There is widespread coverage of the European parliament elections, with results still being finalised. The Guardian says: “Green parties have shed seats in the European elections, provisional results suggest, raising fears that the continent may be on the verge of weakening its climate ambitions. Projections for the new European parliament showed the Green faction pushed from fourth into sixth place, with 53 seats, amid a broader shift to the right. In Germany, a core Green stronghold, the party’s vote share appears to have nearly halved since the last election in 2019. Exit polls suggested it fell 8.5 percentage points from 20.5% to 12%. In France, where the far right was leading and President Emmanuel Macron called snap elections, support for the Greens fell by the same amount. But the party scored smaller victories elsewhere. In Denmark counting showed the Greens with three seats, a gain of one, while in Sweden they were expected to have held three seats. A Green-Left coalition looked to have narrowly beaten the far-right for first place in the Netherlands. Bas Eickhout, one of the two lead candidates for the Green party, said he was not disheartened by the projected results and pledged to push for an acceleration of the Green Deal…The Greens did unusually well at the last elections in 2019 as student protesters led by Greta Thunberg forced climate change up the political agenda. But the faction is expected to lose votes as war and economic troubles crowd out environmental concerns in the minds of voters. They could still play a key role in choosing the next EU Commission president, depending on the level of support for centrist parties.” Politico says: “Across the continent it was a good if unspectacular night for centre-right and far-right parties and a terrible one for liberals and especially greens.” (See Carbon Brief’s “EU election 2024: What the manifestos say on energy and climate change”.)

Elsewhere, Reuters has published an “explainer” assessing “five takeaways” from the election, which includes climate change: “The next five years will be crucial for determining whether Europe achieves its 2030 climate change targets. The EU spent the last five years passing a bumper package of clean energy and CO2-cutting laws to hit its 2030 targets, and those policies will be hard to undo. But a more climate-sceptical EU parliament could attempt to add loopholes to weaken those laws, since many are due to be reviewed in the next few years – including the bloc’s 2035 phase-out of the sale of new combustion engine cars, which faced criticism during the EU election campaign, including from lawmakers in von der Leyen’s centre-right political group. The European parliament will also negotiate with EU countries a new, legally binding target to cut emissions by 2040. That goal will set the course for a future wave of policies to curb emissions in the 2030s in every sector, from farming, to manufacturing, to transport.”

Ahead of the voting, the Daily Telegraph said: “Surging hard-right parties are plotting to dismantle EU net-zero laws after the European elections on Sunday, Green politicians have said. Nationalist forces will overturn the bloc’s ambition to hit the 2050 zero-carbon target in the same way they hardened European migration policy by dragging it to the right, they said. ‘For them, the next horizon, the next battle, is indeed to kill these green, woke policies,’ said Philippe Lamberts, the co-president of the European Greens. ‘Osmosis’ with traditional right-wing parties was already weakening EU green laws, he said, and could impact on new bills and reviews of existing net-zero legislation.” The New York Times previewed the vote with an article headlined: “How a climate backlash influenced campaigning in Europe”, saying: “If Europe loses its green groove, it could have far-reaching consequences not only for European citizens and businesses, but also the rest of the world.” DeSmog says it has “identified seven prominent falsehoods about green reforms to food and agriculture that have dominated election campaigning across the continent”. Meanwhile, the Financial Times has a news feature examining how Italy’s far-right prime minister Giorgia Meloni is putting the “brakes on Italy’s solar energy rollout”. 

The Financial Times reports that Keith Anderson, the “boss of one of Britain’s biggest energy companies Scottish Energy”, has urged whoever wins the general election to “tackle head-on” the practical and bureaucratic problems holding back the UK’s green transition. Anderson says that ministers “needed to get to grips with issues ranging from skills shortages to lengthy planning and procurement processes that are slowing down the development of projects such as hydrogen plants and electricity cables”, says the FT. He is quoted saying. “We’ve had lots of reviews…lots of conversations. In reality what has changed? Nothing. We are still using the same processes, we’re still having all the same conversations. Nothing has changed. Nothing’s got faster and nothing is any different.”

Meanwhile, the electioneering continues apace ahead of the UK’s general election on 4 July. The climate-sceptic Sunday Telegraph leads its frontpage with an interview with the Conservative energy secretary Claire Countinho in which she claims that Labour’s net-zero plans “risk blackouts and public unrest’”. [Modelling of Labour’s plans for the right-leaning thinktank Policy Exchange showed it would result in lower energy bills.] The newspaper adds: “The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that the Tory manifesto [due to be published tomorrow] will include a pledge to reform the remit of the official climate watchdog so it is forced to take account of the cost to households and the effect on energy security when advising ministers on carbon targets. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) – which has been pushing the government to impose more radical net-zero targets – makes recommendations to ministers on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” [As Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans has pointed out on Twitter, the Climate Change Act 2008 already ensures that the CCC provides advice taking account of all these issues.] The Daily Telegraph focuses on remarks made by a GMB Union “source”, which claims that “the Left-wing party is risking power cuts over plans to convert UK to clean power by 2030”. 

The Financial Times reports that Labour will pledge today to strike a “better deal” for Port Talbot steelworks, adding: “Labour has consistently criticised the [government’s deal, which would see the plant’s two blast furnaces replaced by a less carbon-intensive electric arc furnace leading to “up to 2,800 job losses”] and previously urged the company to reconsider a trade union-backed compromise plan to retain one of the blast furnaces, which has a lifespan into the early 2030s, until the electric arc furnace is operational”. The Daily Mail reports that “millions of drivers could face an extra hammering at the pumps as Labour looks to plug the black hole in its election spending pledges, it is feared”. The newspaper adds: “The party has refused to rule out hiking fuel duty and sources close to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told the Daily Mail that ‘we’re not going to make any commitments’ when asked if Labour would continue to freeze the levy.” The Guardian reports that the Conservatives have “promised to introduce a law that would unilaterally reverse the expansion of London’s clean air zone and limit the use of 20mph routes in Wales, overturning the choices of voters in both places”. The Times has an article under the headline: “The Tory candidate Michelle Donelan could see her majority washed away in favour of the Lib Dems as climate dominates the electoral debate along the River Avon.” And BusinessGreen covers the publication of a letter signed by more than “400 leading climate scientists and researchers” who are calling on “political leaders to commit to taking more ambitious action on climate change if elected”.

Away from the election, the Daily Telegraph reports that an “Italian energy start-up is pursuing plans to build 20 mini reactors across the UK, as it seeks to capitalise on the country’s nuclear power expansion”. And the Press Association says analysis of Environment Agency figures shows that a “record number of flood alerts and warnings were issued in Great Britain in the first four months of 2024, averaging 40 a day”. 

Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese has accused opposition leader Peter Dutton of “being worse than former prime minister Scott Morrison on climate change, in a direct attack on the coalition’s plans to ditch Australia’s 2030 emissions-reduction target”, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. The newspaper adds: “Albanese’s salvo, during a press conference in Canberra…comes after Dutton declared he would reverse Australia’s legally binding climate target to cut emissions by 43% from 2005 levels by 2030. On Sunday, this [newspaper] revealed analysis that the opposition’s nuclear energy plans would force Australia to fall massively short of its emissions target and that it would generate more than 2bn tonnes of extra greenhouse gases by 2050. This would break Australia’s commitments to the Paris Agreement.” The newspaper also quotes Albanese saying: “[Dutton’s] decision to abandon the target means him walking away from the Paris Accord. If you walk from the Paris Accord, you’ll be standing with Libya, Yemen and Iran and against all of our major trading partners and all of our important allies. Peter Dutton is worse than [former prime minister] Scott Morrison on climate change. He is all negativity and no plan, and what we’ve seen now for two years under Peter Dutton is a reluctance to announce any policies.” News.com.au adds that “the opposition leader [Dutton] has said if he wins the next federal election, he would…focus on nuclear energy to reach net-zero by 2050”. The Guardian says that Dutton has “reportedly conceded that the coalition’s commitment to introduce nuclear power in Australia would not lead to plants being built before 2040, a point made by experts, and critics who have accused the opposition of planning to delay action to address the climate crisis”. Another Guardian article sits under the headline: “Coalition savaged for claiming it is committed to net-zero by 2050 but would ditch 2030 emissions target.”

New Zealand’s government says it will introduce legislation to “remove a controversial ban on offshore petroleum exploration to attract investment to the country’s oil and gas sector”, reports Reuters. The newswire adds: “The bill would end the ban, in place since 2018, on exploration outside onshore Taranaki, an energy-rich region on New Zealand’s North Island, resources minister Shane Jones said in a statement. The bill will be introduced to parliament before the end of 2024, he said…New Zealand’s right-of-centre government released in November a number of policy plans including the proposal to scrap the exploration ban by the previous centre-left Labour-led government. The New Zealand Green party last year launched a petition to keep the ban, which environmental campaign group Greenpeace supports.” The Daily Telegraph claims the “policy reversal is a blow to [UK] Labour’s plan for a similar crackdown in the North Sea”.

Some of the world’s major economies want to finalise a plan ahead of this year’s COP29 UN climate summit in Baku to halt new private sector funding for coal projects, “five sources with direct knowledge of the matter” have told Reuters. The newswire adds: “If approved, the draft proposal by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, would be the first move by a multilateral institution to curb financing for coal…The draft plan, which aims to set a ‘gold standard’ policy for how financial institutions approach coal, instructs investors, banks and insurers to halt new financing to existing or planned coal projects, and end funding to companies building coal infrastructure, the sources said. Under the plan, financial institutions would fund the early retirement of coal plants, rather than divest from these assets. And early closures of coal-fired facilities should be matched with financing for clean energy to replace the lost coal capacity…France, the US, UK, Canada and the EU are among backers of the proposal, part of a ‘Coal Transition Accelerator’ initiative conceived by France at last year’s COP28 climate summit, the sources said.”

China’s exports in May rose at the “quickest pace in more than a year”, the New York Times reports, adding that the “value of China’s exports climbed 7.6%” year-on-year. The exports of trucks and cars grew 16.3% year-on-year, the newspaper says, with more detailed data focused on electric vehicles (EVs) as opposed to traditional fuel vehicles to be released “later in the month”. Reuters quotes an economist saying: “Foreign tariffs are unlikely to immediately threaten exports…If anything, they may boost exports at the margins as firms speed up shipments to front-run the duties.” Chinese vice commerce minister Ling Ji has told Polish government officials that EU probes into Chinese companies delivering low-carbon technologies “essentially serve as protectionism”, state-run newspaper China Daily reports. Bloomberg covers new research finding that investment by Chinese firms into Europe has fallen to the lowest levels since 2010. Almost 70% of investments made by Chinese companies in Europe in 2023 went into EVs and related industries, such as batteries, it adds. Bloomberg also reports that French president Emmanuel Macron hosted US president Joe Biden for a state visit last week, where they “voiced the same concerns about China’s potentially unfair practices, which result in the creation of overcapacity”.

Meanwhile, China News reports that the government has published an “action plan” for energy conservation and carbon reduction in the cement industry, which aims to see the industry cut emissions by 13m tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) by the end of 2025. The government has also published an action plan for energy conservation and carbon reduction in the steel industry, aiming to cut emissions 53MtCO2 by 2025, Jiemian reports. A similar plan for the oil refinery industry has also been announced, which aims for a reduction of about 5MtCO2 by 2025, says China Energy News. Energy news outlet BJX News reveals that 51 thermal (mainly coal) power projects “made significant progress” in May 2024, with six projects approved and seven connected to the grid. Caixin quotes a logistics industry player saying China’s efforts to shift logistics from road to rail is “a response to the pressures of achieving the nation’s ‘dual carbon’ goals”, not cutting costs.

Writing for Politico, Sander Tordoir, chief economist at the Centre for European Reform, suggests that the EU could “potentially lose many more jobs than the US did”, if Brussels does not control the level of Chinese imports. Communist party-backed newspaper People’s Daily carries a commentary saying China’s development of its new energy industries reflects “its responsibility as a major nation” to build a “win-win model for the green and low-carbon transformation of the world”. 

Germany has gained informal approval from the EU to pay “billions of euros” to construct gas-powered plants that should stabilise the grid when “unsteady renewable energy supplies fall short”, people familiar with the negotiations tell Reuters. The newswire adds that the initial plan is to provide state support for 10 gigawatts (GW) of generation capacity, with some details to be finalised over the next few weeks. According to government officials, the power plants will need to be able to switch to “green” hydrogen, but the transition to the new fuel will likely be between 2035 and 2040, notes Reuters. 

Elsewhere in German media, Die Zeit highlights the outcome of a Swiss referendum on Sunday, revealing that the majority of citizens (69%) voted in favour of increasing the use of renewables. It also says that Greenpeace has hailed the vote as an important “success”, which it claims now renders the use of nuclear power “obsolete”. The environmental group has called on the Swiss energy company Axpo to “set a soon-to-be-definitive shutdown date for the two reactors of the Beznau nuclear power plant”, which are “outdated” and exhibit “insolvable safety deficiencies”, adds the outlet. However, it notes that some smaller environmental groups are against the law, fearing that it will accelerate large energy projects and result in the Alpine landscapes being “covered” with wind turbines and solar panels. Agence France-Presse and Reuters also cover the story. 

Finally, Der Spiegel reports that the German Federal Administrative Court has denied requests from the municipality of Binz and environmental organisations aimed at halting the operation of the liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal on the German island of Rügen. The ruling means the “controversial” LNG terminal can temporarily commence regular operations, it adds.

Writing in the FT, John Browne, the cross-bench peer and former chief executive of BP, argues that the UK should “call a halt” to new North Sea oil and gas licences, writing that “we may be the source of little more than 1% of the world’s emissions, but we have long been a crucible of ideas for producing and consuming energy in new ways”. He continues: “We need to be realistic. The energy transition will be slower than many would like; we will need oil and gas for many years to come. Where we have previously awarded licences or are already working in existing UK fields, we should continue. This provides an important source of energy, which must be produced and consumed in responsible ways. But beyond this, we should call a halt. Such a move will reinforce our intention to get to net zero and show timely leadership. It is also hard to believe that finding and developing the very limited oil and gas resources that remain will be economic – or cost less – than buying supplies from the world market if needed. The future of the North Sea, and the jobs and communities it supports, is not just in oil and gas but in the clean technologies that will power our future.” A separate Financial Times news story reports Browne’s comments, adding: “Lord John Browne offers implicit endorsement of Labour party’s policy on fossil fuels.”

In other UK comment, Andrew Rawnsley writes in his Observer column: “You don’t need to be Doctor Who to know that there’s a climate crisis that is increasing in severity and that a platter of chewy choices will be on the menu for the next government if net-zero is going to be achieved to deadline. About this, as with so many other topics, the Tories are simply not interested in having a serious discussion. All they want to do is scaremonger about Labour compelling people to pay shedloads to install a heat pump. Labour is promoting its plan to create a state-owned clean power company, which it sells as a boost for jobs and energy security. What Labour isn’t interested in, for fear of exposing its shins to a kicking from its enemies on the right, is engaging the electorate in a wider conversation about the tougher decisions that will be necessary to get to a sustainable future.” Jonathan Watts in the Guardian has an analysis piece which asks: “Why isn’t this a climate election in the UK?” He writes: “If mainstream parties fail to step up to the challenge, voters may start to look elsewhere in the wake of this election. In this respect, the results of Clacton – where the rightwing Reform leader Nigel Farage is standing – and Bristol Central – where the Greens have a chance to upstage Labour – could give a foretaste of the politics to come in by a climate-disrupted world.” Climate Home News carries a comment piece by Freddie Daley and Peter Newell, researchers with the University of Sussex SUS-POL Research Programme, on policies to phase out fossil fuel production. They write: “Whichever party wins on 4 July, they will have a critical role to play in ensuring the UK does its fair share in addressing the climate crisis within a closing window to deliver effective action. We cannot afford to allow climate obstructionists to jeopardise this vital opportunity to change path and raise ambition.” The Guardian’s Helena Horton has produced analysis answering the question: “Who are the wealthy climate sceptics funding rightwing UK politics?”

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph continues to platform climate-sceptic views, with columnist Liam Halligan attacking Labour’s energy policies and Sarah Knapton, the newspaper’s science editor, falsely claiming the Met Office is straying into “climate activism” and “cherry-picking” data. The Met Office has responded by saying: “Suggestions of the Met Office cherry-picking data or having a role in climate activism are just not true. We’re a world-leading weather and climate science organisation, providing impartial and transparent scientific evidence on the UK’s weather and climate. This impartial evidence shows irrefutably that our world is warming and humans are playing a part in this.”

Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of the Guardian who now edits Prospect magazine, writes about a recent event convened by the Dutch royal family for senior editors to discuss climate reporting. “Was I the only journalist in the room who stared at those graphics and wondered why they weren’t leading every news bulletin and dominating every front page? Would we go down in history as a generation of sleepwalkers?…I found myself wondering how an average culture-warring editor would respond to the scary charts [Wolfgang] Blau produced? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were convinced that something deeply worrying and unprecedented was, after all, happening to our climate. How on earth could they go back to their newsrooms and break that unwelcome news to audiences which have been conditioned – by them – for 10, maybe 20 years, to believe it was all alarmist nonsense?”

Separately, an editorial in the New York Times laments the recent decision by New York state’s governor to pull New York city’s proposed congestion charge, which had been heralded by some as a major climate policy: “Only 1.5% of commuters would have paid the toll. An overwhelming majority of people who come to Manhattan for work or pleasure would be unaffected, except in a positive way: with fewer cars, the roads would be safer for pedestrians, the subways would be substantially improved, and the air quality would be much better.” Meanwhile, an editorial in the Financial Times looks at the “unsustainable hype” around ESG: “The principles underlying the ESG boom are also becoming entrenched. Reaching net-zero is seen as good business by executives. Mitigating governance issues is viewed as necessary risk management. Green investments are increasingly profitable, too, in large part due to well-crafted policies such as President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Indeed, the role that the IRA has played in stimulating green investment underlines the importance of policy in creating the right incentives. The market has a role in steering financial flows – which makes it all the more regrettable that ESG has become entangled in the US culture wars. But markets can only do so much. In the US in particular, policy, and the outcome of the November elections, will have the greatest bearing on the future of the green transition.”

A new study finds that demand and technological interventions can lower emissions in hard-to-abate sectors, reducing reliance on negative emissions technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. The authors model how interventions affect emissions from the industry, agriculture, buildings and transport sectors in scenarios that limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures. They find that demand and technological interventions “could limit peak annual bioenergy with carbon capture and storage use to 0.5–2.2GtCO2e [billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent] per year and 1.9–7.0GtCO2e per year, respectively, compared with 10.3GtCO2e per year in the default 1.5C scenario”. The paper adds that changes in diet play a “critical role” in demand-side interventions.