UN secretary general António Guterres has warned that the war in Ukraine risks pushing global climate targets out of reach, the Guardian reports. According to the paper, in a video address to a conference on sustainability run by the Economist newspaper, Guterres said: “The fallout from Russia’s war in Ukraine risks upending global food and energy markets, with major implications for the global climate agenda. As major economies pursue an ‘all-of-the-above’ strategy to replace Russian fossil fuels, short-term measures might create long-term fossil fuel dependence and close the window to 1.5C…Countries could become so consumed by the immediate fossil fuel supply gap that they neglect or knee-cap policies to cut fossil fuel use…This is madness. Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction.” BBC News notes that this is Guterres’ first major speech since COP26 in November. It adds that he called on countries to fully phase out coal by 2040. The Washington Post reports that, according to Guterres, the world is “sleepwalking to climate catastrophe”, and the New York Times adds that he called the promises made at COP26 “naive optimism”. The Independent says that while European countries have sought to end their dependence on Russian fossil fuels since the invasion of Ukraine, many have “broker[ed] new deals with other hydrocarbon-rich states, such as Qatar, which has just signed a long-term gas deal with Germany. It continues: “The UN has warned that focusing on replacing Russian fossil fuels with other sources of the same climate-altering products will end the prospect of keeping average global temperatures below dangerous levels”. Outlets including Associated Press, BusinessGreen and Bloomberg also cover Guterres’ comments.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – the top financial watchdog in the US – has submitted a proposal that, if approved, would make publicly traded companies report on their greenhouse-gas emissions, the Guardian reports. The newspaper continues: “Under the proposal publicly traded companies would have to report greenhouse-gas emissions and obtain independent certification of their estimates.” According to the Times, the proposal “requires companies to disclose their own direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions – known as scope 1 and 2 emissions respectively”. The New York Times adds that the “largest companies” would also have to disclose the “carbon footprint of suppliers, business travel and any assets a company leases” – known as scope 3 emissions. It adds that the proposed rule was approved by a three-to-one vote and the general public now have up to 60 days to comment on the plan. After this, it could take weeks or months to enforce the rules, the Hill says. Associated Press adds that “the SEC issued voluntary guidance in 2010, but this is the first time mandatory disclosure rules were put forward”.

The Wall Street Journal says that scope 3 emissions were a “sticking point” in SEC negotiations over the proposal and, in the final proposal, disclosure of Scope 3 emissions will be mandatory “only if output of those greenhouse gasses is material, or significant to investors, or if companies outline specific targets for them”. The newspaper adds: “Republicans and some industry groups have been gearing up for months to fight the new requirements…They say the proposed rules would increase compliance costs and go far beyond a strict interpretation of the SEC’s mandate to protect investors by requiring disclosure of information relevant to companies’ financial performance.” The Washington Post says that “while climate groups praised the rule as significant, some expressed disappointment in its treatment of ‘scope 3’ emissions” – because companies can decide whether their own scope 3 emissions are worth disclosing to the SEC. Bloomberg notes that around 1,500 US companies already disclose their scope 3 data. Reuters adds that, under the proposal, “companies that have publicly declared climate-related targets or goals must provide details, including ‘the scope of activities and emissions included in the target,’ the deadline, any interim targets, and how they plan to meet their goals”.

CNBC calls the proposal “one of the most ambitious regulatory agendas in decades” and the Independent says the new rule could stop firms from “greenwashing”. But the Financial Times adds that “Republican SEC commissioner Hester Peirce, the dissenter in Monday’s vote, said it would drive up costs for business while accounting firms and climate consultants were poised for a windfall”. Meanwhile, Reuters says that “the SEC spent the past week shoring up the draft against potential legal challenges”. The proposal is also covered in other outlets, including Forbes.

UK prime minister Boris Johnson has told nuclear industry bosses that he wants the UK to get 25% of its electricity from nuclear power by 2050, the Guardian reports. The paper continues: “Johnson on Monday met executives from major nuclear utilities and technology companies, including the UK’s Rolls-Royce, France’s EDF, and the US’s Westinghouse and Bechtel, to discuss ways of helping to speed up the development of new nuclear power stations…Also present at the meeting were a series of big pension companies and insurers.” The paper notes that the UK currently produces 16% of its power from nuclear stations. The Financial Times adds: “As part of the plan Kwasi Kwarteng, business secretary, is pushing for the creation of a new delivery organisation to end more than a decade of stalled efforts to build a fleet of nuclear power stations. Downing Street and the Treasury have yet to formally endorse the proposal, according to people familiar with the situation.” Meanwhile, the Daily Mail notes that nuclear capacity will need to more than treble in the coming years to meet the goal. Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph reports: “Local people may have their ability to oppose new plants stripped away under proposals being considered by ministers, but industry bosses are more concerned about the Environment Agency and Marine Management Organisation wrapping their projects in red tape and slowing them down, the Telegraph understands.” Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph says the UK’s energy minister has urged SNP ministers to “rethink” their opposition to nuclear power plants being built in Scotland. And the i newspaper reports that “Britain needs a major ‘acceleration’ in onshore windfarms to guarantee energy supplies and reduce bills, Kwasi Kwarteng has urged”.

In other UK news, the i newspaper reports that former energy minister and head of the net-zero support group Chris Skidmore has said that “households should receive a windfall ‘renewables bonus’ to help with the cost of soaring energy bills”. The paper says: “ Wind farm operators are currently paying millions of pounds back to the government under pre-arranged subsidy contracts. Distributing this cash as a renewables bonus could shave £25 off household bills over the next 18 months and possibly offer windfalls of hundreds of pounds a year by the end of the decade, analysis suggests.” Meanwhile, analysis by the paper finds that “lifting the onshore wind ban is the cheapest, quickest way to boost renewable power to help energy bills”.

Elsewhere, the Times reports that “Rishi Sunak has given the go-ahead for cheap taxpayer-backed loans to help homeowners install heat pumps, solar panels and other energy efficiency measures to combat rising fuel bills”.

In other UK news, the i newspaper reports that former energy minister and head of the net-zero support group Chris Skidmore has said that “households should receive a windfall ‘renewables bonus’ to help with the cost of soaring energy bills”. The paper says: “ Wind farm operators are currently paying millions of pounds back to the government under pre-arranged subsidy contracts. Distributing this cash as a renewables bonus could shave £25 off household bills over the next 18 months and possibly offer windfalls of hundreds of pounds a year by the end of the decade, analysis suggests.” Meanwhile, analysis by the paper finds that “lifting the onshore wind ban is the cheapest, quickest way to boost renewable power to help energy bills”.

Elsewhere, the Times reports that “Rishi Sunak has given the go-ahead for cheap taxpayer-backed loans to help homeowners install heat pumps, solar panels and other energy efficiency measures to combat rising fuel bills”.

The government is concerned that revenue from fuel duty will drop as more people buy electric cars and is discussing plans to use toll roads to make up the lost income, the Times reports. In a frontpage story, the paper says: “Conservative MPs have persuaded chancellors to freeze the rate of fuel duty at every budget since 2011. Sunak is expected to cut it to ease the pressure on drivers facing record prices at the pump. An announcement is not imminent but road pricing will probably replace fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, which are not levied on electric cars. The government is expected to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2030, which the transport committee said would mean a £35bn hole for the Treasury.” Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that “the cost of charging an electric car on the street has climbed to a record high”.

Oil and gas company Shell is reconsidering its recent decision to remove investment from the Cambo oil field, BBC News understands. The outlet says: “In December, Shell said the economic case – along with possible regulatory delays – meant it was withdrawing from the Cambo oil field”. However, it notes that while oil was $70 per barrel at the time of Shell’s decision, it has since risen consistently over $100 per barrel. The outlet continues: “Shell has not yet sold its interests in the field. Sources close to the matter said that, while the company’s official position had not changed, it did acknowledge that the economic, political and regulatory environment had changed enormously since the decision was announced just three months ago. Shell last week resubmitted an application to develop the Jackdaw North Sea gas field – off the east coast of Scotland – having had it turned down in October by environmental regulators.” The Independent adds that “environmental groups have long opposed the proposed field, warning it would jeopardise hundreds of species in the ocean”.

As European leaders debate potential sanctions on Russian energy, oil prices have risen to more than $115 per barrel, the Times reports. The paper says: “The EU, which relies on Russia for more than a quarter of its oil imports and about two fifths of its gas, has so far been wary of imposing energy sanctions on Moscow. However the atrocities in Mariupol are increasing pressure on Europe to do more.” Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph says that European leaders are “deadlocked” on the decision. It continues: “France, Ireland and Baltic states such as Lithuania signalled support for a tougher line, but they faced opposition from countries including Germany and Hungary.” Meanwhile, Politico reports that the US cannot ease the pressure of oil prices on Europe. It says: “American gas exporters are already shipping their LNG overseas nearly as fast as they can, with little new capacity due to come online during the next two years. And Biden cannot command the activities of private oil and gas companies — who will typically sell their product wherever in the world they can fetch the highest price.” Elsewhere, Reuters carries a warning from Russian deputy prime minister Alexander Novak that oil prices could reach $300 per barrel is Russian crude oil is “shunned” by the west. Meanwhile, Climate Home News says that Australia “welcomes” the high prices, and is shipping coal to Ukraine, while Bloomberg says that “coal buyers in India are paying 300% premiums to secure fuel”. And a Reuters Factbox piece asks: “Who is still buying Russian crude oil”.

Elsewhere, Reuters says that “attacks by Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi group on Saudi energy and water desalination facilities sent jitters through the market”. But in a statement published on Monday, the country said: “Saudi Arabia announces that it will not bear responsibility for any petroleum shortages in global markets in light of the attacks on its installations by the terrorist Houthi militias,” according to the Financial Times. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal says that the high oil prices could lead to “demand destruction”, as buyers find other ways to get energy. And the New York Times reports that Saudi Aramco – the world’s largest oil company – will “use its enormous profits from last year to double down on boosting oil output capacity and move into shale drilling”.

The impact of China’s recent efforts to boost coal supply and production “could already be evident from space” after a European satellite captured “a powerful cloud of methane” for the first time in a “remote corner” of China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, reports Bloomberg. The article said that the satellite had never picked up methane in the location, indicating that the finding suggests “new or expanded activity”. Researchers told Bloomberg that the plume had been detected near a coal mine. According to the outlet, the mine “is aiming to expand its capacity to 5m tonnes of coal a year from 900,000 this year”. Bloomberg also reports that China’s state economic planner has asked power generators “to sign long-term supply contracts with domestic miners and build stockpiles to last at least 15 days”. The outlet cites “people with knowledge of the matter”.

Meanwhile, the South China Morning Post reports that China’s state assets watchdog has established two new bureaus to “strengthen the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in the national innovation and social responsibility drive, especially relating to carbon emissions”. Separately, China’s state news agency Xinhua reports that China’s power generation reached 1.31tn kilowatt hours in January and February, representing a 4% year-on-year increase. It cites figures from the National Bureau of Statistics. Xinhua also reports on “a minuscule structure” developed by scientists from China’s Tianjin University. The structure is “capable of improving the chemical reaction in carbon capture” and “may help mitigate global warming”, the state-run newswire says.

Elsewhere, the Chinese province of Hainan has recently established an international emissions trading centre, according to Yicai, a Shanghai-based financial outlet. Experts told Yicai that the centre is the first Chinese emissions trading centre that caters to the international market. They said that the centre would help expand China’s participation in the global carbon market and boost China’s role in deciding international carbon prices, Yicai says. Finally, Protocol – a website focused on “the people, power and politics of tech” – explains how the method of swapping batteries to charge an electric vehicle is “being revived in China”.

Die Zeit reports online that the war in Ukraine could force Germany to use key agricultural land for the production of food rather than low-carbon electricity. Baden-Württemberg’s minister of agriculture Peter Hauk has told the German Press Agency: “I am very much in favour of renewable energies, but we must not lose sight of the production of food, not least against the background of the war.” But Hauk’s green coalition partner from the environment ministry, Thekla Walker, has responded by warning against “short-term actions”. She says: “I don’t understand why [Hauk] wants to curb [solar farms] and, thus, cut back on energy supply and climate protection. Both must be, both are possible.”

Meanwhile, Die Welt reports that the German economics minister Robert Habek was in the United Arab Emirates yesterday to discuss a “green hydrogen” deal. Separately, Deutsche Welle reports that Habeck has also signed solar-farm deals with the rulers of Abu Dhabi.

Finally, Handelsblatt reports that German chancellor Olaf Scholz will attend the opening of the Tesla “gigafactory” in Grünheide today. Tesla’s Elon Musk will join him. Reuters says that, at full capacity, the plant will produce 500,000 electric cars annually.

Cutting fuel duty is a “regressive measure” that “would be handing money to people in proportion to how much they drive and how fuel-inefficient their car was,” an editorial in the Guardian argues. The editorial notes that Rishi Sunak is expected to announce a temporary 5p per litre reduction on fuel duty in this week’s mini budget. The editorial adds that transport is the UK’s largest emitting sector – responsible for 24% of its emissions – and says this measure “flies in the face of the government’s claim to be a green leader”. Meanwhile, it notes that only 7% of savings from cutting fuel duty will go to the poorest fifth of households – while one third will go to the richest fifth. The article continues: “If the government did cut fuel duty as suggested, the Treasury could lose about £4bn a year in tax receipts. Surely, it would be better for the government to spend such sums on stepping up investment in secure, clean energy such as solar and onshore wind or to fund policies that reduce energy demand in homes and industry… Reducing taxes on fuel would simply make the UK more dependent on Russia, which supplies 13% of all diesel. By contrast, the thinktank E3G suggests that energy efficiency measures for homes could cut Russian gas imports by 80% this year. This would see households, on average, be between £130 and £170 a year better off. Combined with a renewables drive, E3G says the UK could eliminate Russia from its gas supply completely in 2022.” Meanwhile, a Daily Mail editorial argues that Sunak should cut fuel duty “as an absolute minimum”, adding that “further help with energy bills would also be politically wise”.

The Financial Times’ Lex column says not to “rule [out North Sea oil and gas] as part of the energy transition”, arguing that reserves “can help bridge any worrisome energy gap in the shift to a net-zero carbon future”. Commenting on the same topic, Guardian economics editor, Larry Elliott, writes: “In the medium and long term, the answer is obvious: western nations need to accelerate the transition out of fossil fuels and into renewables and the invasion of Ukraine will give added momentum to that trend. In the short term, though, governments keen to keep the lights on and transport systems running will seek to replace Russian fossil fuels with fossil fuels from other parts of the world.” Elsewhere, Times writer Alistair Osborne says “the notion that Britain suddenly needs six new nukes at about £20bn a pop is knee-jerk policymaking of the worst kind”.

An editorial in the Times calls on Rishi Sunak to use his spring statement to “target support on the poorest families and accelerate efforts to boost energy efficiency”, adding: “[T]he government’s strategic and economic priority must be to hasten the transition to lower-cost, domestically produced clean energy”. Meanwhile, a Sun editorial argues Sunak should “cut green levies” on energy. An editorial in the Daily Mail propels the PM’s nuclear aspirations, telling its readers: “[N]ow, with Europe trying to wean itself off Russian gas, North Sea production declining and renewables not yet ready to take up the slack, nuclear is the only realistic option.“

Meanwhile, Andriy Kobolyev, former CEO of Ukrainian state energy company Naftogaz, writes for the Financial Times: “Yes, Europe is heavily dependent on energy supplied from Russia. But guess what? The dependence goes both ways.” He continues: “There is no reason for the EU not to place an immediate embargo on supplies of Russian LNG and petroleum products. Russia’s energy stranglehold has lasted for too long. This will save lives — not only in Ukraine.” While a comment piece for the Washington Post by global opinions contributing columnist JJ McCullough warns readers that Canada’s “abundance” of oil and gas has “resulted in a bit of a “‘o a hammer, every problem looks like a nail’ mind-set among Canadian elites, in which the country’s large oil and gas supply is perceived as being more useful, both economically and geo-strategically, than it might actually be”. On the contrary, in McCullough’s conclusion, both Canada’s output levels and export capacity mean “Canadian energy won’t save Europe from Russia”.

A new paper assesses the “messy and ambiguous concept” of capacity building within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The researchers find that there are “two distinct narratives guiding capacity building” in the UNFCCC. The first, which “focuses on building techno-managerial capacities utilising standardised data to address climate change through short-term and project-based processes”, is largely “well-supported” by the UNFCCC. However, the second – which aims to engage “a diverse range of actors including Indigenous Peoples, gender-specific constituencies and communities” – is “disparate and frequently lacks necessary financial, technical, and institutional resources”, the researchers say.

New research analyses the “socio-political and economic” pressures on major European oil companies to take climate action and their response between 2005 and 2019. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol “produced an initial momentum that prompted some companies to invest in alternative fuels and renewables, but efforts faded after 2010”, the researchers find. Recent pressure – including net-zero policy pledges – have “prompted all companies to invest beyond fossil fuels”. However, the study concludes, “efforts are still marginal and additional advancements in climate policy are necessary to foster the renewables market and to promote the phase-out of oil”.