The UK government is “poised to redefine nuclear power as ‘green’ as it seeks to drum up more private investment in the sector to improve domestic energy resilience”, reports the Financial Times. It continues: “Ministers are set to consult on proposals to change the so-called “taxonomy” – or financial classification system – of energy in order to redefine nuclear projects as sustainable investments. It is expected to lead to a reversal of the decision by the Treasury as recently as 2021 to exclude nuclear power from the so-called green investment framework. The move echoes a decision last year by the European Commission to label both nuclear and some forms of gas as ‘green’ investments, which prompted legal challenges from Greenpeace and a coalition of WWF and Client Earth.” The Times says that “two of Britain’s ageing nuclear power plants will stay open for two years longer than expected to reduce the risk of an electricity supply crunch”, adding: “EDF, the French state-owned energy group that operates Britain’s five remaining nuclear power plants, said Heysham 1 in Lancashire and its Hartlepool plant in Teesside were likely to remain in service until March 2026, instead of closing next year.” Bloomberg adds that the plants had “proved their worth during Europe’s energy crunch” and that “stable generation capacity will boost the buffer National Grid [Electricity System Operator] needs to balance supply with demand as the market risks becoming too reliant on intermittent renewables”.

In other UK news, the Guardian carries an “exclusive” which reveals that the UK government has “given £20bn more in support to fossil fuel producers than those of renewables since 2015”. The newspaper adds: “The research, commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, found that while renewable energy was given £60bn in support over that time, fossil fuel companies were given close to £80bn. In 2020, renewable energy support was greater than fossil fuel support for the first time. However, fossil fuels have been receiving greater additional investment recently. From 2020 to 2021 they received an extra £1bn support from the government compared with 2020, a 10.7% increase. For renewable energy in the same year, total support for projects increased by just £1m, or 0.01%.” The Times covers new analysis by Ember which shows that the UK’s first coal mine in three decades, proposed in Cumbria, “would release 15 times more of a powerful greenhouse gas than its developer estimates”. The Daily Telegraph says that Harbour Energy, the North Sea’s biggest oil producer, has warned it will be “forced to cut staff and investment as it claimed its profits were all but wiped out Rishi Sunak’s windfall tax”. [The windfall tax is levied at 35%, meaning it would be impossible to “all but wipe out” profits in a single year. Instead, the company has offset its windfall tax liabilities for the next five years against this year’s profits.] The Press Association reports that a “cross-sector coalition of energy, fuel poverty and environmental groups [National Energy Action, Age UK, Greenpeace UK and 20 other organisations] is calling on the chancellor to invest billions in upgrading homes with insulation and heat pumps” in next week’s Spring statement.

Meanwhile, Reuters carries the views of UK climate minister Graham Stuart, who tells the newswire that “there is no route that we can reach net-zero without carbon capture, hydrogen and nuclear”. The story adds: “The British government will outline within days incentives for companies to bury their greenhouse gases deep underground, using a promising technology for reducing atmospheric CO2”. It continues: “Acknowledging previous mistakes in efforts to support CCS, Stuart said the government is ‘determined there aren’t going to be missteps in the future and you will hear in days further announcements on that, including government support to make sure that carbon capture is unlocked’.”

Finally, in another Guardian “exclusive”, the newspaper reveals that the UK’s “post-Brexit trade deals with Canada and Mexico will include imports of high-carbon beef and low-welfare pork”. The story continues: “There are fears there could be a Conservative party revolt, with the former environment secretary George Eustice raising concerns over low welfare standards for pigs in Canada, and an influential group of Tory MPs and peers gearing up to oppose the deals. The deals also go against the advice of the Climate Change Committee, which wrote to the farming minister, Mark Spencer, after he refused to rule out Mexican beef imports. The committee said the UK’s carbon targets could be ‘compromised by a decision to allow the importation of meat with a higher carbon footprint than our own’.”

European Union countries have agreed to promote a global fossil fuel “phaseout” at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai later this year, reports Reuters. The newswire says: “Ministers from the 27 EU member states approved a text on their diplomatic priorities ahead of the COP28 summit.” It quotes the agreed EU text: “The shift towards a climate neutral economy will require the global phaseout of unabated fossil fuels…The EU will systematically promote and call for a global move towards energy systems free of unabated fossil fuels well ahead of 2050.” The text also says that global fossil fuel consumption should peak in the near term. Reuters adds that “EU countries approved their climate text two weeks later than planned, owing to a spat among countries over whether it should promote nuclear energy”. The final version “scrubbed” some wording that countries had disagreed on, but said that, alongside renewable energy, EU diplomacy will promote sustainable “low-carbon technologies” – a phrase that often refers to nuclear energy, according to Reuters. (At both COP26 and COP27, nations failed to agree to the use of the term “phaseout” in the final cover text.)

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that “Brussels has cleared the way for a subsidy race with the US over crucial technologies, allowing EU member states to ‘match’ multi-billion dollar incentives as they fight to keep projects in Europe”. The newspaper adds: “The overhaul published by the European Commission on Thursday will for the first time justify large-scale public funding for green projects if similar incentives are offered outside Europe, a radical departure in how state subsidies have been policed within the bloc. The measures will allow states to pump billions of euros into the production of solar panels, batteries, wind turbines, electrolysers and heat pumps. ‘This is quick and dirty money to match the Americans,’ said one person involved in the development of the plan.” A separate article in the FT notes that Ursula von der Leyen and US president Joe Biden “meet today to set aside some of the transatlantic rancour unleashed by the $369bn US Inflation Reduction Act”. It adds: “The EU is not expecting significant concessions on the IRA, given there is no prospect of the law being rewritten. But European companies could at least share in some of the benefits.”

And, in breaking news, Reuters has just reported that the “European Union [has] struck a deal…to cut final energy consumption across the bloc by 11.7% by 2030, a goal lawmakers said would help fight climate change and curb Europe’s use of Russian fossil fuels”. The newswire adds: “The deal was agreed after all-night talks between negotiators from EU countries and the European Parliament. Hitting the targets will require countries to renovate millions of draughty buildings to waste less energy. Constructing and using buildings produces a third of EU greenhouse gas emissions, and with most European buildings heated by fossil fuels, the goal is crucial to the EU’s efforts to combat climate change…The 11.7% goal was a compromise between the EU Parliament, which had wanted a far higher goal of 14%, and some EU countries who wanted to stick to the original 9% aim. The target will be legally binding. Countries will set their own non-binding national goals – but if they do not add up to the 11.7% goal, the European Commission will correct them.”

The Hill reports that “House Republicans on Thursday announced that a major energy package that has been in the works for weeks will be known as HR1, signifying that it’s the party’s top priority for the congressional session”. The outlet continues: “The bill, called the Lower Energy Costs Act, is expected to include a large slate of energy policy proposals.

It includes proposals aimed at speeding up the country’s approval process for energy and mining as well as limiting states’ ability to block projects like pipelines that run through their waters, according to press releases from the House Natural Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bill is also expected to include suggestions from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which on Thursday took up legislation that would prohibit a ban on fracking, limit the president’s authority to block cross-border project permits – such as President Biden’s blocking of the Keystone XL pipeline – remove restrictions on natural gas imports and exports, as well as repeal portions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided funding to address climate change and pollution…The legislation is not expected to ultimately become law, given its highly partisan nature. But, it gives an indication as to what Republicans are pointing to as their top policy priorities.”

In other US news, Reuters reports that three Democrat US senators – Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse and Edward Markey – have “blasted” the Treasury Department for its failure to act more swiftly to counter climate risks, urging Treasury secretary Janet Yellen to appoint a new climate counsellor to lead the effort. The Financial Times notes that the “pace of new US solar power installations decelerated last year for the first time since 2018, undercutting goals to cut carbon emissions from electricity supplies”. It adds: “The 20.2 gigawatts of added generating capacity amounted to a 16% decline from 2021 as a result of ‘policy-driven supply constraints’, according to a report released on Thursday by Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industries Association. Obstacles to greater deployment included trade restrictions and supply chain problems.” Reuters reports that “Navigator CO2 Ventures’ proposed carbon pipeline project in the US Midwest is struggling to secure a site to store millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas it hopes to collect from the region’s ethanol plants, as residents refuse to give up land rights over fears the underground reservoirs could leak, according to documents reviewed by Reuters”. And in continuing coverage of the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston, another Reuters article says that “Officials from President Joe Biden’s administration warned leaders of the US clean energy transition this week to decarbonise quickly and keep the supply chain out of China’s control”.

The South China Morning Post says that global warming is “now one of China’s top priorities when it comes to international scientific collaboration”. The outlet notes Chinese president Xi Jinping’s comments made last month at a Politburo study session on “basic research and its impact on self-reliance in science and technology”. Xi said: “We should expand and deepen Sino-foreign joint scientific research on global issues such as climate change, energy security, biosecurity and outer space utilisation.” The article quotes Zeng Zhenzhong, an associate professor in the school of environmental science and engineering at Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, saying “climate change was a common challenge that required scientific collaboration between the US and China…Without either China and the US, the world’s two largest economies and emitters, any efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change would hardly bear fruit.” It also quotes Song Haijun, a professor of palaeontology and geobiology at the China University of Geosciences, who says that “international scientific seminars and conferences, which are usually unaffected by politics, are great opportunities to exchange ideas and promote understanding…we work together to tackle global issues like climate change”.

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage on the ongoing “two sessions”, a major political gathering in Beijing. Xinhua focuses on “how innovation props up China’s high-quality development”. It notes Xi’s statements at the two sessions that “facing fierce global competitions, China must open up new areas and new tracks in development and foster new growth drivers and new strengths, which, fundamentally, depends on sci-tech innovation”. The state-controlled newswire says that, “as part of the better quality of development, China has seen reduced energy intensity and carbon emissions”. China Energy News, a state-run industry newspaper, carries the views of two deputies of the CPPCC National Committee, the country’s top political advisory body. In an interview, Liu Zhongmin says that the Belt and Road Initiative should be taken as the “backbone to deepen international cooperation in energy”. Another article focuses on the suggestions made by Wang Zhiliang to the two sessions that the ministry of finance should give “financial subsidies for the construction/renewal of LNG-powered vessels”, adding that government bodies should “introduce financial subsidies, funding support and tax reduction for the construction of LNG refuelling vessels”.

Reuters reports that parts of northern China were “hit by high temperatures on Thursday that smashed seasonal records, with the city of Shahe hitting 31.8C, official data showed”. The Global Times quotes Zhang Xingying – a national political advisor and deputy director of the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) Science and Technology and Climate Change Office – saying that extreme heat events that “occur every 50 years now will take place more frequently at a rate of every one or two years by the end of 21st century in China”. He stresses that China should “strengthen its capability to cope with climate change, especially in the urban areas”. Zhang says that his “judgement was based on a CMA study”, through which they have “determined that under the current high emission rate…China’s regional amount of precipitation could be up by 18%”. The state-run newspaper adds that the 14th CPPCC National Committee has “set up a new unit for its members from environmental and resource-related circles”, which the outlet says is a “major adjustment to the CPPCC’s sector makeup over the past 30 years”.

Separately, China Dialogue carries the remarks of Huang Runqiu, minister of ecology and environment, who has told the media at the two sessions that, “in the past 10 years, China’s PM2.5 [air pollution] has dropped in nine of the past 10 ten years and CO2 emissions per unit of GDP have dropped by 34.4%”, saying that China has “seen the fastest improvement in air quality and the largest use of renewable energy in the world”. Liu adds: “However, serious air pollution has occurred in Beijing and nearby areas since the beginning of the two sessions, a reminder that China’s environmental management still has a long way to go.” He continues: “The absence of blue skies shows that China is still striving to balance economic development, energy security and growing the share of low-carbon energy.” Finally, CGTN, the state broadcaster, writes that “as many as 91.07% of respondents” in a “global” CGTN survey believe the country’s “economic growth target of around 5% for 2023 is rational and pragmatic”, which “is in line with the rule of China’s economic development and also shows that China pays more attention to high-quality development”.

Robert Habeck, the German economy minister, has announced details of his plan to switch to “climate-friendly” heating systems from 2024, reports Der Spiegel. New systems would have to be operated with at least 65% renewable energy while banning new gas or oil heating systems, he says. A subsidy programme “worth billions” is planned to ensure that households with low and middle incomes can also afford the transition, the outlet adds. “The switch to climate neutrality must not and will not become a social problem,” the newspaper quotes Habeck saying. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) adds that around €‎13bn in subsidies is planned per year. The newspaper also says that while users will be obliged to use heat pumps, gas boilers may be used as support during peak times. So far, the funding has been granted regardless of income. But, according to Habeck, this should now change: “If you renovate a villa for €10m, you can also put in a heat pump.” However, Der Spiegel reports that the heating industry has warned against a ban on fossil fuel heating systems. Tagesschau also has a story noting that the junior governing coalition members the Free Democrats had already criticised the plans. Xinhua also covers the story. 

Meanwhile, FAZ reports that “in the year of the energy crisis in 2022”, coal remained the largest source for electricity generation in Germany, accounting for a third, according to an announcement made by the Federal Statistical Office yesterday. The second largest source of power was wind power, adds the newspaper. Xinhua, says that, despite the recent uptick in coal energy, Europe’s largest economy is sticking to its goal of phasing-out coal by 2030. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal says: ”Germany did itself and Europe a favour by managing to avert an energy-shortage recession this winter, and now we know how they did it: supposedly evil coal.”

Elsewhere in German media, Die Zeit reports that the boss of the German energy company RWE Markus Krebber warns against “carelessness” given the relaxation in gas and electricity supply. “Germany did almost everything right in the energy crisis. But it’s wrong to believe we did everything possible to overcome the next crisis. We’re not through yet,” says Krebber in interviews with Stern and Capital magazines. He points out that Russia is currently meeting its gas delivery obligations via the Ukraine pipeline, warning: “If you think it will stay that way, you need fewer [LNG] terminals. If you want to protect yourself, you need the infrastructure.”

Finally, EurActiv reports that a special advisor to German chancellor Olaf Scholz has said that Germany will “acknowledge and not oppose” the contribution of nuclear energy to the EU’s decarbonisation objectives and notes that Germany is ready to import French hydrogen made from nuclear power. And the Economist has an article under the headline: “Germany is letting a domestic squabble pollute Europe’s green ambitions.”

The Guardian has published a feature by its environment correspondent Damien Gayle in which he walks through the story of how “growing numbers of environmentalists in northern Europe are embracing technology to combat the climate crisis”. In particular, the article focuses on a new campaigning organisation formed out of the Finnish Ecomodernist Society: “RePlanet are the pro-nuclear, pro-GMO vegans who have come to shake up the environmental movement.” Newly formed of an international network of pro-technology environmental campaign groups, they believe doubling down on technology and progress is the key to solving the climate and ecological crises. Now, with funding from climate philanthropists, they are spreading out from a core in northern Europe with a plan to ‘pivot the mainstream’ across the continent. But their proposals look set to put them on a collision course with traditional environmentalists.” Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph carries a feature under headline: “British farmers have two options – go green or go under. The calculation is simple – there is not enough money in carbon trading.”

BusinessGreen editor James Murray says the US Inflation Reduction Act – and how the EU and China respond – “could mark an historic turning point in the direction of the global economy”. Furthermore, the UK “has to find a way to respond” too. He says: “Reports this week that the EU is planning legislation to require 40% of clean technologies deployed in the bloc to be produced in EU member states should send shockwaves through Westminster and the UK business community…In 15 years I cannot recall a time when business groups were more worried. In some ways their current concerns run even deeper than they did in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis or the Brexit vote. Any of their members with an international presence are telling them the same thing: for industries that are looking to decarbonise – which is to say all of them – the US, the EU and China suddenly look like the more compelling location for new projects…The upcoming Spring budget could genuinely prove to be one of the most important in modern UK economic history…without a clear narrative for countering the green subsidy blitz in Washington and Brussels the UK’s economic competitiveness could be dealt a mortal blow. Sit back and wait another 18 months for an incoming Labour government to enact its green infrastructure spending promises and for several crucial industries it may already be too late to turn things around. The wolf is at the door. Doing nothing is not an option.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times’s Lex column runs a comment piece under the headline: “Renewables: the more you have, the more you pay for backups.” It concludes: “Consumers end up paying to build little-used firm power capacity. The conundrum is that the greater the overall share of renewables in the energy mix, the more customers will have to spend on these largely redundant backups.” [Yesterday’s report from the Climate Change Committee, covered by Carbon Brief, explains how the overall energy system remains competitive in this situation, despite costly backups, because renewables are far cheaper than the alternatives.] Finally, the Daily Telegraph has a column by Judith Woods who says: “I’m desperate to have an electric car but it’s just too difficult. A hell of a lot of groundwork needs to be done before we will even consider swapping our trusted petrol engines.”

An editorial in the Guardian says the UN’s new “High Seas Treaty” (see Carbon Brief’s in-depth Q&A) “must prevent marine riches from being monopolised or privatised”. The newspaper argues: “Crucially the deal keeps alive the 30×30 target – a pledge made by countries at the UN biodiversity conference in December that aims to protect 30% of sea (and land) by 2030. The treaty tries to accommodate both the global north’s desire for a legal framework for establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect against the loss of wildlife and the global south’s expectation that resources are seen as being common to all.

All this arrives not a moment too soon. The oceans are not an inexhaustible resource. Yet humanity treats them as if they are boundless. There are limits to how many animals and plants can be sustainably harvested for food and other products. Nor can humanity carry on dumping sewage and pollutants into the watery depths with little care for what damage is being done. In absorbing the carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels, the oceans become much more acidic, threatening marine life.” The Guardian also carries a comment piece by its biodiversity and environment reporter Patrick Greenfield under the headline: “First COP15, now the high seas treaty: there is hope for the planet’s future.”

A new study finds that temperature is the primary factor affecting dissolved oxygen levels – an important indicator of riverine health – in rivers in the US. Researchers use a deep-learning model trained on data from nearly 600 rivers across the US to determine how temperature, light availability and streamflow affect the rivers’ oxygen levels. They find that the effects of temperature and light far outweigh those of streamflow, with temperature on its own providing a “fairly accurate prediction” of dissolved oxygen. The researchers also note a trend of declining oxygen as rivers warm, and write that this “has important implications for water security and ecosystem health in the future climate”.