The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned that the world is heading for “climate catastrophe” as its latest report shows how far off track nations are on cutting greenhouse gases, the Press Association reports. This year’s UNEP “emissions gap” report reveals a “huge gap between the action needed to limit global temperature rises to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and what countries are doing and have pledged to do”, the newswire says, adding: “Current climate policies put the world on track for warming of 2.8C and plans countries have set out for action in the next decade would lead to long-term temperature rises of 2.4-2.6C.” Despite a high-profile promise to boost ambitions at last year’s COP26 climate summit, the report shows that “nations have shaved just 1% off their projected greenhouse gas emissions for 2030”, the Washington Post reports. With reductions of 45% “needed to keep 1.5C in play”, says BBC News, the report warns that there is currently “no credible pathway” to keep the rise in global temperatures below the key threshold. The outlet reports the comments of Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP, who said: “We had our chance to make incremental changes, but that time is over…Only a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies can save us from accelerating climate disaster.” The UN “acknowledges that achieving massive cuts in emissions is now a tall order”, says the outlet, but “it points to electricity, industry, transport and buildings as areas where rapid transformations away from fossil fuels can be made”.

Axios says there is “a faint silver lining” to the report in that “the upper range of projected warming has declined over time. A decade ago, it was as high as 4C (7.2F)”. The upper range has come down “because of the rapid deployment of renewable energy technologies, advances in climate science and other factors”, it says. However, the report finds that many Group of 20 nations – which includes the US, China, India and Russia – will not meet the climate goals they have set, says the Hill. The report says: “Collectively, the G20 members are not on track to achieve their new or updated NDCs [nationally determined contributions]. Based on current policies scenario projections in independent studies, there is an implementation gap, defined as the difference between projected emissions under current policies and projected emissions under full implementation of the NDCs.“ UN secretary general António Guterres warned that “emissions remain at dangerous and record highs and are still rising. We must close the emissions gap before climate catastrophe closes in on us all”, reports the Guardian. New Scientist, Reuters and the Financial Times also cover the report, while the Guardian looks at how “a slew of major reports [have] laid bare how close the planet is to catastrophe”. Carbon Brief has all the details.

Meanwhile, Reuters covers an annual report from the UN World Meteorological Organization that greenhouse gas concentrations climbed at above-average rates to new records last year. The newswire says: “Concentrations of the main greenhouse gas CO2 rose by 2.5 parts per million to 415.7 – a level not seen since at least 3m years ago when the Earth was much warmer. The jump in the potent, heat-trapping gas methane was the highest since records began in 1983.”

The UK’s latest prime minster, Rishi Sunak, will not attend the COP27 climate summit in Egypt next month, reports BBC News. A Downing Street spokesperson said Sunak would not be going “due to other pressing domestic commitments including preparations for the autumn Budget” and that the UK would be represented by outgoing COP president Alok Sharma and other ministers, the outlet reports. It notes that Sunak’s predecessor Liz Truss had been due to attend the conference. The spokesperson said that the government remained “committed to net-zero and to leading international and domestic action to tackle climate change”, reports the Guardian. They added: “The UK is forging ahead of many other countries on net-zero. We will obviously continue to work closely with Egypt as the hosts of COP27 and to make sure that all countries are making progress on the historic commitments they made at the Glasgow climate pact.” Labour’s shadow secretary of state for climate change and net-zero Ed Miliband described the decision as “big mistake”, reports Reuters. “It’s not leadership. It is abdicating leadership not to go,” Ed Miliband said, adding that it was right to “go hard and fast on clean energy” for the UK’s climate commitments, energy security and jobs. The Financial Times reports the comments of Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK, who said the decision suggested “that the new prime minister neither takes the climate crisis seriously enough, nor recognise[d] the opportunities for Britain to take a leadership role in helping to solve it”. The Press Association, Independent, Le Monde, Politico, Hill, BusinessGreen and CNN all have the story.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that a government minister has insisted that “there is no ban” on King Charles III attending COP27. Replying to a question in the House of Lords on who would be representing the UK at the summit, Baroness Neville-Rolfe said that the King’s presence is “a matter for the palace”, adding: “His Majesty is globally recognised, I think, for his foresight and leadership on climate and sustainability over five decades, well before these issues became mainstream…But the government does not comment on communications and advice between our prime minister and the monarch.” According to Neville-Rolfe, foreign secretary James Cleverley and other ministers will be attending, the newswire reports.

Separately, as the government reshuffle continues, BusinessGreen reports that climate minister Graham Stuart has confirmed he has been reappointed by the new prime minister and will continue in his role. However, the outlet adds, “unlike his predecessor in the role, Stuart will not attend cabinet, Number 10 has reportedly said. With COP26 President Alok Sharma having also been demoted from cabinet this week, it means there won’t be a figure with a specific climate brief attending weekly government meetings chaired by the prime minister”. And DeSmog reports that Sunak has put a “long-time climate contrarian” David TC Davies MP “in charge of the government’s Wales policy, upgrading him from the junior ministerial role he was given three years ago by Boris Johnson”.

Finally, the Guardian reports that “a cross-party group of MPs has joined calls for a climate sceptic thinktank to be stripped of its charitable status”. It adds: “The complaint, which is also being supported by the Good Law Project, claims the Global Warming Policy Foundation does not meet its aims as a charity and is in fact a lobbying organisation.”

The UK’s windfall tax on energy companies is “likely to be extended next month”, reports the Times. It continues: “Rishi Sunak acknowledged that the levy had not deterred investment as critics had feared and Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, is considering three options to raise billions more from energy giants: raising the windfall tax rate, imposing it for longer and extending it to electricity companies.” Government sources tell the paper that it is highly likely that energy companies will be forced to make “a contribution” towards plugging a black hole in the public finances. They say that “no options are off the table given the economic circumstances”, adding that the levy is predicted to raise £7bn this year and £10bn next year. The Daily Telegraph – which puts the “windfall tax grab” story on its frontpage – says that “the chancellor is “looking to include renewable energy generators such as wind farms in the remit of the tax”, noting that “this could replace the price cap on wind farms introduced by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, earlier this month”. The Press Association and Sun also have the story. The Guardian reports on analysis by environmental thinktank Green Alliance that suggests a Norway-style windfall tax of 78% on energy company profits could raise an additional £33.3bn by 2027, plugging a hole in government finances and helping keep energy bills low. In the US, Bloomberg reports that US president Joe Biden has called on oil companies to “bring down the cost of a gallon of gas that reflects the cost they’re paying for a barrel of oil”.

The news on the windfall tax comes as estimates, reported in the Guardian, suggest that profits at the world’s biggest oil companies have soared to nearly £150bn so far this year as Russia’s war on Ukraine pushes up energy prices. The paper continues: “Britain’s Shell and France’s TotalEnergies on Thursday reported profits for the first nine months of 2022 of $59bn (£51bn). US rivals Chevron and ExxonMobil are expected to report year-to-date earnings approaching $70bn on Friday, while 2022 profits at Britain’s BP could break the $20bn mark on Tuesday. The cumulative profits for the seven biggest private sector oil drillers during the first nine months of 2022 could hit $173bn, according to analyst forecasts collated by S&P Global Market Intelligence and reported earnings.”

Shell’s profit announcement is widely covered, with the Press Association reporting that Shell’s “adjusted earnings more than doubled to $9.5bn (£8.2bn) in the three months to the end of September when compared with the year before”. The newswire notes that these profits are “down” compared with the company’s second quarter, when it made $11.5bn (£9.9bn). Nonetheless, it is the company’s second-highest profit on record, says Bloomberg. The New York Times says that “Shell is returning a large chunk of this bounty to shareholders”, adding: “The company said that it planned to increase its dividend to shareholders for the fourth quarter by 15%.” The Times, Reuters and Le Monde also have the story.

Despite the profits, Shell did not pay the UK windfall tax in the third quarter “because it was making big investments in North Sea fields”, says Bloomberg. It explains: “The fact that Shell wasn’t liable for the levy, which was designed to allow companies to reduce their payments if they invest in new production, nevertheless threatens to amplify the controversy about record oil-company earnings at a time when most people are struggling with soaring energy bills. There are growing calls for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who imposed the windfall tax in May when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to hit the sector with additional levies as he tries to fill a £35bn hole in the country’s finances.” The Guardian quotes Labour’s Ed Miliband, who called for the windfall tax to be strengthened and criticised “ludicrous tax breaks” for oil companies. He said: “The fact that Shell recorded the second highest quarterly profits in the company’s history is further proof that we need a proper windfall tax to make the energy companies pay their fair share.“ The Financial Times says Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden “signalled” that the company “was ready to pay higher taxes”. Van Beurden said it was a “societal reality” that governments would be looking to companies such as Shell, which have benefited from soaring oil and gas prices, to help offset energy costs for struggling consumers, the FT reports. He said: “We should be prepared and accept that also our industry will be looked at for raising taxes in order to fund the transfers to those who need it most in these very difficult times…We have to embrace it.” BBC News also has the story.

The European Union struck a deal yesterday on a law to effectively ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, aiming to speed up the switch to electric vehicles and combat climate change, reports Reuters. It explains: “Negotiators from the EU countries and the European Parliament, who must both approve new EU laws, as well as the European Commission, which drafts new laws, agreed that carmakers must achieve a 100% cut in CO2 emissions by 2035, which would make it impossible to sell new fossil fuel-powered vehicles in the 27-country bloc. The deal also included a 55% cut in CO2 emissions for new cars sold from 2030 versus 2021 levels, much higher than the existing target of a 37.5% reduction by then.” After four hours of negotiations, the EU Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans said the agreement “sends a strong signal to industry and consumers: Europe is embracing the shift to zero-emission mobility”, reports Politico. The outlet says that “in confirming the engine ban, Brussels has swerved senior German politicians, automaker captains and parts of its once all-powerful car industry that had fiercely lobbied against betting solely on battery-electric vehicles as part of efforts to tackle transport emissions”.

A climate fund has agreed to work with Indonesia to retire up to 2GW of coal-fired power over the next 5-10 years, under a pilot scheme to shift the country from coal to clean energy, reports Climate Home News. The Climate Investment Funds’ (CIF) governing board has “approved Indonesia’s investment plan for how it will spend $500m in concessional funding designed to unlock public and private investments to rid the economy of coal”, the outlet explains: “The CIF estimates the money will leverage $2.2bn in funding from multilateral development banks and over $1.3bn in private co-financing.” Under the plan, the proposed retirement and repurposing of coal plants would help avoid 50m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from 2029, the outlet says. Indonesia’s finance minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati said: “As a country, we are strongly committed to transition away from coal to cleaner forms of energy.” The announcement of the funding package could be made during the G20 leaders’ meeting in Bali, which takes place on the second week of the COP27 climate talks next month, the outlet says. Meanwhile, Reuters reports that South Africa will also be able to access $500m “in cheaper, risk-bearing capital from CIF’s Accelerating Coal Transition (CIF ACT) investment programme”. And Politico reports that “the G7 and its partners have made multi-billion dollar offers to wean Vietnam, Indonesia and India off coal – but it has yet to convince emerging economies to drop the dirtiest fossil fuel”.

In a “scoop”, Axios reports that US special climate envoy John Kerry is “actively considering leaving the Biden administration after next month’s COP27 summit”. Citing “people familiar with the matter”, the outlet says Kerry is “soliciting advice from friends and colleagues on how to stay involved in climate efforts from the private sector”. Kerry is “motivated to leave for several reasons”, the article says, including not relishing “being hauled before his former colleagues in a potentially Republican-controlled Senate or House to defend his approach to lowering carbon emissions”. Nonetheless, “Kerry hasn’t made a final decision and could decide to remain in his role”, the outlet says, and Kerry’s spokesperson Whitney Smith said: “I can’t stress enough: Secretary Kerry has no plans to depart, and his sole focus is COP27, period, and anything else is baseless speculation.”

China’s state-run Global Times writes that, with COP27 drawing closer, the nation’s “hard-earned achievements over the years on cutting emissions” are being seen as a “demonstration” of the country’s “efforts of fulfilling commitment of its pledge and a rebuttal of outside critics of such endeavour”. Experts believe when the annual climate summit is in sight, the west should “show their sincerity” of solving global warming by “fulfilling the promises of handing over lesser rich countries the financial commitment, instead of hijacking emerging economies to set aggressive targets, which will only disrupt friendly atmosphere for cooperation”, the newspaper adds. Additionally, a comment piece in the Global Times writes: “It is the US side that has ruined the atmosphere for cooperation between the two countries. Even so, China is only ‘suspending,’ not ‘canceling’ the talks, and the key to resuming them is in the hands of the Americans.”

Climate Home News writes that China “reaffirmed its commitment” to its climate goals at last week’s party congress and is “likely to over-achieve its renewable targets” in Xi Jinping’s third term in power, citing the views of experts, who add that “an undecided growth model, emphasis on energy security and rising geopolitical tensions are expected to pose challenges to its decarbonisation process”. Kevin Mo, the principal of Beijing-based green consultancy iGDP, is quoted saying: “While none of the instructions [in the congress’ report] were new, their incorporation into the report brought a new level of significance to China’s climate agenda and was ‘a very important’ step in the nation’s political system.”

In other news, the “China-backed” Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has “warned governments against building new fossil fuel power stations out of panic” during the current global “energy crisis”, saying “such moves could result in decades of environmental harm”, reports Reuters. China Dialogue writes that the G20 group of nations provided “nearly US$200bn in support of fossil fuels in 2021, despite the worsening impacts of the climate crisis and their pledge in 2009 to phase out ‘inefficient’ subsidies”. Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics, is quoted saying: “There are signs behind the scenes of progress being made. I would hope the countries like India and China would join what I’m hoping is an emerging consensus on how to set up a loss and damage mechanism.” The South China Morning Post carries on opinion piece by Ruqiya Anwar, titled: “How China is climate-proofing the belt and road, starting with Pakistan.“ Finally, the Global Times writes that China will “further strengthen cooperation” with Pacific island countries (PICs) in tackling climate change, as China considers PICs to be “one of top priorities in climate issues cooperation”, citing the Ministry of Ecology and Environment.

In an “exclusive”, the Guardian reports that “100 universities in the UK have now pledged to divest from fossil fuels”. Yesterday, Coventry University became the 100th university announce its divestment, the paper reports, with plans to shed all fossil fuel companies from its £43.6m investment portfolio. The total “equates to 65% of the country’s higher education sector refusing to make at least some investments in fossil fuel companies, and endowments worth more than £17.6bn now out of reach for the corporations”, the paper says, adding: “This huge sum is mostly owing to the significant investment portfolios of the University of Edinburgh, as well as the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and their constituent colleges, all of which have at least partially divested.”

It is “ludicrous” that the “cash machines are whirring at oil giants” when “voters are trapped between a cost of living crisis and a looming climate disaster”, says a Guardian editorial. Despite making record profits, “Shell has not paid any windfall taxes”, the paper notes: “This farcical situation has come about because of the economics of the madhouse. In 2021, the UK offered the best profit conditions to develop offshore oil and gas fields. This made a mockery of claims that the country was leading a green revolution to reduce its carbon footprint. Big profits in fossil fuel companies when energy bills were rising made this situation unsustainable, and the government was forced to impose a ‘temporary targeted energy profits levy’. But it was riddled with get-out clauses.” Tackling climate change “requires a fight for social and economic justice”, the paper says, and “tax is a weapon in this battle”. Raising UK levels of taxation to the global average for oil and gas companies would be “a small price to pay for firms that are frying the planet”, the paper says, “and it is the first step needed if Britain is serious about the Paris climate agreement to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels”.

Writing in the Guardian, former BP executive Nick Butler says “additional taxation is justified”, adding: “In the circumstances we need not just a price cap but a profits cap – a limit on the rate of return companies can make. When profits exceed that limit, any surplus should go back to the consumer or the taxpayer.” The Financial Times Lex column says “high oil and gas prices mean big producers gush with cash”, but “companies are not investing much of it back into their business, traditional or renewable”. This “speaks to the tight spot they find themselves in – and does not bode well for the energy transition”, it says. With oil majors “underspending on renewables” and the “International Energy Agency warning on peaking or plateauing oil and gas demand”, expect “oil majors to hoover up much bigger green energy companies instead”. The i newspaper‘s chief political commentator Paul Waugh says that Shell’s “enormous profits” while “it paid zero in the ersatz ‘windfall tax’” is one of several recent developments that “underlined that climate change is a problem that Rishi Sunak simply cannot afford to ignore”. Waugh adds: “Some green groups think Sunak does now ‘get it’ on climate. I’m told an encouraging sign is that he has given his blessing to the continued work of the independent review of Government net-zero policy, set up by Truss and led by former science minister Chris Skidmore.”

In other UK comment, there is continued reaction to Rishi Sunak’s decision to keep the moratorium on fracking. An editorial in the Sun – which has lobbied repeatedly this year for fracking – describes the move as “an own goal”. It says: “Without new nuclear power plants, and with Europe starved of Russian gas, we will need extra supplies for years on the journey to net-zero…Sunak should think hard about incentivising communities to welcome fracking sites, such as with half-price energy or even free gas. He should not shut off a possible game-changer for our energy supply and security.” In the Daily Telegraph, world economy editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that “Sunak is right to put an end to that romantic legacy of the culture wars”. While “one can only admire the wildcat shale frackers” of the US, who have “slashed CO2 emissions by displacing coal”, “Lancashire is not west Texas”, says Evans-Pritchard: “The rule of thumb for fracking in the UK is that extraction costs are twice as high. Breakneck advances in green technology are in any case changing the energy price hierarchy beyond recognition. The time for fracking in Britain’s Bowland shale field has come and gone. The industry will be rendered uncompetitive before it ever produces gas at scale. It is probably uninvestable as a pure market proposition.” Finally, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas says “thank you” to Sunak – words, she says, “I never thought I’d say” – in a piece for the Independent on the confirmation by the new prime minister that he would maintain the moratorium on fracking.

Finally, Chris Giles – economics editor for the Financial Times – writes that “the end of Europe’s energy crisis is in sight”. He explains: “It is true that the prevailing view in the energy sector is that though there might now be enough gas this winter to avoid shortages and blackouts, the real worry is next winter because gas storage will not be replenished in the summer without Russian supply. It is not often I am able to deliver good news, but these forecasts are also likely to be much too pessimistic. The price signal will encourage more investment in liquefied natural gas terminals and in interconnectors across Europe to create a single gas market. But most important, higher prices will lower demand for gas, both by encouraging the development and use of other means of generating electricity and, directly, by crushing the amount consumed.” Axios also has a piece on how “Europe’s risk of winter energy nightmare recedes for now”.

With the run-off vote coming this Sunday in the Brazilian elections, an editorial in the Guardian warns that the “tight contest…will not only set the course for this extraordinarily polarised country, but also have a powerful impact on the future of the world”. It says: “Hopes that the far-right incumbent, Jair Bolsonaro, would be decisively rejected in the first round were dashed when he fared far better than expected, with 43% of votes, and his challenger, the former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, fell just short of an outright majority with 48%. Eleventh-hour handouts to the poorest and lavish quantities of disinformation have aided Mr Bolsonaro’s recovery.” A second presidential term “would be bad news not just for Brazilians but also the rest of us”, the paper says, noting that “more than 2bn trees have been felled [in the Amazon] during Mr Bolsonaro’s term in office”. The paper quotes analysis by Carbon Brief, which suggests that “a victory for Lula could see an 89% cut in rainforest loss”.

A new study finds that summertime methane emissions from the Lena River Delta in Siberia have been increasing since 2004 as temperatures have risen. Using atmospheric temperature and methane flux data from a permafrost site in northern Siberia, researchers analyse changes in air temperature and methane emissions over a 16-year period. They find that over this period, June temperatures have risen by an average of 0.3C per year and methane emissions have increased by nearly 2% per year for the months of June and July. The authors conclude that “atmospheric warming has begun to considerably affect the methane flux dynamics of permafrost-affected ecosystems in the Arctic”.