Saudi Arabia has confirmed that at least 1,301 people died during Hajj, BBC News reports, with temperatures at times exceeding 50C during the annual Islamic pilgrimage. In its first public comments on the deaths, Saudi Arabia’s news agency said that “more than three-quarters of those who died did not have official permits to be there and walked under direct sunlight without adequate shelter [and] some of those who died were elderly or chronically ill”, the article continues. Saudi Arabia “has been criticised for not doing more to make the Hajj safer, especially for unregistered pilgrims who have no access to facilities such as air conditioned tents and official Hajj transport”, the outlet says: “Health minister Fahd Al-Jalajel said efforts had been made to raise awareness about the dangers of heat stress and how pilgrims could mitigate this. Health facilities treated nearly half a million pilgrims, including more than 140,000 who did not have a permit, he said, and some were still in hospital for heat exhaustion.” In a statement on Saturday, Egypt’s government said it had revoked the licences of 16 travel agencies that helped unauthorised pilgrims travel to Saudi Arabia, reports the Los Angeles Times. Of 660 Egyptians that died in the heat, all but 31 were unauthorised, the outlet notes. The Washington Post says the deaths of unregistered pilgrims underscores the climate threat for the “most vulnerable”. It notes that undertaking the pilgrimage can be “costly” with Saudi Arabia approving “only a set number of pilgrim visas each year, with quotas for each Muslim-majority country”. It adds: “A large proportion of pilgrims are also elderly, some using their life savings to perform the Hajj before they die. They are also much more vulnerable to the heat.” The newspaper reports that witnesses “said unregistered pilgrims were in some cases denied access to air-conditioned tents and other official cooling centres where those with Hajj permits could escape the high temperatures”. It adds: “Even when some people were visibly ill, authorities refused to help them, pilgrims said. In some instances, the unregistered pilgrims themselves, fearing retribution from Saudi authorities, declined to seek medical help.” CNN quotes witnesses that said authorities had not provided enough water, shade or medical support to protect pilgrims from the heat. The Associated Press, Guardian and Reuters all cover the story.

In the US, Reuters reports that more than 100 million people across the US were under heat warnings yesterday, “with cities on the east coast bracing for record-breaking temperatures as the heat dome causing the dangerous conditions expands to the west coast”. The New York Times says that a storm in Michigan left thousands of people without power during the heatwave. The newspaper also reports that heat-related illnesses “spiked” in areas hit hardest by the heat. The Washington Post reports that the state of Washington hit 100F (38C) for the first time in eight years. The Financial Times “climate graphic of the week” focuses on the “heat emergency” facing the US and Mexico. And the Los Angeles Times reports that “California wildfires have already burned 90,000 acres and summer is just beginning”. 

In other heatwave news from around the world, BBC News reports that “four Balkan countries suffered simultaneous power cuts lasting several hours on Friday as the region sweltered in a summer heatwave”. Reuters reports on warnings from the World Health Organization that “scorching heat in the Gaza Strip could exacerbate health problems for Palestinians displaced by Israeli bombardment and heavy fighting between its forces and Hamas militants”. The Hindustan Times reports on how “economic inequality magnifies exposure to crippling, extreme heat”. India’s Economic Times reports on how extreme heat reduces the efficiency of solar panels. Metro has a frontpage story on the UK’s coming heatwave this week. The “scorching heat across five continents set 1,400 records [last] week and showed how human-caused global warming has made catastrophic temperatures commonplace”, the Washington Post says. 

The government of Hawaii has settled a lawsuit with a group of young people who had sued the US state over its use of fossil fuels, reports the New York Times. The case, which was brought in 2022, alleged that, by depending on polluting fuels such as petrol, the state’s department of transportation was violating Hawaii’s constitution, which guarantees the “right to a clean and healthful environment”, the newspaper explains. The settlement, which was announced shortly before the case was to go to trial, “requires the state to make a series of changes to reduce planet-warming emissions”, the outlet explains, and “recognises the constitutional rights of young people in the state to a clean and healthy environment”. According to the Washington Post, both sides described the settlement – which will oblige the state to consult with young people about its climate impact – as “historic”. Under the agreement, the state will create a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Hawaii within a year, the outlet explains: “The plan will include five-year interim emission reduction targets until 2045, or when the state achieves net-zero emissions. In addition to increasing the use of zero-carbon fuels for ground, air and marine transportation, the plan will also expand and improve alternative transportation options in Hawaii, including public transport and pathways for pedestrians and bikes.” Al Jazeera says that the 2045 goal is for “zero emissions”, noting: “Hawaii was already aiming for carbon neutrality by 2045, which means balancing the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by capturing or offsetting it. But this settlement forces the department to go further by halting carbon emissions altogether.” The Los Angeles Times quotes one of the young plaintiffs, who said of the settlement: “Being heard and moving forward in unity with the state to combat climate change is incredibly gratifying and empowering.” The Associated Press and Bloomberg Law also have the story.

Shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband has pledged that Labour will scrap the Conservative party’s 2035 target to ban new gas boilers if it wins power next week, reports the Sunday Telegraph in a frontpage story. In an interview with the newspaper, Miliband said: “On home heating – as we said in our manifesto – no one’s going to be forced to rip out their boiler. We’re absolutely clear about that. We haven’t stuck with the government’s 2035 target when you can’t replace your gas boiler. I know that we’ve got to show that heat pumps are affordable and are going to work for people.” Instead, Miliband said he will focus on financial incentives to encourage more people to install heat pumps: “I’ll be honest, I think one good thing the current government did, among a number of bad things, was to increase the heat pump grant to £7,500.” The newspaper says it “understands” that “one way that Labour could encourage households to install a heat pump is by extending the existing grant to millions more homes”, adding: “However, expanding the scheme would be costly to the taxpayer so Miliband said Labour is exploring ways to bridge the finance gap and sharply accelerate heat pump installations, as well as trying to build public confidence in low carbon technologies.”

Meanwhile, there is continued reporting on the perceived costs and/or benefits of different parties’ energy policies. Javier Cavada, European boss of Mitsubishi Power – which manufactures gas turbines – says that Labour’s plan for a net-zero power grid by 2030 is unrealistic and will require a “huge sacrifice” by the country, reports the Daily Telegraph. The Conservative party has claimed that Labour would need to build wind farms on land the size of Greater London in order to double the amount of onshore wind in England, the newspaper also reports. According to the Independent, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves will say in a speech in Scotland today that Labour’s clean energy plans will “turbocharge” the Scottish economy. BBC News looks at what Labour’s plans for a publicly owned “GB Energy” company would mean for Scotland. The outlet also looks at where candidates for MP in Whitehaven in west Cumbria stand on the proposed new coal mine. The Independent reports on analysis of party manifestos by green groups in which “Labour’s plans for climate and nature have scored four times higher than the Conservatives”. [See Carbon Brief’s interactive grid to compare manifestos.] DeSmog reports that Sarah Jones, Labour shadow minister for industry and decarbonisation, accepted sponsorship for a fundraising event from a public affairs company that represents BP and British Gas.

In other UK news, the Sunday Times looks into “what the future holds for North Sea oil in the race to net-zero”. The Times assesses whether Labour can make the switch to clean  power by 2030. The Financial Times reports on analysis that shows the “majority of Britain’s onshore renewable energy projects are failing to get beyond the planning stage”. The Observer reports on research showing that “carbon emissions from vans still rising as UK drivers cling to diesel”. And the newspaper carries an analysis piece on why home insulation “always lag[s] behind” in the race for new energy strategies.

China wants the European Union to “scrap its preliminary tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles by 4 July”, according to China’s state-controlled Global Times newspaper, says Reuters, with both sides agreeing to hold new trade talks. The newswire explains: “Provisional EU duties of up to 38.1% on imported Chinese-made EVs are set to kick in by 4 July while the bloc investigates what the EU claims are excessive and unfair subsidies to Chinese EV makers.”

Reuters separately reports that German economy minister Robert Habeck, who was in China over the weekend, said the EU’s “doors are open for discussions” on the matter. Habeck told his Chinese counterparts that any measures set by the EU on EVs are only meant to compensate for subsidies and “not a punishment”, the newswire adds, to which National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) chairman Zheng Shanjie said proposed EU duties on Chinese-made EVs would “hurt both sides” and that he hoped Germany would demonstrate leadership within the EU and “do the correct thing”. Bloomberg also covers the story, adding that the talks were officially agreed during a “video conference” between Chinese commerce minister Wang Wentao and EU trade commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis. The state-run newspaper China Daily covers the “first high-level dialogue under the China-Germany dialogue and cooperation mechanism on climate change and green transition”, headed by Habeck and Zheng, which has led to outcomes including “provincial-level cooperation on [the] green transition”, a “working group on industrial carbon reduction” and “demonstration projects to enhance energy efficiency in key sectors”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) says that Habeck also urged China to find a “safe alternative to coal”, adding that “it should be possible to achieve [energy] security with fewer coal-fired power plants”.

Elsewhere, China’s total power consumption in May reached “775 terawatt-hours (TWh), a year-on-year increase of 7.2%”, according to state news outlet China News. From January to May this year, total power consumption was “3,837TWh, an increase of 8.6% year-on-year”, it adds. Chinese outlet Jiemian News reports that, in May, the power generation of large-scale industrial enterprises reached “718TWh, an increase of 2.3% year-on-year”. Chinese industry newspaper BJX News reports that the Ministry of Finance has issued the budget for local subsidies for renewable energy tariff surcharges in 2024, adding that “5.4bn yuan ($756m) will be issued this year”. Chinese Communist party-affiliated newspaper the People’s Daily says that recently introduced policies, such as trade-in programs and consumer subsidies, have “sparked a new wave of consumer enthusiasm” for EVs. State-run industry newspaper China Energy News reports that the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has called for preliminary research to be conducted on a “carbon footprint report for automotive products”. The People’s Daily also covers the news, underscoring that China plans to “formulate new standards for the global auto industry, focusing on new energy vehicles (NEVs) and intelligent connected vehicles”.

Separately, CNN says “deadly torrential rains continue to lash” southern China, adding that Guangdong province, China’s “economic powerhouse”, has faced “more intense rainstorms and severe flooding in recent years as scientists warn the climate crisis will amplify extreme weather”. China Daily reports that “at least 38 people have been killed and two are missing” after “catastrophic” floods hit Pingyuan county in Guangdong province. China Daily also says that in Hunan province torrential rain has required that “more than 4,000 people [be] evacuated”. SCMP covers new research finding “widespread heat stress will be felt by most of China’s population by the end of the century due to climate change, with the north of the country expected to be hit hardest”. Finally, CleanTechnica carries a commentary by David Victor and Michael Davidson, professors at University of California San Diego, who write: “Isolating ourselves [the US] from China won’t just fail – it will also harm American companies, workers and innovators. Moreover, it will drive up the cost of green technology.” 

Germany’s “Union” opposition parties, the CDU and CSU, want to “distance themselves from decisions made during the [Angela] Merkel era” by suggesting a 12-point plan for stabilising electricity costs through prioritising overhead power lines over underground cables, reports Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). According to reports, switching to predominantly overhead connections can save €35bn, FAZ notes. Elsewhere, Der Spiegel carries a column by Christian Stöcker titled: “Merz discovers his inner Habeck.” He is referring to CDU leader Friedrich Merz, who previously advocated for gas and oil heating systems in Germany, but now “appears to have overcome his existential crisis of understanding regarding heat pumps” stating now that his party “fully supports the heat transition”. The columnist suggests that such a change can be related to the upcoming federal elections in Germany. German tabloid Bild features a story about Arnold Schwarzenegger criticising the German government for nuclear phaseout during the Austrian World Summit on climate in Vienna.

Finally, Tagesschau reports that, according to an EU Commission decision, Germany is allowed to invest €3bn in subsidies for developing its hydrogen infrastructure with a core network of 9,700 kilometres planned to be developed by 2032, which “aligns with the EU’s hydrogen strategy goals and the climate protection package Fit for 55”.

Thousands of people marched through central London on Saturday to “urge political leaders to take more decisive action in tackling the UK’s wildlife crisis”, reports the Observer. The newspaper says that march culminated in a rally outside Parliament Square with speeches from prominent figures including the naturalists Chris Packham and Steve Backshall, musicians Billy Bragg and Feargal Sharkey and actor Dame Emma Thompson. The article adds: “A total of 350 environmental groups came together to pressure the government to act more robustly and decisively against the biodiversity crisis.” The Independent also has the story, leading on Thompson’s comments on whether she supported the actions of protest group Just Stop Oil. She responded: “I think I support anyone who fights this extraordinary battle…We cannot take any more oil out of the ground. I mean, there’s much argument about it. And I know there’s a lot of very complicated economic arguments about it…we have to leave all the resources in the ground, we cannot bring them out of the ground.”

In an editorial focused on protest movements demanding divestment, the Financial Times warns that “the intricacies of the investment world should serve as a reminder that change can rarely be achieved by righteousness alone”. The newspaper continues: “Their rationale is simple: if enough investors move their money out, then the unethical actors’ power will wither. But such campaigns have a mixed record. Many achieve some divestment, but are less successful in bringing about actual social and economic change. In some cases they can even risk undermining their cause.” The editorial discusses a number of challenges with divestment, including “practical hurdles”, “defining the extent of a campaign” and “unintended consequences”. It adds: “Targets also rarely fit neatly into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ buckets. Last month, the Hay Festival and Edinburgh International Book Festival dropped fund manager Baillie Gifford as sponsor, partly given its exposure to the oil sector. The investment group has, however, taken significant bets on companies that support the green transition and invests far less in fossil fuel-related companies than many rivals.” Nonetheless, calls for divestment “still play a role in fighting injustices and shining a light on investor portfolios”, the newspaper says, noting that “they have been most effective as part of wider coordinated efforts, including sanctions and the withdrawal of other financing sources”.

Elsewhere, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times criticises lawmakers in California for “killing” a fossil fuel divestment bill that would have forced two Californian public pension funds to divest their holdings in big oil, gas and coal companies by 2031. An editorial in the Washington Post says “curtailing economic growth will not save the planet from catastrophic climate change”. And an editorial in the Wall Street Journal argues that a “major deal” that Ukraine struck last week with a US liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplier to help wean eastern Europe off Russian natural gas is “ensnared” in President Biden’s moratorium on new LNG export projects.

Responding to the interview with shadow climate secretary Ed Miliband in its Sunday paper, an editorial in the Daily Telegraph says that while scrapping a 2035 ban on new gas boilers is “welcome”, no one “should be fooled” by Miliband “giving the impression that Labour would adopt a pragmatic net-zero position”. It continues: “Yet for someone not fixated on dates and targets there are an awful lot of them in his party’s green plans. Foremost among them is a pledge to decarbonise the British economy within six years, an ambition so far removed from feasibility as to be laughable were the consequences of pursuing it not so great.” The newspaper, which has a long history of routinely platforming climate-sceptic views, argues that “the party’s entire strategy for government is predicated on the resurgence of UK economic growth, yet its green policies will act as a drag on investment, productivity and jobs”. It concludes: “This debate is based on a range of unrealistic pledges which Miliband and his party are prepared to perpetuate without coming clean about the impact they will have on all our lives.”

Elsewhere, an editorial on the Sun, which also promotes climate-sceptic views, argues that no party’s figures “add up” on immigration, defence or energy. It says: “Labour’s Ed Miliband says he wouldn’t make people rip out their old boilers in his headlong dash to end fossil fuel use. Good. But how does Sir Keir propose decarbonising the National Grid by 2030 without sending everyone’s energy bills through the roof and plunging the country into blackouts?” The editorial cites an article it has published by climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark, who laments that “no party” has a plan to fix “our pothole-ravaged roads, creaking airports and lousy trains”, which are a “national embarrassment”. 

In other comment in right-leaning titles, Daily Telegraph assistant editor Jeremy Warner says last week’s supreme court ruling against Surrey County Council’s decision to expand permits for oil drilling at Horse Hill is “completely mad”. Climate-sceptic columnist Andrew Neil also attacks the ruling in the Daily Mail. And there is continuing comment on recent activism by Just Stop Oil. In the the Daily Mail, columnist Janet Street-Porter describes the Stonehenge protest as “mindless vandalism by a bunch of angry toddlers”. A Sun editorial says the group is “asking supporters for funds to pay for a summer of attacks on Britain’s airports”. Daily Telegraph columnist Michael Deacon writes under the headline: “How TS Eliot foresaw Just Stop Oil – and the tyranny of woke narcissism.” And journalist and critic Tomiwa Owolade writes in the Times that “these activists and their supporters are not winning people to their goals; they are excluding and alienating anyone who might conceivably be sympathetic”. 

A 1C rise in average temperature increases the amount of time that it takes to collect water every day by four minutes, according to a new study. The authors analyse the effect of temperature and rainfall on self-reported water collection times for 347 regions across four continents over 1990-2019. They find that lower rainfall also increases water collection time. The paper estimates that by 2050, “daily water collection times for women without household access could increase by 30% globally and up to 100% regionally under a high emissions scenario”.

A new study estimates that, by 2050, lake-effect snow (LES) storms – heavy snowfall events that occur when a cold dry air mass travels over a warm lake – could produce up to 14% more precipitation. The modelling study uses the LES storm that hit New York in November 2022 as a case study. It finds that the precipitation during LES storms will transition from “mostly snow” to “nearly equal parts snow and water”. The increase in rainfall is mainly due to the warmer lake, the authors find, while the change in precipitation type is mainly due to the warmer atmosphere.

A new paper reveals that consumers, investors and citizens are currently “hampered” in their ability to “behave and consume sustainably”, due to “widespread misestimations of emission impacts”. The authors use five studies to examine people’s knowledge about the main drivers to greenhouse gas emissions. They find that “accuracy of individuals’ emissions-related estimates is limited”, adding that “this misestimation is consistent with a cognitive process of attribute substitution”. They also identify the conditions that affect “estimation accuracy”. The authors “advocate accessible and easily understandable information that highlights the causal impact of consumption decisions to facilitate climate action”.