The EU’s nature restoration laws, which were due to be rubber-stamped in a vote by member states on Monday, now “appear on the verge of collapse”, the Guardian reports. According to the newspaper, the laws “have been two years in the making and are designed to reverse decades of damage to wildlife on land and in waterways”. However, it says the vote was shelved after it “became apparent the legislation would not pass its final stage with the majority required”. The paper continues: “The European environment commissioner warned that shelving the bill indefinitely would destroy the EU’s reputation globally given it had led the way at the COP15 biodiversity summit in Montreal in 2022…The setback is the latest and arguably biggest blow to the EU’s environmental agenda in recent months, as policymakers decide how to respond to farmers’ protests across the bloc. As the demonstrations continue – in advance of the June [European Parliament] elections – many green rules have been weakened.” The Associated Press says: “Under the complicated voting rules, a qualified majority representing 15 of the 27 member states and 65% of the population was needed. It was thought that threshold was safe, until Monday.” However, it reports that Hungary, which had previously supported the laws, changed its vote at short notice. Under the laws, “member states would have to meet restoration targets for specific habitats and species, to cover at least 20% of the region’s land and sea areas by 2030”, the newswire notes. Reuters quotes Hungary’s state secretary for environment Aniko Raisz, who said Hungary’s concerns included the costs. It adds: “The law would be among the EU’s biggest environmental policies, requiring countries to introduce measures restoring nature on a fifth of their land and sea by 2030. Cancelling a policy at this late stage of EU lawmaking is highly unusual.”

Separately, Reuters reports that “a group of EU countries led by Austria is calling for urgent revisions to the bloc’s anti-deforestation law set to go into effect at the end of the year, saying it could hurt European farmers”. The newswire continues: “The EU law aims to root deforestation out of supply chains for beef, soy and other agricultural products sold in Europe, so that European consumers are not contributing to the destruction of global forests from the Amazon to Southeast Asia. Those rules equally apply to European farmers, who will be banned from exporting products cultivated on deforested or degraded woodlands.” It reports a document “reviewed by Reuters” and signed by Austria, Finland, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden says “the agreed overall objective of tackling deforestation in third countries must not be to the detriment of the European economy, in particular the European agriculture and forestry sector”. In related news, BusinessGreen reports: “The UK government has rejected widespread calls to ban imports of products linked to legally-permitted deforestation abroad, despite a similar ban on imports of commodities linked to all forms of deforestation – both legal and illegal – being set to come into force across the EU from next year.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that the US and EU are “at odds” over ending subsidies for oil and gas development. The newspaper continues: “OECD countries have held a second round of closed-door talks in Paris to debate proposals by the EU and UK to cut off most export credit agency loans and guarantees for oil, gas and coal mining projects, which are the biggest source of public finance for the sector. This would follow an agreement in 2021 to stop providing such support for coal-fired power…But this could affect the role of Exim, the US’s credit export agency, which will need to secure fresh funding from the US Congress in 2026, opening it to political scrutiny from Republican lawmakers who are resistant to cutting off finance for oil and gas, and progressive lawmakers critical of the bank’s climate record.” Finally, Politico reports that “the EU’s top climate diplomat” along with his counterparts from Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands, will travel to Beijing next month to meet the new Chinese climate envoy.

The US energy department will partially fund 33 different projects in 20 states to test methods for reducing emissions from factories and industrial plants, the New York Times reports. According to the paper, energy secretary Jennifer Granholm called the $6bn funding “the single largest industrial decarbonisation investment in American history”. It adds: “The money for the projects in Monday’s announcement comes from the Energy Department’s industrial demonstrations program, which was funded by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.” The Guardian reports that “the industrial sector is responsible for roughly 25% of all the nation’s emissions, and has proven difficult to decarbonise due to its energy-intense, large-scale operations”. The Associated Press adds: “White House climate adviser Ali Zaidi said this funding aims to eliminate 14m tonnes of [carbon dioxide] pollution each year, equivalent to taking about 3m cars off the road.” The Washington Post outlines some projects that will be funded. Aluminium maker Constellium will receive up to $75m for a “first-of-its-kind zero-carbon aluminium casting plant”, it says. It continues: “Heidelberg Materials will get up to $500m to capture and store carbon dioxide from one of the country’s largest cement plants. The project is expected to prevent 2m tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere each year…Kraft Heinz plans to cut carbon emissions from its mac and cheese factory by installing clean technologies such as heat pumps. (Overall, Kraft Heinz will receive up to $170.9m to decarbonise 10 facilities across the country.)”  The Hill adds: “Exxon’s project is expected to use hydrogen instead of gas to power the production of plastic, textiles and rubbers; Dow is expected to capture emissions of carbon dioxide and reuse the greenhouse gas to produce components for electric vehicle batteries; and Unilever is expected to replace gas boilers with electric ones and heat pumps at four ice cream manufacturing facilities.” The Financial Times reports that Swedish steelmaker SSAB will receive $500m for a commercial-scale steel plant using hydrogen instead of coking coal in Mississippi. It adds: “Of the five largest awards in the portfolio, each worth up to $500m, three will go to operations with parent companies headquartered in Europe. The companies will match the US government investment, in a cost share.” Bloomberg, Axios and Reuters also cover the news.

In other US news, the Financial Times reports that “US claims to a swath of mineral-rich seabed are being challenged by China and Russia because Washington has failed to ratify a treaty that governs access to resources in international waters.” Politico reports that US NGO the Environmental Defense Fund will begin layoffs this week. And the New Scientist covers new research which finds that “exposure to rising levels of wildfire smoke could lead to more than 10,000 additional deaths each year in the US by 2050”. 

The UK’s opposition Labour leader Keir Starmer has pledged to increase investment in floating offshore windfarms if Labour is elected, the Financial Times reports. The paper continues: “The Labour leader said floating offshore wind – an early stage technology with only small-scale projects in operation so far – would be among the measures supported by GB Energy, a state-owned firm with an initial £8.3bn budget that would be established if his party won the general election. The Labour aim of creating 5GW [gigawatts] of floating offshore wind (Flow) capacity by 2030 is the same as an existing target set by the ruling Conservative government…However, Labour refused to say how much GB Energy would commit to the floating wind farms, saying only that Flow would be the new state-owned company’s ‘first priority’.” Starmer made the announcement on a visit to north Wales with Vaughan Gething, the new Welsh first minister, the paper notes. The Guardian says: “Labour’s plan for state-backed offshore windfarms will be a ‘gamechanger’, Keir Starmer has said, as the party seeks to regain the initiative on green policy after the slow-motion ditching of its £28bn investment pledge.” BBC News adds: “Labour has pledged to decarbonise the UK[‘s electricity supplies] by 2030, while the Conservatives target 2035 for net-zero [electricity] supply.” The broadcaster quotes Starmer saying: “Here in Wales, the potential for offshore wind is enormous, and the UK Tory government is squandering it. With public investment through Great British Energy we can unlock billions more in private investment to turbocharge jobs and growth for Wales.” The Press Association adds: “The Tories have attacked Labour’s plan as ‘unfunded’, though Starmer branded the claims as ‘unpatriotic’.” MailOnline reports that floating offshore wind turbines can reach up to 240m in height – “around the same size as a skyscraper”. However, it says that “building an enormous tower designed to sit in high winds poses some significant engineering issues”, and goes on to outline the details of the six different types of floating wind turbines that have been developed. The i newspaper reports energy executives saying that “the UK floating offshore wind sector risks faltering in the face of a lack of government investment”. The outlet adds: “The latest round of funding allocations for windfarms will mean just one out of three viable floating offshore wind projects will be realised, prompting fears that the UK is in danger of stifling investment in a sector showing significant growth…Labour has accused the government of ‘squandering a golden opportunity’ to push ahead with the floating offshore wind technology, which it warns could push up bills for consumers.”

Elsewhere, the Daily Mail reports oil and gas industry lobby group Offshore Energies UK saying that Labour’s plans could make the UK “uninvestable”. The newspaper notes that Labour plans to increase the windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas from 75% to 78%, and to keep the tax in place until 2029. Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph reports that British energy production has reached a record low as “a plunge in North Sea fossil fuels leaves the country more reliant than ever on imports”. The newspaper adds: “OEUK’s annual business outlook report found the UK is producing energy equivalent to 100m tonnes of oil in the wake of Rishi Sunak’s windfall tax on operators, the lowest level ever recorded and equal to 60% of domestic demand. It added that energy production has fallen by two-thirds since 2000, while demand has dropped by only a third – moving Britain from a net exporter of energy to a significant net importer.” The Guardian reports that campaigners and MPs are questioning the widely repeated claim that North Sea oil and gas supports 200,000 jobs. It says: “[C]ampaigners say the figure, which includes indirect employment and comes from the oil and gas industry, has not been scrutinised by the government. They point out that the most recent Office for National Statistics data suggests 27,600 people are directly employed [in the sector].”

Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph reports that shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband “has insisted he did not consider resigning over Labour’s £28bn green spending U-turn”. According to the newspaper, Miliband supported the decision to scrap the pledge, arguing that “the ‘fiscal inheritance’ from the Tories would make things ‘incredibly difficult’ for an incoming Labour government”. And in other UK news, the Guardian reports that sources close to Tata Steel have said the company “would push ahead with thousands of job losses at its Port Talbot site even with hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies being promised by Labour”. According to the newspaper, Tata says it is losing £1m per day at the site. It adds: “The Indian-owned company is planning to make as many as 2,800 people redundant at the site as it closes its blast furnaces and replaces them with a less polluting electric one, a decision which shadow ministers say could cause decades of economic damage.”

Energy regulator Ofgem is considering setting caps on domestic energy prices based on the time of day, BBC News reports. It continues: “At present, Ofgem fixes the maximum price that can be charged for each unit of energy on a standard – or default – tariff for a typical dual-fuel household which pays by direct debit…But it said habits and the market were changing as increasing numbers of consumers changed the way they consumed energy and began using electric vehicles, heat pumps and solar panels. A new price cap would need to be flexible for tariffs that allowed price differences if appliances switched on when there is lower demand for energy such as in the night, or when there is more supply from renewables such as when the wind blows.” The outlet lists Ofgem’s options for a new system: “Replacing the cap with a ban on acquisition-only tariffs”; “capping the profit margin suppliers are able to make”; “a targeted cap which could be based on a variety of factors such as vulnerability” and “prices that set a limit between a supplier’s default tariff and tariffs available in the market”. The Press Association says: “The introduction of half-hourly settlement from 2025 – when smart meters will record energy consumed every 30 minutes – is expected to lead to a growth in smarter time-of-use tariffs that reward customers for being more flexible in their energy usage, Ofgem said. This would allow consumers to benefit from cheaper energy when renewable generation increases, such as when it is particularly windy or sunny.” The “dynamic” system could bring down bills for 90% of households, the Times adds. Reuters reports that the current cap design on electricity and gas bills has been in place since January 2019 to “make sure people paid a fair price for their energy based on a calculation of factors including wholesale energy prices and network costs”. The Guardian notes that Ofgem launched a consultation on the different options yesterday. The Daily Telegraph reports that “millions of households with smart meters face paying more for their electricity at the busiest times of day under plans by the energy watchdog”, adding that Ofgem’s proposals “come despite the government insisting in 2018 that it was a ‘myth’ anyone would face higher energy bills because of the devices”. The i newspaper also covers the news. An editorial in the Daily Telegraph says: “Ofgem is becoming enmeshed in areas it was never intended to go. It is supposed to act as a defender of consumer interests not a determinant of how the market works. Yet it failed to prevent the collapse of two dozen energy companies and has presided over the return of the Big Six with little competition or innovation. Partly this was due to events over which Ofgem had no control, but it should not be used effectively to renationalise the market.”

In other UK news, BBC News reports that more than 100 tractors have driven past the Parliament to protest over a “lack of support for UK food production”. The outlet adds: “The protest comes as months of heated demonstrations in Europe, including blockades, saw angry farmers in Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland and France demonstrating against European Union regulations and cheap imports. Thousands of farmers also joined forces in Wales to fight new farm subsidy plans launched by its government. There have previously been a handful of demonstrations in England, including in Kent and Cornwall, but Monday’s tractor rally was the largest so far.” The Daily Telegraph says: “What they may not have realised is that in London, traffic crawls along at the speed of a tractor in a country lane, meaning they made little difference to the normal rush hour gridlock. We are also a more law-abiding country than France, so the tractors arrived at 6pm, as dictated by the police, and there was no blockading the roads with hay bales.”

Responding to the news that the UK government has, reports BBC News, “formally accused China of being behind what it called ‘malicious’ cyber campaigns against MPs and the Electoral Commission”, columnist Simon Jenkins writes in the Guardian that “while diplomatic rows are inevitable, the priority is to keep channels open, and engage with Beijing about the climate crisis”. He says it is “malicious and hurtful” for a foreign state to hack into Britain’s Electoral Commission, as the UK claims China did in 2021. However, he adds: “Today the world’s relations with China are in one area crucial. That country is responsible for more than a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and rising. Britain is now actively participating in China’s proposed ‘greening’ of its BRI [belt and road initiative] programme, which is largely about infrastructure. Given that a third of all greenhouse gas emissions are from construction – a fact still ignored by British planning policy – this collaboration with China is central to fighting the climate crisis. It is not about diplomatic posturing. It is about something essential.” He concludes: “A sense of proportion remains the hardest but most necessary quality to maintain in international relations. We are told daily that global heating is the greatest threat now facing the world. Unless that applies only before lunch, then it should surely lie at the centre of all relations with China.” Meanwhile, an editorial in the Daily Telegraph says that “Beijing’s threats must be firmly challenged”. It notes: “China is now one of the world’s leading suppliers of electric vehicles, all fitted with ‘smart’ data-collecting technology. A single compromised device somewhere in the wider network could be used for cyber attacks.” An editorial in the Daily Mail links Labour’s plans to decarbonise electricity supplies to the news about China. It says decarbonised electricity supplies would “reduce the UK’s reliance on foreign energy”, according to Labour leader Kier Starmer, before adding: “But given that affordable solar panels and batteries are made almost exclusively in China, this would leave us dependent on the hostile regime for power. Has he thought this through?” 

Elsewhere, Edward White – China correspondent for the Financial Times – writes that while policymakers from Europe to the US are “fretting over the security and economic risks posed by a fast-rising wave of Chinese electric vehicle imports”, China is concerned with managing the decline in its sales of internal combustion engine vehicles. He writes: “Growth in China’s EV industry, which now accounts for more than 30% of domestic passenger vehicle sales, has masked the staggering decline in sales of non-EVs…The collapse of the legacy car market after decades of growth poses an existential threat to scores of foreign and state-backed carmakers operating in China. But it also presents serious long-term economic and social challenges for the country, according to auto sector analysts, academics and economists.” In related comment, Bloomberg columnist David Fickling calls China’s EV and solar “boom” a “​​success story on a grand scale”. Separately, Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle writes that the best ways to speed up the rollout of electric vehicles are “to invest in research and development for the technologies that will make them the clearly superior choice” and “to build infrastructure, such as charging stations, that will make it easier for consumers to choose EVs”. Finally, David Blackman, who spent 40 years working for the US fossil fuel industry, writes in the Daily Telegraph: “The USA is now producing more oil and gas than any nation ever has. It’s a triumph.” 

The economics editor of the Times, Meehra Khan, comments on a speech by Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ last week. Khan writes that although the press billed the speech as Reeves’ “Thatcher moment”, the content of the speech was “anything but”. She continues: “Labour is embracing the zeitgeist on the ‘strategic state’, which takes an oversized role directing private investment to net-zero climate goals, creating good jobs for the economically disenfranchised and spreading equitable growth across the country.…Reeves stuck to Labour’s reluctance to make concrete policy pledges before the election. That is understandable after the debacle over the now-abandoned pledge of a £28bn climate fund and because the forging of the strategic state, across both sides of the Atlantic, is a nascent, experimental exercise…Reeves did offer more meat on the Bank of England, making a clear promise to reinstate climate change in the Bank’s financial policy mandate and to revive the green credentials that have been quietly dumped by Andrew Bailey, the Bank’s governor.”

In other UK comment, Times environment editor Adam Vaughan notes that the UK Climate Change Committee has not had a permanent chair since June last year. He says that the Welsh climate minister objected to the shortlist, saying “I am extremely disappointed at the lack of diversity in that list, and believe it falls far short of the level required for such an important and high-profile position”. Vaughan continues: “Government figures claim the real reason for the objection is that Welsh Labour wants to postpone the appointment until after the general election, to appoint its preferred candidate…Others who have followed the appointment process closely said it would suit the government not to appoint anyone before the election because ministers fear drawing criticism from right-wing Tory MPs hostile to the net-zero agenda…As if that wasn’t enough, the committee is also recruiting for a new chief executive after its current one, Chris Stark, announced last month that he is stepping down. In the meantime the committee will be led by the interim chairman professor Piers Forster, an esteemed climate scientist who has worked for the UN climate science panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Appointing a new chief executive is something the Climate Change Committee can do itself. For the chair role, which requires the UK’s four nations to sign off, the only route forward now appears to be rerunning the months-long appointment process. At a time when global heat records are being set every month, the absence of a permanent chair at the top of the committee is a crisis of its own.”

Elsewhere, the associate editor of the Daily Telegraph, Ben Marlow, writes that “Britain’s major parties are failing to offer real solutions to the energy crisis”. He criticises Rishi Sunak’s efforts on nuclear energy, noting that eight of the UK’s nine nuclear operational reactors are due to retire in the 2020s and only two new ones are being developed. However, it says “it’s not as if the opposition has come up with any credible alternatives”. He continues: “Keir Starmer’s decision to ditch its flagship green investment plan had already seriously damaged its credibility across the political spectrum. Now experts have poured cold water on Labour’s accelerated net-zero plans, saying they will require a further £100bn of investment [the analysis Marlow refers to found that the government’s own plans to decarbonise electricity supplies by 2035 would cost a similar amount]…Plans for a publicly-owned energy company – given a fresh airing in North Wales – to build floating wind farms are unlikely to help. For a start, these are old proposals given a fresh spin and as critics have pointed out, the £8bn of taxpayer money that has been set aside for this venture, barely scratches the surface of what is needed.” Meanwhile, Reuters’ global energy transition columnist, Gavin Maguire, writes that “a record 60% of Europe’s electricity was powered by clean energy sources in the opening two months of 2024, driven by strong year-on-year growth in hydro, solar and wind generation and a rebound in nuclear power production”.

The poorest and most crowded neighbourhoods of Delhi, India could face the largest increases in dengue fever transmission risks as temperatures increase, new research finds. The research examines how both temperature and human population density, which affects the breeding rate of dengue-carrying mosquitoes, could impact disease transmission in the megacity. Using their data, the researchers produce a highly detailed map of dengue disease risk in Delhi, at a resolution of 250m by 250m. The researchers say: “Results underscore the inequity of risk across a complex urban landscape, whereby individuals in dense poor neighbourhoods face the compounded effect of higher temperatures and mosquito carrying capacity.”

A new literature review examines the merits and limitations of “emergency measures” suggested to save the Earth’s northern pole from worsening climate impacts. The Arctic is one of the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, prompting researchers and engineers to come up with ideas for how it could be shielded from the impacts of climate change, the authors explain. They say: “We found 61 interventions with a high latitude focus, across atmosphere, land, oceans, ice and industry domains. We grade them on a simple three-point evaluation system across 12 different categories. From this initial review we can identify which ideas scored low marks on most categories and are therefore likely not worthwhile pursuing; some groups of interventions, like traditional land-based mitigation efforts, score relatively highly while ocean-based and sea ice measures, score lower and have higher uncertainties overall.”