The Biden administration’s leading international energy adviser has called on India not to go “too far” as it increases imports of discounted Russian crude that has lost buyers in Europe, reports the Financial Times. It continues: “Indian purchases of seaborne Russian oil have surged as exporters slash prices for Urals, the country’s main crude export stream, after European refineries began shunning the cargoes and the EU moved to end its dependence on Russian energy following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. The deals are causing frustration in western countries, which are paying higher prices for oil in part due to efforts to restrict Russian export revenue that is being used to wage war.” The paper reports the comments of Amos Hochstein – the US state department’s senior energy security adviser – who it says told a Senate committee hearing yesterday: “I’ve said, ‘Look, we don’t have secondary sanctions that can ban your purchases from Russia’.“ It says he added: “I would ask two things: ‘One, don’t go too far. Don’t look like you’re taking advantage of the pain that is being felt in European households and the US. Second, make sure you negotiate well, because if you don’t buy [the oil], nobody else is.’” At the same time, a Reuters “exclusive” reports that Russian oil company Rosneft “is holding back on signing new crude oil deals with two Indian state refiners, three sources with knowledge of the matter said, as it has committed sales to other customers”. The outlet notes: “A lack of new term supply deals with Rosneft may push Indian refiners to turn to the spot market for more expensive oil. It also indicates that Russia has managed to keep exporting its oil despite increasing pressure from Western sanctions to choke Moscow’s revenue.”

Hochstein also told the hearing that price rises mean that Russia may be getting more revenue from its fossil fuels now than shortly before its invasion of Ukraine, reports Reuters. He said the global oil demand increase from consumers coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic was “far greater, stronger than anyone predicted”, the newswire reports. Also in Reuters, Russian president Vladimir Putin said yesterday that Russian companies will not mothball their oil wells despite European and US efforts to reduce dependence on energy supplies from Moscow. Putin said the west will not be able to completely stop using Russian energy resources over next few years, the newswire explains. It quotes him speaking on a televised meeting with young entrepreneurs: “As far as refusal from our energy resources is concerned, this is unlikely for the next few years, while it’s not clear, what will happen during those few years. That’s why, no one will pour cement into the wells.”

There is continuing coverage of the news that the cost of “filling an average family with petrol” has, reports BBC News, “hit £100 for the first time”. The broadcaster says the RAC and AA motoring groups “urged the chancellor to cut VAT on fuel or to reduce fuel duty further”. But it reports: “The government has so far ruled out cutting VAT, arguing that any increases in receipts it gets from higher fuel prices will be largely offset by reduced household spending and VAT on other items. It has no plans to cut fuel duty either. Instead, Downing Street has indicated that fuel retailers failing to pass on the 5p duty cut could be named and shamed.” BBC News adds that the wholesale price of petrol has dropped 5p a litre since the start of June but “it takes time for changes in the wholesale price to feed through to the pumps due to the way retailers buy fuel in advance”. ITV News reports the comments of prime minister Boris Johnson saying that petrol prices will “remain high for a while to come”. In a story trailed on its frontpage, the i newspaper reports: “Boris Johnson ‘pushing for second fuel duty cut’ as motorists warned £100 tank could go higher.” The Times also reports on petrol prices reaching £100 per tank, with separate analysis in the Times saying pump prices are “closely linked to the price of crude oil…which is currently shooting up on the global markets”. It cites “analysts” in reporting: “fuel prices are unlikely to fall until oil producers increase supplies to compensate for the loss of Russian energy”. The Daily Telegraph has “charts that show[] where your money goes when you fill up with petrol”. It says 45% of the cost goes on wholesale fuel – with crude oil prices having “surged since the start of the year” – with 17% of the total coming from VAT and another 29% from fuel duty. Another Daily Telegraph article says the rising price of fuel “nets [chancellor] Rishi Sunak an extra £4.4m a day” in VAT.

Analysis from Sky News asks why petrol prices have been rising, pointing to the economic recovery from the Covid pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including the impact of sanctions on Russia. The broadcaster adds that the UK fuel price is being pushed up by “the weakness of the pound against US dollar-priced oil” and a “lack of diesel refining capacity in the UK”. It says the UK does not have the most expensive fuel in Europe but ranks among the top 10. And it adds: “VAT and duty currently make up roughly half of the cost of a litre of fuel. Given that Boris Johnson has made cutting taxes a focus for his government following his confidence vote scare this week, it would be fair to assume that [chancellor Rishi] Sunak would cast an eye over both if he is to help keep the slowing economy moving.”

Politico reports on the failure of European Parliament votes this week on climate: “An industry lobbying blitz helped derail a key climate vote in the European Parliament this week, according to centrist and left-wing lawmakers.” It continues: “The resulting delay may be short – MEPs are aiming for a rerun in two weeks’ time – but the adoption of amendments aimed at granting more latitude to Europe’s dirtiest sectors showed that a narrow majority of lawmakers favour a conservative approach to climate action.” Meanwhile, Associated Press reports that an industry group representing most major airlines “criticised the European Union’s Parliament on Thursday for seeking to expand its emissions trading system to all flights departing the bloc”.

In other news from the EU, Associated Press reports: “Poland’s prime minister vowed Thursday to support higher production at the nation’s coal mines in order to bring down heating and energy prices.” It adds: “However, the pledge that prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki made in parliament goes against Poland’s climate change obligations and the gradual steps it is taking to reduce the production and use of coal in order to fight global warming.” Separately, Politico reports on the “decades-old conflict” that is stopping Europe from tapping gas under the seas around Cyprus, even as the region attempts to wean itself off Russian imports: “[A] decades-old conflict between Turkey, Cyprus and Greece – rooted in Turkey’s 1974 invasion of Cyprus – is stymying efforts to explore and extract any natural gas lying beneath the Mediterranean Sea.”

The German federal government wants to encourage citizens to save energy, but critics are pushing for new laws, says Der Spiegel. It adds that the minister of economy and climate action, Robert Habeck, “intends to present a major advertising campaign shortly to promote more independence in energy supply and more climate protection among the population”. But, the news continues, the environmentalists are now clearly criticising the project, saying that the goal should be more ambitious – “10% less energy consumption in all sectors”.

Meanwhile, Deutschland magazine reports that Habeck has advocated expanding energy cooperation with North Africa and the Middle East countries. It adds his quote from an energy conference in Jordan that Germany and Europe are switching to renewable energies and have a “great hunger for energy”. Habeck also said that “if it’s possible to produce electricity here in this sunny region and bring it to Europe via a cable connection across the Mediterranean” or if hydrogen produced with the help of solar energy can be brought to Europe, “then I’m very happy about it”.

Elsewhere, the Associated Press reports that Germany’s transport minister voiced “strong opposition” to plans to ban the sale of new cars with combustion engines across the European Union in 2035, arguing this would discriminate against vehicles powered with synthetic fuels. The outlet explains that “EU lawmakers voted Wednesday to back the measure that requires automakers to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 100% by the middle of the next decade, effectively prohibiting the sale in the 27-nation bloc of new cars powered by gasoline or diesel”.

The Daily Express reports that UK-based company Octopus Energy, one of Europe’s largest investors in renewables, has announced its first renewable energy deal in Germany, with a major wind farm investment in Hessen, near Frankfurt. According to Octopus, the media outlet notes the ten wind turbines made by Vestas will generate almost 100,000 megawatt hours (MWh) or electricity, enough green energy to power nearly 40,000 households a year.

Finally, Ukraine news agency Interfax reports that the German economy ministry will provide Ukraine with €3.5m for the purchase of equipment for the repair of power grids, German ambassador to Ukraine Anka Feldhusen said after a meeting with energy minister Herman Haluschenko. The outlet adds that she also supported Ukraine’s full integration into the European energy system ENTSO-E.

Four government bodies, including the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) – China’s top economic planner – and the National Energy Administration (NEA) – the country’s top energy regulator, jointly issued a notice on Thursday which announced “new standards for the approval of advanced coal production capacity”, the Paper reports. The notice stressed that ensuring safe production is a “prerequisite for the release of advanced production capacity”, the Shanghai-based outlet notes.

Meanwhile, China Energy News reports that the scale of China’s “installed offshore wind power” is now ranked “first” worldwide. Citing the figure firstly reported by the state news agency Xinhua on Tuesday, the state-run industry newspaper says that the country added 16.9 gigawatts (GW) of “new grid-connected capacity of offshore wind power” in 2021, some 4.5 times more than was added the previous year. It adds that the accumulated capacity “jumped to the world’s first”.

Separately, Reuters writes that China’s crude oil imports “rose nearly 12% in May from a low base a year earlier”. The newswire says that this move came although refiners were still “battling high inventories with Covid-19 lockdowns” and a “slowing economy weighing on fuel demand last month”. Additionally, Bloomberg says that as “renewed lockdowns in parts of Shanghai threatened global demand recovery”, oil prices declined. The new restrictions on movement in Shanghai will “call into question the demand recovery in one of the world’s biggest oil-consuming countries”, the article adds. Finally, a separate Bloomberg article reports that China’s “appetite for many of its key commodities” – including coal, gas, and crude oil – “remained subdued in May” as “surging international prices and domestic virus restrictions”, including the city-wide shutdown” of Shanghai”, “sapped” demand.

The US government has proposed new rules for electric vehicle charging networks in the US, reports the New York Times. They set out that “charging stations built with federal dollars should be positioned along Interstates every 50 miles, be able to recharge cars quickly and be located no more than a mile from a major highway”, the paper explains. Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg told reporters that “EV drivers should be able to count on finding a place to recharge easily wherever they go”. He said that the plan will send “a market signal” to companies that build charging stations that they should offer a standard facility that can accommodate all models of electric and zero-emissions vehicles, the paper reports, adding: “Along I-95 in the north-east, many rest stops are equipped with chargers that accommodate only Tesla vehicles.” The new standards are “part of the Biden administration’s efforts to spur widespread adoption of zero-emission cars, with a goal of having half of all new vehicles sold in the US electric by 2030”, the paper says. Reuters and CNBC also have the story.

In other US news, Reuters reports that government officials have said that four development banks will jointly facilitate up to $50bn over the next five years to back climate goals in the Americas. The US will also “seek funding from the private sector and other sources to boost such projects”, says the newswire, as the Biden administration “moves to underline renewed US commitment to Latin America”. Reuters also reports that US climate envoy John Kerry said yesterday that he would travel to Mexico on Monday to speak with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador about working together on programmes tied to Mexico’s energy policy. Kerry was speaking on the sidelines of the US-hosted Summit of the Americas – which Lopez Obrador opted to sit out after Washington decided to exclude the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua from the gathering, Reuters notes. Kerry said that he was “very hopeful we can come to some agreement on how to approach this year in terms of renewable and alternative energy”.

Finally, Climate Home News reports on the reaction to the announcement from US president Joe Biden earlier this week on easing tariffs on solar panel imports from four south-east Asian nations. And White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy tells Axios that “tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation” on climate change.

The UK government “got together with Shell…to talk up North Sea oil and gas” this week, reports Bloomberg, in what it calls “the latest sign of the country’s pivot back toward domestic fossil fuels since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”. It reports: “Comments by Shell chief executive officer Ben van Beurden and UK business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng underscore the deep shift in energy policy. A government that was focused on renewables in the run-up to last year’s COP26 climate talks is now working to boost investment in oil and gas fields.” A second Bloomberg article reports: “Renewable generators are still in the crosshairs of UK government officials drawing up proposals for a windfall tax on the profits of electricity producers.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that energy firm Centrica “has submitted a formal application to the North Sea energy regulator to reopen Rough, Britain’s biggest natural gas storage site, as ministers race to secure more domestic energy supplies in time for winter”. It continues: “The British energy company wants to convert the site 18 miles off the Yorkshire coast to hydrogen at a cost of £2bn but, for now, natural gas could be reinjected in a matter of months if the licence application is successful.”

Elsewhere, writing in the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph editor Allister Heath criticises government energy policy, writing: “Efforts to bolster nuclear power – vital in a post-carbon future – have been scandalously inadequate, and the refusal to authorise fracking deeply irresponsible. Britain faces a future of power cuts, rationing and cripplingly expensive energy as a result of Johnson’s ideological obsession with going green too quickly and without strategic thought.”

In a comment for the Financial Times, the paper’s energy editor David Sheppard writes under the headline: “The world must brace itself for a further surge in oil prices.” He writes: “The energy crisis, which started with Russia squeezing natural gas supplies to Europe before spreading across the commodity complex after the invasion of Ukraine, is far from over. It is likely to get worse before it gets better, with grave ramifications for a world economy already riddled with inflation. The key issue is a simple one: there is barely enough oil to go round.” Sheppard continues: “If supply is deeply troubled, that leaves demand to balance the market. But governments have made short-sighted cuts to fuel taxes that support consumption, while people frustrated by two years of Covid-19 disruption have been willing to pay up at the pump. China is reopening. People are flying again. Demand is going in the wrong direction. All these factors point to rising oil prices until a level is reached that reduces consumption, probably by triggering an economic slowdown large enough to curtail demand. In other words, a recession for many economies.” He concludes: “Policymakers could encourage conservation, from lowering speed limits to reinstating taxes. But the evidence to date suggests they are happier stumbling into disaster than upsetting motorists. They must hope that when oil gets cheaper again, voters will still have a job to drive to.”

An editorial in the Sun “implor[es]” Sunak to “ditch[] green levies on energy bills” and to “slash[] VAT on fuel”. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Conservative peer Lord David Frost sets out the “three steps Boris [Johnson] must take to save himself”. These steps include: “Start fracking, be clear that North Sea gas is fundamental for the future, and take VAT off energy bills”, as well as “an energy strategy that reduces carbon emissions but prioritises security of supply”. In another Daily Telegraph comment, chief city commentator Ben Marlow writes under the headline: “Rishi Sunak’s fuel taxes are strangling Britain’s arteries.” He says: “Rishi Sunak needs to end the dilly-dallying and act now by reining in fuel taxes properly to avoid tipping Britain into recession much sooner.”

Elsewhere, Joss Garman, UK director of the European Climate Foundation (ECF) – which funds Carbon Brief – writes on his blog that the cost of living crisis “could spur net-zero, not derail it”. He points to analysis – including from Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans, see above – showing how much money drivers of electric vehicles can save, relative to filling up on petrol, as well as similar figures relating to the lower costs of renewable electricity. Garman concludes: “Net-zero won’t solve the cost of living crisis on its own, but it sure can help. The build out of cheap British wind and solar farms is already saving the country money through avoided gas costs…We should learn lessons from the failure of the 2008 global financial crisis when George Osborne and David Cameron felt it necessary to “cut the green crap” to save money – and ended up costing everyone billions instead. Only by cutting out gas and oil from driving, heating and power generation will we avoid the same traps…Now is the time for more imaginative policy-making that can meet their expectation of addressing the cost of living and climate change at the same time.”

In another comment for the Financial Times, European economics commentator Martin Sandbu argues that it “remains essential” to end energy imports from Russia. He writes: “I do not accept that a European oil or gas boycott will mostly hurt Europeans while making only a negligible difference to Moscow. In any case, there is another reason for a speedy boycott: you don’t want to be at Putin’s mercy for your energy needs. If it is painful to wean yourself off Russian imports now, it would be much more painful to remain dependent and suddenly find yourself cut off at a time of Putin’s choosing.”

Bloomberg opinion columnist David Fickling says that “it’s time to start dismantling” biofuel blending mandates before they do “any more harm”. He writes: “The global trade in the cheapest foods is grinding to a halt. In April, Indonesia temporarily banned exports of palm oil, cutting off India from one of its biggest sources of imported nutrition. India, in its turn last month, set a ceiling on exports of sugar, helping to keep more calories in the domestic market. Sugar is now hovering around its highest price in five years, while palm oil and soybean oil are at record levels. Surprisingly enough, a single factor connects all of these disparate events: biofuels.” While replacing petrol and diesel with plant-derived alternatives “seemed like the best way of tackling emissions from road transport” two decades ago, Fickling argues that “a technological revolution has overturned what we thought we knew about energy-efficient vehicles – but the blending mandates that guarantee a rising share of bioenergy in the world’s fuel pumps have stayed in place, and even been enhanced”. He cites various examples, including “ethanol derived mostly from corn compris[ing] more than 10% of all gasoline sold” in the US; India blending 7.5%, largely from sugarcane; Indonesia and Brazil requiring mixes of 30% and 27%, respectively; and the European Union requiring a 10% blending mandate across the bloc. This is “leading to a situation where the world’s farmland is increasingly being given over to producing road fuel”, Fickling says, noting that “roughly two-fifths of America’s corn and soybean crops now end up burned in engines”. Nonetheless, “the world will continue to need biofuels for the foreseeable future. In heavy trucking and aviation, where there’s still little prospect for electrification” as “it may be the only alternative we have to traditional fossil fuels”. Yet, Fickling concludes, “making the most use of limited farmland, while minimising the pressure it puts on the cost of food for the world’s poorest, will require us to dismantle the mandates that have made bioenergy central to fuelling passenger cars across the world. That change is going to attract howls of opposition from those who’ve done well from the biofuel boom. Taking them on can’t happen soon enough”.

Die Zeit carries an opinion piece by Mohamed Adow – director of Power Shift Africa, a Nairobi-based thinktank – in which he criticises Germany and Italy for their plans to extend fossil fuel production in African countries. He says “it is unfair and unacceptable that Germany and Italy are urging African countries to channel their limited financial reserves into building fossil fuel extraction and export industries”. Adow also notes that Africans have been pushing rich countries to move away from fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for years. “In Africa, we are experiencing the climate crisis at the forefront,” he writes.

A new study shows that marine predators consume more at higher temperatures, suggesting that continued ocean warming could have implications for oceanic ecosystems. Researchers measure predation rates and the composition and biomass of invertebrate species at 36 experimental sites along the coasts of the Americas to determine whether latitude or temperature has the stronger effect. They find both higher predation rates and “stronger impacts” on the seafloor communities in warmer, tropical waters than in the cooler waters at higher latitudes. Although the results for temperature- and latitude-dependence are “qualitatively similar”, the researchers’ models show stronger support for the effects of temperature on predator behaviour and benthic ecosystems.