World leaders have accused Russia of endangering the safety of an entire continent after its forces shelled a nuclear power station in southern Ukraine, reports BBC News. After being shelled by Russian forces, a fire broke out at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant – the largest in Europe, the outlet explains, adding: “Authorities say the facility is now safe and radiation levels are normal.” Ukraine’s President Zelensky accused Russia of resorting to “nuclear terror” and wanting to repeat the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. He said: “If there is an explosion, it is the end of everything. The end of Europe.” UK prime minister Boris Johnson warned that the “reckless” attack could “directly threaten the safety of all of Europe”, the outlet reports, adding: “US president Joe Biden urged Moscow to stop its military activities around the site, while Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau said the ‘horrific attacks’ from Russia ‘must cease immediately’.” The fire, which was in a training building, was extinguished by Ukraine’s emergency services, reports Reuters, which adds that “early reports of the incident at the power plant sent financial markets in Asia spiralling, with stocks tumbling and oil prices surging further”. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that essential equipment at the plant was unaffected after a fire, with no change in radiation levels, reports another Reuters article. In an early morning phone call with Zelensky, Boris Johnson “vowed to seek an emergency UN Security Council meeting in a bid for a ceasefire”, reports the Press Association. Bloomberg and Politico also have the story, while a Guardian article has “all you need to know” about the fire. Russian forces have now seized the plant, according to Reuters.

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) new 10-point plan on reducing reliance on Russian gas says that Europe could cut imports from Russia by more than a third within a year, reports Reuters. The European Union depends on Russia for about 40% of its gas needs, the newswire explains, making it the bloc’s biggest supplier. However, the IEA says that Europe could secure about 30bn cubic metres (bcm) of gas a year – about 20% of the amount Russia usually supplies – from Qatar, the US and others. The Financial Times leads with the IEA’s recommendation that gas import contracts covering more than 15bcm of annual gas – roughly 12% of Russian supplies into Europe – which are due to expire this year and should not be renewed. At a press conference, IEA executive director Fatih Birol said that Russia was using its resources “as an economic and political weapon” , making it more important than ever to reduce the EU’s dependence on Russian supplies and hasten the region’s transition to greener fuels, the FT reports. It adds that the IEA’s proposals also include “expanding renewables, introducing minimum gas storage obligations for EU members, and improving energy efficiency”.

The Guardian leads with Birol’s recommendation to European households to turn down their thermostats by a degree to save on gas and reduce dependency on Russian imports. This would “help to reduce [household] energy bills, but maintain comfort”, he said. Among the IEA’s proposals is the suggestion to delay the planned closure of several nuclear power stations, the paper says, and to speed up the replacement of gas boilers with heat pumps. The Daily Telegraph and BusinessGreen also have the story, while the full 10-point plan can be found on the IEA’s website.

In related news, Ukraine’s energy minister Herman Halushchenko said yesterday that Europe must stop taking gas from Russian state firm Gazprom, reports Reuters, “bemoaning the fact that supplies to the bloc had increased since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”. And the Financial Times reports that the head of one of Britain’s largest asset managers has said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sharpens the urgency for a rapid expansion of renewable power. Peter Harrison, chief executive of Schroders said: “There is no way that Europeans will remain dependent on Russian gas – this doesn’t feel like a comfortable place to be…There is only one alternative, which is the rapid build out of renewable power.”

The EU intends to more than double the amount of gas in storage before next winter by providing subsidies to reduce its reliance on Russian supplies, the Financial Times reports. A European Commission draft proposal, obtained by the paper, will set a target for 80% of storage capacity to be filled by the end of September, up from 29% now. The Commission also proposes to “scrap transmission fees for any gas in store, doubling the current 50% rebate, and allow governments to pay companies to hold it”, the paper says. The proposals – “expected to be adopted on Tuesday” – suggest offering contracts for difference, which would guarantee a minimum price for the gas if its value drops while in storage, but other subsidies could be used. They also suggest that “countries impose windfall taxes on energy providers to compensate customers for high costs”, the paper adds: “But such measures could only last until 30 June and must not be retrospective. Brussels also wants a faster deployment of renewable energy. Under current proposals to cut carbon emissions, gas demand would fall by 23% by 2030.” Other ideas include a “hydrogen accelerator”, the paper notes, “which would increase production and build infrastructure to transport the compressed gas as an alternative low carbon fuel, and sourcing more liquefied natural gas”.

At the same time, European Commission executive vice-president Frans Timmermans has said that countries planning to burn coal as an alternative to Russian gas could do so in line with the EU’s climate goals, Politico reports. Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme yesterday morning, Timmermans said “there are no taboos in this situation” after events took “a very sharp turn a week ago”. He added: “Poland and several other countries had plans to transit out of coal, and then temporarily use natural gas and then move to renewables. If they stay longer with coal, but then immediately moved to renewables, it could still be within the parameters we set for our climate policy.”

Bloomberg reports that the European Union “is bracing for potentially severe economic consequences should Russia cut off natural gas supplies in retaliation for sanctions”. In an interview with the newswire, Kadri Simson – European commissioner for energy – said the EU was prepared for various possibilities involving disrupted gas deliveries. In the event of being cut off from Russian gas entirely, Simson said: “This option definitely means that we have to take all the measures that are at our disposal…This will have a strong impact on consumers and the economy. But, needless to say, if there is a war ongoing in the neighbouring country, you have to be ready for extraordinary measures yourself.” However, Germany’s economy minister Robert Habeck has warned that cutting off the supply of Russian oil and gas “would threaten the social peace” in Germany, reports the Daily Telegraph.

Finally, John Kemp – Reuters market analyst – writes that “Europe’s gas futures prices for next winter are surging to a record high as traders anticipate the energy shortage will last into 2023, putting financial pressure on households and businesses across the region”.

UK government ministers are “embroiled in a fresh Cabinet row” over restarting fracking in Britain in a bid to boost domestic energy supplies after Russia invaded Ukraine, reports the Sun. The paper explains: “Brexit minister Jacob Rees-Mogg is at odds with the business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng over how to drive down soaring energy bills…Mr Rees-Mogg and a group of Tory MPs are piling pressure on the PM to look again at fracking to boost supplies and ‘keep the lights on’, despite a long-running ban on all activity over earthquake fears.” A source from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy “hit back” at the idea, telling the paper: “Fracking causes earthquakes, is hated by local communities, would take 5-10 years to kick-start, and won’t even lower the price. We need to get real: Lancashire isn’t Texas, any shale gas we do find won’t lower the European price, and Cuadrilla aren’t going to sell their gas below market rate, are they?”

In related comment, the Sun also publishes a column by Matt Ridley – a climate-sceptic Conservative former hereditary peer who owns land which has been mined for coal and who oversaw the failure of Northern Rock bank a decade ago. He writes that it is “maddening” to rely on imports of gas when fracking could provide enough gas for “decades”. (The column, which does not declare his energy interests, overlooks the fact that domestic gas reserves would be not necessarily be used in the UK, but would be sold on international markets just as it is now.)

A bipartisan group of US senators introduced a bill yesterday to ban US imports of Russian oil, saying the shipments could be replaced by boosting output in North America and other places, reports Reuters. It explains: “The bill would have to pass the Senate and House and be signed by President Joe Biden to become law, but the White House has indicated reluctance to support moves that could increase the price of gasoline at a time when inflation is already high. The bill, Banning Russian Energy Imports Act, is intended to punish President Vladimir Putin over his invasion of Ukraine and is sponsored by 18 senators in the 100-member chamber, including Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat, and Lisa Murkowski, a Republican…The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about whether Biden, a Democrat, would sign the bill.” The Hill reports that House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi also said she supports a ban. “I’m all for that, ban it,” Pelosi said: “Ban the oil coming from Russia.”

Meanwhile, Politico reports that “Republicans are trying out a message that aims to link President Joe Biden’s climate policy and rising gasoline prices to the war in Ukraine”. This “rhetoric”, which “largely defies reality”, includes claims that “Biden’s efforts to expand renewable energy and restrict fossil fuels have emboldened Putin to send troops, tanks and missiles into Ukraine”, the outlet says.

The UK government is seeking financial advisers to raise billions of pounds for the proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, reports the Financial Times, “as ministers close in on a tacit agreement with Beijing to remove Chinese state-backed energy group CGN from the £20bn project”. Under the revised plans, “both the UK government and developer EDF would take a 20% stake each in the new vehicle and end CGN’s involvement in the project”, the paper explains, “reflecting how diplomatic relations between Beijing and London have deteriorated in recent years”. According to “people with knowledge of the situation”, the government this week “launched the search for investment bankers to find investors for the remaining 60% stake”, the paper continues: “As part of the settlement, CGN is expected to remain a partner in Hinkley Point C, a 3.2 gigawatt nuclear power station under construction by EDF in Somerset in south-west England. It is the first and only one of a planned new generation of nuclear reactors under construction.”

A report from a House of Lords committee has warned that the UK government has not created enough incentives to attract the £50bn ($67bn) in annual investments needed this decade to transform the energy system and effectively eliminate carbon emissions by mid-century, Bloomberg reports. The Industry and Regulators Committee says that the government has failed to provide enough details on policies and funding models to deliver on his government’s goals to decarbonise the electric grid by 2035 on the way to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the newswire explains. Clive Hollick the committee chairman, said in an interview that “we now need to have some clarity and some clear sets of principles and financial incentives that can usher in this big investment in this transformation in a timely fashion…Otherwise, given the lead times that there are, we’ll simply miss the boat”. The committee urged the government to create a “transformation task force” that would report directly to the prime minister and work across departments to deliver on the energy-transition goals, the outlet notes. The Daily Mail also picks up on the report, leading with the comments of energy economist Prof Nick Butler – who has acted as an adviser to the committee – criticising the government for not setting out how investments for net-zero will be paid for. Butler warned that “green levies” on energy bills could more than double to fund the investments. “Somebody has to meet that,” he said: “Either government pays for it, which is more borrowing or taxation, or some comes on consumer bills.”

In related comment, Paul Waugh – chief political commentator of the i newspaper – who says there “are growing signals in Whitehall and Westminster that the chancellor is preparing to expand his package of help on energy bills when he makes his spring statement later this month”.

The UK’s health secretary Sajid Javid has said the National Health Service (NHS) must stop using energy supplied by the Russian-owned firm Gazprom, reports the Press Association. A senior government source told the newswire that Javid has been in talks with NHS England over ending the contracts with more than a dozen NHS trusts, which are reported to be worth £16m in 2021. The source told PA: “Sajid has spoken with NHSE and been clear that trusts need to stop using Gazprom as a supplier. He has also requested a wider review of any Russian role in supply chains across the health service.” The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Times, Daily Mail all pick up on the story, while BBC News reports that councils across England are also seeking to cut ties with Gazprom.

An editorial in the Financial Times declares that “Vladimir Putin’s warmongering in Ukraine has laid bare the strategic costs of Europe’s energy dependence on Russia”. The paper points out various “mistake[s]” in European energy policy in recent years, including an increase in energy imports from Russia after it first invaded Crimea to “substitute for the decline in coal use and Germany’s turn away from nuclear energy”, launching the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in 2018, and countries letting their stored gas reserves “sink to below-average levels this winter”. Europe “must now urgently find stop-gap solutions to substitute for Russian gas in the event that Putin cuts off energy supplies”, the paper says. Doing without Russian gas is “difficult”, but “not impossible”, the article argues: “Spring is on the way, some additional liquefied natural gas can be bought on world markets, and both fossil and nuclear power generation can be rolled back into service. Energy conservation measures can take demand down to manageable levels.” In the longer run, “instead of heeding calls to renew fossil-fuel extraction in Europe…accelerating the growth in both generation and transmission capacity of carbon-free energy is essential”, the paper says, as are “greater incentives for carbon and energy efficiency”. Finally, the editorial adds, “legitimate place of nuclear in Europe’s energy mix should now be put beyond doubt”.

In related comment, Philip K. Verleger Jr – founder of the economic consulting firm PK Verleger LLC – writes in the Boston Globe that “President Vladimir Putin of Russia has just done something extraordinary: taken action that will maximise the world’s transition to clean, renewable energy. Indeed, he may be single-handedly saving us from global warming.” He adds: “Putin, of course, has no idea of his future standing as a preeminent eco-warrior. No matter. His decision to starve Europe of natural gas this winter has probably sped up the European Union’s shunning of fossil fuels. If that is not enough to forestall planetary disaster, his invasion of Ukraine will finish the job by setting widespread ‘greening’ snowballs in motion.” In his “climate memo” newsletter, Joss Garman of the European Climate Foundation [which funds Carbon Brief] writes that “it’s clear that Putin’s war crime may prove to also be a key historical turning point for the trajectory of unfolding climate change”.

Elsewhere, Guardian environment correspondent Fiona Harvey has an analysis piece looking at how the Russian invasion “could speed up renewables transition – or lead to disastrous return to coal”. The Economist also looks at whether “oil at more than $100 a barrel, gas markets in turmoil and war be enough to wean Europe off Russian gas”. Ros Atkins of BBC News has a short video explainer on “Russian gas and oil; how it connects to the war in Ukraine, and the EU’s efforts to cut economic ties with Russia”. Financial Times business columnist Helen Thomas writes that the Russian invasion and this week’s new IPCC report on climate impacts “push in the same direction as net-zero policies: towards more renewable energy, greater efforts to decarbonise households and industry, and enhanced energy efficiency”. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard – international business editor of the Daily Telegraph – has a piece carrying the headline, “Putin’s energy shock is broadening into a world food crisis, so brace for rationing”. And finally, the Financial Times Energy Source column puts forward the “case against divestment from Russian oil”.

An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald says that the “floods that have devastated the east coast of Australia demonstrate yet again the dire consequences of climate change but Australia’s response is still far too feeble”. It continues: “A dozen lives have already been lost in the floods on the [New South Wales] north coast and in south-east Queensland and in Sydney 200,000 people were evacuated from their homes on Thursday as the Hawkesbury and Georges rivers broke their banks. The damage bill will be billions of dollars. Yet, if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced quickly and the planet warms by 3C this century, these extreme weather events will only grow more damaging.” However, “rather than taking the lead in cutting emissions, the government too often sides with the fossil fuel lobby”, the outlet says: “The government is missing a huge opportunity. Australia’s resources of wind and solar put it in an ideal position to reduce the role of coal and gas in its power grid, unlike Europe which is desperately trying to end its dependence on imported Russian gas.”

Elsewhere, Guardian Australia senior writer Brigid Delaney says that the idea of a “normal summer” in Australia is “over”. The Guardian also publishes a comment piece by Eddie Lloyd, a resident in one of the flooded areas. She writes: “We are at the threshold of climate catastrophe and it’s communities like ours that are bearing the brunt of it.” And a third piece in the Guardian says that “no flood can be blamed directly on the climate crisis, but it also loads the dice”.

A new study finds that climate scepticism in Australia decreased over the decade of 2009-19, particularly among those with conservative views, “although it remains concerningly high”. Researchers analyse the results of 25 nationally representative polls conducted during the 10-year span and look for different factors that could be contributing to the change in popular opinion. They find only “weak evidence” that climate scepticism is associated with national or seasonal temperatures, but they do identify a negative correlation between scepticism and annual global temperatures from the previous year. The effect is most noticeable in political conservatives, who have higher levels of climate scepticism to begin with; the authors posit that rising temperatures may be able to “update beliefs among those most in need of converting”.