The National Grid has warned that UK households could face a series of power cuts this winter if energy supplies – including gas imports from continental Europe – are severely constrained, reports Politico. The story makes the frontpage of most UK newspapers. The National Grid, which oversees the UK’s power network, said in its “winter outlook” that, while it expects supply to keep up with demand under its base case, a host of mitigating measures will still be needed to keep the lights on, the outlet explains: “The outlooks map out how the UK would cope without any electricity imports from France, the Netherlands and Belgium, a scenario under which the National Grid plans to deploy a host of ‘mitigation strategies’, including keeping coal-fired power stations running.” Another strategy is a new “Demand Flexibility Service” – starting from 1 November – that will encourage businesses and consumers to use power outside of peak demand periods, Politico says. However, the National Grid warned that there is still an “unlikely” scenario” in which “households could lose power for up to three hours at a time…if gas supplies run extremely low”, says BBC News. In this case, cuts would probably occur at peak times and customers would be warned in advance, the outlet notes. Such an emergency plan “would need to be approved by King Charles on the recommendation of the business secretary”, says the Guardian. Another Guardian article reports that health experts warned that rolling power cuts endanger thousands of people who use life-saving machines at home.

In response to the National Grid’s assessment, a government spokesperson said: “The UK has a secure and diverse energy system. We are confident in our plans to protect households and businesses in the full range of scenarios this winter,” reports Reuters. However, Kathryn Porter, an analyst at Watt-Logic, tells the Financial Times that the National Grid’s assessment looked “unreasonably optimistic”, adding that while the company “now acknowledge[d] some chance of supply disruption, it still appear[ed] to be understating the risks”. Speaking in Prague yesterday, UK prime minister Liz Truss was “repeatedly asked about the possibility of energy shortages in the coming months”, says the Times. She insisted that the UK had a “good supply” and was in a “much better position than many other countries”, but refused to guarantee that blackouts could be avoided, the paper reports. It also reports that “No 10 has rejected plans signed off by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business secretary, for a £15m public information campaign to encourage people to save energy”. The paper explains that “the campaign was ‘light touch’ and included three central measures that could save people up to £300 a year – lowering the temperature of boilers, turning off radiators in empty rooms and advising people to turn off the heating when they go out”. It continues: “Rees-Mogg gave the green light to the plans in recent days but Downing Street blocked them…arguing that the information was already publicly available elsewhere. Liz Truss is said to be ‘ideologically opposed’ to a public information campaign this winter amid concerns that it would be too interventionist.” One government source told the paper that the campaign was a “no-brainer”, adding: “It’s a stupid decision. The campaign was entirely practical, it was about saving people money. It wasn’t about lecturing them.” Asked to comment on the story, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy issued a statement on behalf of the government in which it insisted ministers are not launching a campaign and “any claim otherwise is untrue”, reports the Press Association.

The Times and Daily Telegraph both unpack the different National Grid scenarios, while a Times analysis piece explains “why the National Grid still can’t bring itself to talk about blackouts”. The Press Association looks at the voluntary scheme to cut energy use at peak times. It says “there is still very little detail on how the scheme might work for households”. The Daily Telegraph says that households “could earn more than £10 a day by reducing energy use if supplies run short”. The Daily Mail says – on its frontpage – that the scheme has sparked a “storm” because households “must have [a] smart meter and let appliances run at night”. Another Daily Telegraph article reports that one energy supplier – Ovo Energy – is to trial a scheme in which households will be offered £20 a month to cut their energy usage during peak hours.

There is also coverage in New Scientist, the i newspaper and Sky News, while the UK’s Met Office has published a blog on the long-range outlook for winter weather, which says that “temperatures are predicted to be above average in October”, but that November and December have “potential for cold snaps with some threat of snow and ice”.

A day after Opec+ announced sharp cuts to world oil supply, the US government said “nothing is off the table” as it considered responses including new releases from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to contain energy prices, reports the Financial Times. Brian Deese, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, described the decision of the group of oil-producing nations and allies – including Russia – to cut oil production by around 2% of global consumption as “unnecessary and unwarranted”, the paper explains. Deese said the US was looking at further sales from its strategic stockpile, which has already been drawn down by more than 200mn barrels in the past year. He did not rule out an export ban or limiting exports on petrol and other refined products when reporters asked if the idea was under consideration. “What the president has directed us, and it continues to be the case, is to take nothing off of the table,” Deese said. President Joe Biden told reporters that “there’s a lot of alternatives” and “we haven’t made up our minds yet”, reports Reuters. Bloomberg says that the decision from Opec+ comes “little more than three months after Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia to urge higher oil output for a global economy on the skids”. The Financial Times reports that “the Biden administration also said the decision showed the US needs to break its reliance on Opec oil”. The Hill says the move is “expected to drive up US gasoline prices, a development that could pose problems for the Democrats just one month ahead of midterm elections”. A Reuters “factbox” looks at the “fraught options” available to Biden. Reuters reports that oil prices settled around 1% higher yesterday after the Opec+ announcement. The newswire also has an explainer on “why Russia stands to gain most” from the move. It says: “Moscow won’t have to reduce a single barrel of output as it is already producing well below the agreed target while benefiting from higher oil price which will be achieved through cuts mainly by Opec Gulf producers.” The Independent looks at the decision and what “it mean[s] for you”.

Separately, Reuters reports that the US Interior Department yesterday “took initial steps” toward holding oil and gas drilling auctions in New Mexico, Wyoming and the Gulf of Mexico in the coming months. Terms of the onshore sales will “reflect new requirements under President Joe Biden’s new climate change and drug pricing law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), including higher royalty rates, minimum bids and rents”, the outlet says. The Hill notes that “the Biden administration is considering auctioning off a smaller section of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling than the Trump administration was expected to”.

The UK has opened a new licensing round for companies to explore for oil and gas in the North Sea, reports BBC News, which adds that the “decision is at odds with international climate scientists who say fossil fuel projects should be closed down, not expanded”. Nearly 900 locations are being offered for exploration, with as many as 100 licences set to be awarded, the outlet explains: “The licensing process will be fast-tracked in parts of the North Sea that are near existing infrastructure and so have the potential to be developed quickly, according to the North Sea Transition Authority. It says the average time between discovery and first production is close to five years but that gap is shrinking.” Bloomberg reports on a statement from business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg, which said: “Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine means it is now more important than ever that we make the most of sovereign energy resources, strengthening our energy security now and into the future…Ensuring our energy independence means exploiting the full potential of our North Sea assets to boost domestic production.” The move “appears likely to widen the schism” between Westminster and the Scottish parliament on the issue, says the Times. It quotes Michael Matheson, net-zero and energy secretary for the Scottish government, who said: “It is alarming that the UK government appears to believe that licensing of more than 100 new oil and gas fields will not materially impact the ability of the UK to reach net-zero by 2050 and reckless to believe that this approach is in anyway consistent with our climate obligations.” The Press Association also has the story.

The UK is poised to sign a deal with an EU energy partnership it left after Brexit, reports the Financial Times, which describes the news as “the first concrete result of warming ties between Brussels and London”. It continues: “The voluntary North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC), which focuses on supporting the construction of wind farms and distribution networks in the region, is made up of the European Commission, eight member states and Norway. Since leaving the EU in 2020, the UK has shown little enthusiasm for formal collaboration with Brussels. However, the need to find alternatives to Russian gas because of the war in Ukraine has led to a change of heart. The UK is preparing to sign a memorandum of understanding with the NSEC, in effect rejoining. It cannot be a formal member, however, unless it signs up to internal market rules.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times also reports that Norway and the EU have agreed to “jointly develop tools” aimed at reducing Europe’s high gas prices. Oslo said it would work with Brussels to “stabilise energy markets and limit the impact of market manipulation and of price volatility”, in a move that the FT says “could spur efforts to narrow EU divisions on how to tackle soaring prices caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine”. A joint statement released by Norwegian prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said Norway – which replaced Russia as the EU’s biggest supplier of gas after the invasion – said it would continue to boost production and take steps “to reduce excessively high prices in a meaningful way in the short and longer term”.

The NSEC announcement and Oslo’s pledge came as a 44 leaders gathered in Prague yesterday for the inaugural European Political Community meeting. Politico says that “it was all smiles, small talk and prolonged handshakes”, but already “a row was brewing over how to handle the energy crisis enveloping the continent”. It says: “The gathering…is meant as a show of solidarity in the face of Russia’s war in Ukraine. But it also came a day ahead of a meeting of the 27 EU countries, who are slated to have an energy-focused meeting on Friday after their non-EU counterparts depart. And it was clear that Thursday’s glad-handing could only last so long, given the difficult issues facing the leaders.” A second Politico article says a “fight over energy supplies threatens to wreck EU unity”.

In other European energy stories, Reuters reports that Poland, Italy, Belgium and Greece have drafted a proposal for the European Union (EU) to introduce a “dynamic price corridor” for gas, in an attempt to pull down high energy prices and soaring inflation. The Financial Times reports that “the newest US exporter of liquefied natural gas has signed a deal to increase exports to Germany, one of a flurry of sales to Europe amid a scramble to replace Russian energy supplies”. Reuters reports that the EU yesterday “gave a final approval to its eighth batch of sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, but said implementing a price cap on Russian seaborne oil included in the package required more work” . Reuters also reports that Sweden’s Security Service investigation of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines from Russia to Europe has found evidence of detonations, strengthening suspicions of “gross sabotage”. In Italy, the chief executive of energy group Eni said yesterday that the country will have its gas storage nearly full ahead of the winter, reports Reuters.

In Germany, the network regulator warned yesterday that country risked a winter crisis unless significant cuts in gas usage were made, Reuters says. In France, the government has launched a national energy savings plan, banking on a push to turn off lights and lower thermostats to avoid power and gas cuts over the winter, Reuters reports. The Financial Times reports that “strikes by energy sector workers are beginning to wreak havoc on French fuel and power supplies”. Finally, Reuters reports that the European Parliament will turn off heating in its buildings for three days per week and adjust its thermostats for other days in a drive to save energy.

The world’s biggest reinsurer Munich Re has cut back its coverage of oil and gas projects, reports the Financial Times, “as activists step up pressure on the industry to do more to tackle climate change”. The paper continues: “The German reinsurance group said on Thursday that from April next year, it would no longer invest in or insure the planning, financing, construction or operation of new oil and gasfields, new oil-fired power plants or developments in ‘midstream’ oil infrastructure like storage and transport. But it did not rule out offering coverage for new gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants and gas-fired power plants.” The Insure Our Future campaign tells Reuters that Munich Re’s move was “a significant step and a clear signal to the global insurance market”. The Associated Press notes that Munich Re is “a major institutional investor”, explaining that it provides “so-called reinsurance contracts that help other insurers spread risks”.

China has not invited world leaders to a major nature summit being held this year, reports the Guardian, “raising concerns Beijing is downplaying the crucial COP15 meeting in order not to embarrass Xi Jinping”. The paper explains: “In December, governments will finalise a UN agreement to halt the destruction of the natural world at a summit organised by China but hosted in Canada…The move has meant that China and Canada, who have a tense diplomatic relationship, must work together to organise the conference with the UN. In late September, the Chinese government sent out invitations to COP15 in its role as president of the meeting, but addressed them only to ministers and NGO heads. This raises the prospect of no world leaders attending the talks, where targets on biodiversity for the next decade will be created.” Xi, the Chinese president, is not expected to be at the summit, the paper notes, and “there are fears that organisers are trying to downplay the importance of COP15 to avoid highlighting his lack of attendance”. It adds: “Several world leaders are understood to have privately expressed a desire to attend.”

In COP27 news, the Guardian reports that “African climate activists from some of the countries most affected by global heating say they are struggling to get access to the UN climate talks in Egypt in November”. The paper says that with just over a month to go before negotiations open and affordable hotels in short supply, “just over 20% of grassroots activists have secured accreditation, and only a handful have funding to cover expenses such as travel, accommodation and visas, according to a coalition of African youth climate leaders”.

CNN reports that China is “facing extreme weather as scorching heat breaks records in some drought-stricken parts” of the country, while cool weather “sweeps through” other regions as the “climate crisis makes conditions more unstable”. It adds that, in the south, “dozens of drought alerts have been issued” for cities and counties in Jiangxi province, “warning that crops could suffer from the worst drought conditions in 50 years”. Fang Keyan, a climate scientist at Fujian Normal University, is quoted saying that seasonal weather transitions are “becoming more complicated to estimate because atmospheric circulations were being disrupted by rising global temperatures amid the climate crisis”. Meanwhile, an annual update from a German campaign group Urgewald and 40 partner NGOs has found that, with “570m metric tonnes”, state-owned mining and energy company China Energy Investment Corporation was the “world’s top” thermal coal producer in 2021, reports CNBC.

Separately, Xinhua says that Chinese company KBVIP “signed an agreement on a photovoltaic (PV), battery storage and electric vehicle (EV) charging pilot project” in Budapest on Wednesday, adding that the move is “expected to help Hungary and Europe move towards a more sustainable and renewable future”. The South China Morning Post writes in an “exclusive” that China Aviation Lithium Battery (CALB) “aims to become one of the world’s three biggest suppliers for electric cars”, using funds it has “raised from its Hong Kong initial public offering (IPO)” to “expand ‘aggressively’ and upgrade its technology”, according to the company’s chairwoman and CEO.

Elsewhere, the 21st Century Business Herald, citing a report by the state-broadcaster CCTV, says that, with the “increasingly severe energy crisis” in Europe, the demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers has “risen sharply” in the international market, adding that China’s LNG vessels “attract more and more attention” in the global market. Finally, Patricia O’Brien has an article in the Diplomat arguing the Pacific Islands are “uniquely placed to draw the US and China back to the negotiating table” since climate talks between the two countries “were suspended” in August. She adds that “all Pacific parties should use the heightened attention from the US and China to this vital end”.

A senior government minister has said the UK should not be putting environmental issues at “the top of every single trade agreement” it signs, reports Politico. It continues: “Conor Burns, who returned to the Department for International Trade last month as Liz Truss became prime minister, told an audience at the Conservative Party conference this week that he’s urging the ministry to rethink the emphasis it puts on climate change when it strikes agreements with other countries. He argued that such an approach could be seen as asking countries on the other side of the negotiating table to settle for a lower standard of living than that enjoyed in the west.” Describing his “slightly idiosyncratic view” on the government’s drive to reduce carbon emissions to net-zero, Burns said: “I have already started pushing back internally in my first two weeks in the department on what seems to have been a determination by DIT, which changed since I was last there, to push net-zero and the environment to the top of every single trade agreement as a sort of policy objective.” In response, Labour Party’s trade spokesperson Nick-Thomas Symonds accused the minister of being “focused on winning favour with climate deniers in his own party”, the outlet reports.

There is widespread comment on the National Grid’s warning of the possibility that the UK will face “rolling blackouts” this winter if it cannot import enough energy from Europe. A Times editorial describes it as “a wake-up call to the government”, adding: “[T]he government’s response so far to this looming risk has been manifestly inadequate. It has made much fuss about restarting fracking and expanding North Sea oil production. Both could produce more energy over time, but these are decades-long bets.” What is needed, the paper says, “are policies to reduce energy demand and encourage efficiency”. It warns: “The European Union has ordered its member states to make plans for a 15% reduction in gas usage up to March next year, including by ordering businesses to turn down thermostats and turning off public lighting. Yet the government has so far flatly refused to follow suit. This lackadaisical approach to curbing demand could come back to bite Britain this winter if it is obliged to ask the EU to supply this country from its own gas stores, given the failure of past governments to invest in adequate storage.” The paper describes a decision by Liz Truss to kill a public-information campaign to help consumers identify energy saving ideas as “astonishing” and “short-sighted”.

Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph‘s chief city commentator Ben Marlow writes that “more than a decade of complacency by both sides of the political divide, the UK is acutely vulnerable to the energy crisis”. He adds: “It is surely therefore time to level with the public. This means first being honest about the threat of blackouts and rationing, which is to say that it is small but nevertheless clearly real. Secondly, there has to be a serious national conversation about curbing demand this winter.” An editorial in the Independent makes a similar point, arguing that “Liz Truss needs to overcome her nanny state hang-up and tell people to save energy”.

Writing in the Guardian, Green MP Caroline Lucas writes that politicians have been “preoccupied by the global energy price crisis” and are “deliberately failing to join the dots”. She says: “It is the soaring cost of gas, precipitated by Russia’s devastating war in Ukraine, that has tipped us over into eye-watering energy bills, and put supply volatility under the microscope. We know that fossil fuels are the root cause, and we know that breaking our dependence and keeping them in the ground is our only way out. Yet for some reason, we haven’t stopped digging.”

Meanwhile, an editorial in the Daily Mail characteristically attempts to blame “our politicians [who] blindly bought into the argument of the climate change brigade”. It says: “We can only shake our heads at why coal-fired power stations were phased out, why nuclear power stations weren’t replaced and why gas storage facilities were closed…That has left us at the mercy of unreliable renewables and imports from oil and gas-rich regimes which could turn off the tap at any moment, as Vladimir Putin has proved.” A Sun editorial says the threat of blackouts is a “corrective for those who think a wind-and-solar-only grid is viable”, adding that “we will always need nuclear and, for now, gas and even coal”. It says: “We must learn that lesson fast. We must face down the NIMBYs and delusional, face-gluing eco fools. We must explore fracking, build nuclear plants and extract far more North Sea gas.” Finally, an editorial in the Daily Express says: “The crisis has demonstrated the urgent need to ensure the world’s democracies are not dependent on dictatorships for supplies of energy and other essential resources.”

An editorial in the Financial Times says the move by the Opec+ group to reduce oil production now “is part of a broader struggle for control of the global oil market”. It says: “Saudi Arabia has been irked by US-led attempts to influence prices. The Biden administration has pushed for price caps on Russian oil – to squeeze Moscow’s revenues – from the G7 big democracies and the EU. Opec sees this as an attempt to shift the balance of power towards consuming nations, and fears such a mechanism could one day be deployed against it.” The cartel is “trying to regain control of the market and demonstrate that it still has the power to set the price”, the paper says, but warns that Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman “risks overplaying his hand, as he has often done in the past”. The paper concludes: “Western consumer nations have few short-term, supply-side, answers other than investing in further fossil fuel production that would run counter to their climate aims. The long-term answer to all the multiple energy and climate problems they now face is the same: to make real efforts, which have so far barely begun, to reduce oil demand – and to speed up the dash to sustainable, green sources.”

In the Independent, Jamie Henn – director of Fossil Free Media, which leads the Stop The Oil Profiteering campaign – writes that “the only way to really protect consumers and the planet is to rapidly reduce our dependence on oil and gas and get the public relief in the process”.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, world economy editor of the Daily Telegraph, says that King Charles “should attend the COP27 climate summit in Egypt next month” as “titular head of those Commonwealth states that pleaded most vehemently for CO2 and methane cuts at last year’s climate summit in Glasgow”. He writes: “Unless there is a security risk that we have not been told about, it is mystifying that Downing Street should have urged him not to go. Why bench your star player, and why squander soft-power?” The king should attend “as sovereign of Tuvalu, a cluster of Pacific atolls sinking underwater. He should go as King of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and in spirit as King of Scotland, all countries with enthusiastic net-zero leaders”, Evans-Pritchard says. He adds: “The UK still holds the COP26 presidency and is custodian of this UN process until the Egyptian hand-over. Liz Truss is implicitly playing down the significance, and playing down the achievements of Glasgow, that marvellously-refreshing moment when Big Money and Big Industry snatched the baton and showed us how they are going to solve the world’s problem…Yet by a string of actions, appointments and comments, the Truss government seems to be disowning the foremost British success story of recent years.”

Climate change has increased the amount of carbon stored in the biomass of coastal ecosystems, according to a new study. The authors assess the carbon storage of coastal ecosystems using 36 years of satellite observations across the “mid-Atlantic sea-level rise hotspot”. They find that in areas less than two metres above sea level, sea level rise has led to “reductions in wetland and low-lying forest biomass”, while the warmer and wetter climate led to an increase in the biomass of adjacent upland forests. Overall, the authors conclude that “climate-driven upland greening offset sea-level-driven biomass losses”.