale output rises.

Planned fossil fuel expansion across Africa could cause a doubling in air pollution by 2030, relative to 2012 levels – leading to around 48,000 avoidable deaths, a new study finds. The researchers investigate the impact of planned fossil fuel expansion for electricity generation and transport across the continent. The largest number of avoidable deaths are expected to be in South Africa (10400), Nigeria (7,500), and Malawi (2,400) – with three times higher mortality rates from power plants than transport.

Around one third of US weather presenters would present an opposing viewpoint when reporting on the science of climate change, a new study finds. Of these presenters, more than half said the reason for this was to maintain “objectivity and balance”. “These findings show that climate change reporting from weathercasters sometimes includes opposing viewpoints, and possibly a false balance,” the author concludes. “False balance is balanced reporting when the weight of evidence strongly favours one side over others.”