On the eve of the US election, there is widespread coverage on what the result could mean for global action on climate change. The Associated Press says that “what happens on election day will to some degree determine how much more hot and nasty the world’s climate will likely get”. It continues: “The day after the presidential election, the US formally leaves the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change. A year ago, President Donald Trump’s administration notified the United Nations that America is exiting the climate agreement. And because of technicalities in the international pact, 4 November is the earliest a country can withdraw…Former vice president Joe Biden has pledged to put the country immediately back in the Paris agreement, which doesn’t require congressional approval. Experts say three months – from November to the January inauguration – with the US out of the climate pact will not change the world, but four years will. AP speaks to climate scientists including Dr Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief’s climate science contributor, who says: “Losing most of the world’s coral reefs is something that would be hard to avoid if the US remains out of the Paris process…At the margins, we would see a world of more extreme heat waves.” The Washington Post explains how the pivotal election is being viewed by nations most vulnerable to climate change. It interviews Carlos Fuller, the lead negotiator for Alliance of Small Island States, a group of 44 islands and low-lying coastal states around the world that act as a bloc at international climate talks “For us, it could be a matter of survival. The next 10 years for us are crucial. It’s imperative that we take action now.“ It also quotes Pete Ogden, vice president of energy, climate and the environment at the United Nations Foundation, who says no other nation has followed Trump’s lead in pulling out of the Paris Agreement: “The good news is the rest of world stayed in the Paris agreement. It shows the buy-in the agreement has even in face of the Trump administration rejecting it.” CNN speaks to Jonathan Pershing, the former special envoy for climate change at the US Department of State during the second term of the Obama administration, who says: “Every succeeding election becomes more and more urgent because the time is shorter to manage those really grievous damages.”

InsideClimate News zooms in on the crucial race for control of the US Senate. It says that “climate activists are excited by all of the contested Senate races and what they see as the potential return of a Democratic majority, which would provide the first opportunity for significant Congressional action on climate since Barack Obama became president in 2008, accompanied by Democrats controlling both the Senate and the House of Representatives”.

The New York Times looks closely at new polling showing that “climate change has emerged as a major issue for voters this year, both nationally and in crucial battleground states like Arizona and Florida”. It adds: “Over the past few years, pollsters have found evidence that voters are increasingly fired up about the subject. A recent study from Stanford University found that the “issue public” for climate change – those who feel that the issue is extremely important to them personally – had reached an all-time high of 25% this year.” BBC News also looks at whether climate change might affect the vote, speaking to four different voters.

Meanwhile, reporting on the campaign trail, the New York Post says Donald Trump has “signed an executive order to protect fracking while on a plane to the key battleground state of Pennsylvania over the weekend – part of what he called his overall push to ‘save the American dream’”. And in the Guardian, the Australian editor Katharine Murphy argues that a “Joe Biden victory could push [Australian prime minister] Scott Morrison – and the world – on climate change”. She concludes: “If Trump returns to the White House, the prognosis is simple. The planet loses.”

BBC News reports that “the [UK] government is close to giving the green light to a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk” It adds: “The BBC has learned that talks with the Sizewell contractor, EDF, have intensified in recent weeks. This comes after the collapse of projects in Anglesey and Cumbria when Japanese firms Hitachi and Toshiba pulled out. Government officials are insisting that it ‘remains committed to new nuclear’. This commitment to new nuclear may be included as part of a 10-point government plan to be published in early November. That plan is expected ahead of a detailed government white paper in late November which will attempt to set out the course of UK energy policy for decades to come.” BBC News says that the details of how new reactors at Sizewell will be paid for are still “being hammered out”. It continues: “The government is considering taking an ownership stake and consumers may see a small addition to their bills to pay for the project as it is being built, in order to drive down the costs of financing a project that may cost up to £20bn and take about 10 years to build. The bigger the government stake, the smaller the call on consumers to “pay as you go” for the development and construction costs. This funding model has been treated with suspicion before, as opponents say it transfers the risk of delays and budget overruns from the contractor to the consumer and the taxpayer. However, the BBC understands that the fact Sizewell C is a carbon copy of Hinkley – which has seen work on a second reactor there completed 30% more quickly than the first – is thought to have substantially mitigated that risk.“ MailIOnline picks up on the BBC News story.

In other UK news, the Times covers a new report by non-partisan thinktank the Social Market Foundation (SMF) which concludes that “almost a million gas boilers a year will have to be replaced with low-carbon forms of heating to meet the UK’s climate targets but the public is unprepared for the change”. Amy Norman, co-author of the SMF report, also has a comment piece in the Times where she writes: “Voters appear to be strongly in favour of addressing climate change, with many polls showing that public support for action is rising. New Social Market Foundation research, however, suggests that this support is based on a limited understanding of the costs and disruption involved in the net zero agenda. Public goodwill on environmental issues stands on fragile foundations that need to be reinforced with information and leadership, soon…If most people do not fully understand the overall net-zero goal, they certainly are not aware that reaching it will mean some substantial changes in almost all our homes in the coming years: about 24m gas boilers will need to be replaced with something else…Ministers preparing their forthcoming domestic heat strategy should know that they have a big job of public education and old-fashioned leadership on their hands.”

The Guardian covers comments made by Tom Glover, RWE’s UK chief executive, who argues that the UK’s bid to build enough offshore wind farms to power every home in the country by 2030 risks being derailed by outdated regulation which is slowing investment in the electricity grid. He says: “The one thing that is delaying our projects is the onshore connections. It’s getting quite serious. We are getting to the point of concern over whether that 40GW target can be met purely because of the onshore grid. It is only the onshore grid which could stop this happening.”

BBC News has a feature examining: “Could Scotland ever be ‘the Saudi Arabia of renewables’? Kevin Keane, BBC Scotland’s environment correspondent, writes: “The potential for offshore wind far exceeds what Scotland could consume meaning we’re on course to be a net-exporter and putting the nation in the driving seat of this second energy revolution.”

Finally, Justin Rowlatt, BBC News’s chief environment correspondent, has written a feature on why “green tech is at a tipping point where it could take off explosively” and thereby usher an era of “cheap power”. He adds: “Contrary to what we are normally told, switching to low-carbon energy doesn’t have to be an onerous obligation that will impoverish us and make life less exciting. Instead, it could open up a world of new opportunities, new businesses and livelihoods. And what’s more, this could all happen quite soon.”

Reuters covers the remarks made by Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), who says the recent net-zero pledges by China, Japan and South Korea are an “extremely important” signs of leadership in reviving global efforts to tackle climate change. In an interview with Reuters, Espinosa says: “These signals of very strong commitments by countries that are very important, and that have a real impact on the level of emissions globally, are extremely important. And it’s also very important to recognise that they are coming at a time when we need this kind of leadership.”

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that J-Power, Japan’s biggest coal-fired power generator, has announced plans to shutdown its “old and low-efficiency” coal-fired power plants by 2030. Reuters adds: “[J-Power] may consider developing replacement plants using advanced technology such as gasification…The company has a total of 8.4 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity in seven locations, along with other energy sources such as hydroelectric and solar power stations. A government panel is deliberating on what constitutes an inefficient coal-fired plant, but [J-Power] said it could encompass about 40% of J-Power’s coal-fired power capacity.” (See Carbon Brief’s in-depth profile of Japan.)

In contrast, Climate Home News says “Australian prime minister Scott Morrison has become isolated in his defence of coal and refusal to step up climate ambition, as key Asian trading partners change course”. It adds: “At home, every Australian state and territory has set a 2050 net-zero target and public opinion is swinging in favour of a national target to match. Polling by the Australian Institute released on Tuesday found 68% of Australians believe the federal government should set a net zero emissions target by 2050. Among Morrison’s base, 59% of respondents identifying as centre-right politically supported the goal.” The Guardian covers analysis by consultancy Deloitte Access Economics showing that “Australia’s economy will be 6% smaller, there will be 880,000 fewer jobs and $3.4tn in economic opportunities will be lost if the climate crisis goes unchecked for the next 50 years”.

Meanwhile, the Guardian has interviewed Russia’s energy minister Alexander Novak who says his country has no plans to rein in its production of fossil fuels in the coming decades despite the global efforts to shift towards low-carbon energy. Novak told the Guardian that Russia did “not see that we will achieve a peak in [gas] production anytime soon” because the world’s appetite for gas would continue to grow in the decades ahead despite its growing number of climate targets.

Finally, the Guardian reports that “ExxonMobil has warned it may write down the value of its US shale assets by up to $30bn (£23.2bn) following a steep drop in global energy prices that has led to the oil giant’s third consecutive quarterly loss”. It adds: “The US oil and gas producer told investors it plans to reassess its North America gas business over the coming months, which could lead to impairment charges as high as $25bn to $30bn if it changes its long-term strategy.”

There is widespread coverage of Typhoon Goni which has, BBC News reports, killed at least 10 people as it sweeps across the Philippines: “Goni made landfall as a super typhoon at Catanduanes island on Sunday at 04:50 local time packing winds of 225km/h (140mph). It has since weakened, but is still wreaking damage across the main Luzon island, home to the capital Manila…Mark Timbal of the Philippines’ national disaster agency said that 19 million people may have been affected by the path of Goni…Goni – known as Rolly in the Philippines – is the most powerful storm to hit the country since Typhoon Haiyan killed more than 6,000 people in 2013.” Reuters describes the typhoon as “the world’s strongest storm this year”, adding: “Storm surges hit some coastal towns, while rivers overflowed and dikes were destroyed, submerging several villages in Bicol. The dead and missing were all in Bicol, including nine in Albay, the Office of Civil Defence said.” The New York Times says: “A typhoon spared the Philippine capital. Will Manila be so lucky next time? With climate change heightening the Philippines’ risk of natural disaster, the country is braced for the next catastrophe.”

Writing in the Independent, Ed Miliband, the UK’s shadow business secretary and former energy and climate minister under Gordon Brown, looks ahead one year to the start of COP26 in Glasgow: “We should be under no illusions: whatever the outcome of the US election, we have a massive task ahead to make Glasgow a success. The UK government will need to strain every political, strategic and diplomatic sinew as the hosts of the COP26 summit.” He adds: “The government also needs to acknowledge that it is way off track from meeting the climate targets it has set. It needs to match its rhetoric with a proper plan for what our future energy system looks like, how it will decarbonise the way we heat our homes, a plan for our transport system including committing to phasing out new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and show how land use and agriculture can play a central role in tackling the climate crisis. A coherent plan also needs a ban on UK government financing of fossil fuel projects overseas and mandatory climate-rejected financial reporting for UK-listed companies…We should all be asking Boris Johnson now to insist that world leaders come to the summit, either in person or, if necessary, virtually, depending on Covid – so that they know their reputation is on the line.”

An editorial in the Observer’s business section says that “with demand and share prices dropping, Europe’s fossil fuel producers recognise that peak oil is probably now behind them”. It continues: “Energy economists claim with increasing certainty that the world may never require as much oil as it did last year. [See Carbon Brief’s recent analysis of BP’s latest data showing that global oil demand might already have peaked.] Even as economies slowly emerge from the financial fallout of the pandemic, the shift towards cleaner energy has gained pace. A sharp plunge in fossil fuel use will be followed in quick succession by a renewable energy revolution, which will occur at unprecedented pace. The tipping point for oil demand may have come and gone, and major oil companies are taking note…US oil companies have also been left bloodied and bruised by Covid-19, but have yet to publicly throw in the towel on rising oil production. It’s the same story with many of the ‘petronations’ in the Middle East and Africa, which rely on exports from state-owned oil companies to fuel their economies. An ideological acceptance of the death of growing oil demand is not strictly necessary, though. The oil industry has always deferred to global market forces, and the dynamics will tip in favour of declining oil production too…The beginning of the end of global oil production is a critical milestone on the road towards a sustainable planet, but the signs marking this juncture may already be in the rearview mirror.”

Analyses of future climate change should continue to use a “broad range of emission scenarios”, a new perspective paper argues. Over the last three decades, CO2 emissions have “tracked the middle of projected emission scenario ranges”, the authors say. If this tendency continues, “it seems increasingly less likely that future emissions will follow current high-emission scenarios”, they say. However, the authors also note, that “in the past, periods of slow and fast global emissions growth was observed, which have led to previous critiques of scenarios being too low or too high”.