There is widespread media coverage of Ford’s decision to “shift” its electric vehicle strategy. The Associated Press says US automaker is facing competition from lower priced competitors and has decided to “focus on making two new electric pickup trucks and a new commercial van”. The newswire adds: “Ford, which is losing millions on its current EVs, gave few details about the new products. But it said production of its next generation full-size electric pickup truck in Tennessee will be delayed 18 months, until 2027. The company also says it won’t build fully electric three-row SUVs due to high battery costs, but instead will focus on making those vehicles as [gasoline]-electric hybrids…The changes will force Ford to write down $400m of its current assets for big electric SUVs, and it also expects to have additional expenses of up to $1.5bn.” The New York Times says Ford is “reducing the amount of money it plans to spend on electric vehicles in an effort to stem multibillion-dollar losses on the technology”. Ford says EVs “would now account for about 30% of the company’s capital budget, down from 40%”. The Daily Telegraph notes that the company says “motorists are unwilling to pay higher prices to switch away from petrol and diesel”. BBC News says: “Chief financial officer John Lawler said the firm was adjusting its plans in response to ‘pricing and margin compression’. The move comes as growth in demand for electric cars has faltered, leading to price wars and other pressures.” The Washington Post says the “announcement underscores the challenges facing US automakers as they seek to boost sales of EVs, a crucial technology in the fight against climate change, despite flagging consumer demand, supply chain challenges and increased competition with Chinese carmakers”. The Guardian, Times and Reuters are among the many other outlets covering the story.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that China has “escalated” its trade dispute with the EU by “hitting back” at EV tariffs with a “European dairy probe”. The newspaper continues: “The Chinese commerce ministry said on Wednesday that its probe into EU dairy imports was prompted by complaints from domestic manufacturers over European subsidies. According to a statement, the investigation will cover “certain products” including creams and cheeses. The move marked Beijing’s strongest retaliation yet against Brussels’ EV tariffs. China has already opened anti-dumping probes into French cognac and EU pork imports and has lodged a complaint at the World Trade Organization.” The South China Morning Post also covers the story under the headline: “China opens tit-for-tat trade probe into EU dairy products day after bloc’s EV tariff move.” 

Relatedly, Reuters says that a Chinese trade body known as the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products has said that the EU’s draft findings from an anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese EVs “lack objectivity and fairness”. The Daily Telegraph reports that “Volkswagen has attacked Brussels over its decision to impose ‘incomprehensible’ tariffs on electric cars made in China”. The newspaper adds: “The German car giant lashed out after the EU revealed plans to charge Volkswagen higher import tariffs than rivals in China, as well as Elon Musk’s Tesla.” Finally, the Guardian says that the “development of a Tesla gigafactory near Berlin has resulted in about 500,000 trees being felled, according to satellite analysis”.

The number of heat-related deaths in the UK is predicted to increase more than six-fold by the end of the century if the world warms by 3C, according to analysis published in the journal Lancet Public Health covered by the Press Association. The newswire adds that “deaths related to cold – currently much higher than from heat – are predicted to rise only slightly, reaching nearly 70,000 per year by 2100”. It continues: “Modelling data from 30 European countries also suggests heat-related deaths could triple in the continent by the end of the century under current climate policies, increasing from 43,729 to 128,809 per year. In the same scenario, deaths attributed to cold would remain high, with a slight decrease from 363,809 to 333,703 by 2100, scientists said. Dr Juan-Carlos Ciscar, of the Joint Research Centre at the European Commission, said: ‘Our analysis reveals that the ratio of cold-heat deaths will shift dramatically over the course of this century, with those attributed to heat increasing in all parts of Europe and surging in some areas. At the same time, cold-related deaths will decline slightly overall.’” The Guardian also covers the findings, saying: “Heat deaths in Europe could triple by the end of the century, with the numbers rising disproportionately in southern European countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain, a study has found. Cold kills more people than heat in Europe, and some have argued that climate change will benefit society by reducing those deaths. But the study, published in the Lancet Public Health, found that the death toll would respond slowly to warming weather and may even rise through people growing older and more vulnerable to dangerous temperatures.”

Elsewhere in the UK, BBC News reports that “firms across the UK’s oil and gas supply chain have expressed ‘grave concern’ about government plans to hike windfall taxes and eliminate investment incentives to an industry that supports 200,000 jobs”. The article adds: “In an open letter to HM Treasury, seen by the BBC, 42 companies have warned that official plans threaten £200bn of investment in all forms of domestic energy, including renewables. The signatories include manufacturing, engineering and technology companies. The Treasury said, however, that its industrial strategy would create ‘thousands of new jobs in the industries of the future’. The government currently plans to increase windfall taxes on oil and gas profits from 75% to 78%, extend the tax until 2030 and abolish tax incentives for further investment. In the letter, issued by Offshore Energies UK, firms express concern that reduced investment and greater uncertainty would be felt throughout the supply chain ‘through jobs, and the communities this industry supports, both directly and indirectly’. They also argue that oil and gas revenues are helping fund investment in renewable energy. A hostile tax environment would threaten not only the oil and gas industry, but also the firms who invest in renewable energies using cash generated through fossil fuels, the letter suggests.” A separate BBC News article says: “A dockyard has been transformed into a ‘world-class centre’ for wind, wave and tidal power projects following a £60m upgrade. The revamped Pembroke Port will be officially opened [this week], ahead of what has been described as a ‘pivotal year’ for marine energy in Wales. It is hoped the changes – including a new ‘supersized slipway’ – will attract renewable energy firms and create up to 1,800 new jobs. But one industry body said far more government funding was needed to prepare Wales’ ports to take full advantage of energy generation opportunities at sea.”

Finally, the Daily Telegraph has a news feature headlined: “How Britain fell behind in the global race for nuclear power.” And the same author has another article in the newspaper claiming that “electricity pylons reduce the value of homes by an average of £12,000”.

The New York Times covers a new study, published by Science Advances (see “New climate research” section below), which examines a “particularly disastrous scenario for how west Antarctica’s gigantic ice sheet might break apart”. The article continues: “As all this ice tumbles into the ocean, and assuming that nations’ emissions of heat-trapping gases climb to extremely high levels, Antarctica could contribute more than a foot to worldwide sea level rise before the end of the century. This calamitous chain of events is still hypothetical, yet scientists have taken it seriously enough to include it as a ‘low-likelihood, high-impact’ possibility in the UN’s latest assessment of future sea level increase. Now, though, a group of researchers has put forth evidence that the prospect may be more remote than previously thought. As humans burn fossil fuels and heat the planet, west Antarctica’s ice remains vulnerable to destruction in many forms. But this particular form, in which ice cliffs collapse one after the other, looks less likely, according to the scientists’ computer simulations.” The newspaper quotes lead author Mathieu Morlighem, a professor of Earth science at Dartmouth College: “We’re not saying that we’re safe…The Antarctic ice sheet is going to disappear; this is going to happen. The question is how fast.” Morlighem has also written an article about the study for the Conversation, under the headline: “Thwaites Glacier won’t collapse like dominoes as feared, study finds, but that doesn’t mean the ‘Doomsday Glacier’ is stable.” MailOnline chooses to run the story under the misleading headline: “Why climate change models are wrong, according to bombshell study.”

Separately, the Guardian covers another study: “Antarctic ecosystems could be disrupted by animals, diseases and rubbish floating from Africa and Australia as rising temperatures melt sea ice buffers, new research suggests. The study, published in the journal Global Change Biology, used a simulation of ocean currents to track the paths of virtual objects released from different locations.”

The Guardian says that a “heat dome covering the US’s south-west region is affecting nearly 23 million Americans, bringing with it some of the highest temperatures of the summer and putting pressure on the electrical grid in Texas”. The article continues: “Those in central Texas are experiencing extreme heat for a long duration, ‘with little to no overnight relief’, according to the National Weather Service. Temperatures are expected to reach up to 110F (43C). San Antonio may experience its hottest temperature in more than 10 years on Wednesday. The dry heat is also setting off wildfires, prompting the Texas governor, Greg Abbott, to deploy additional firefighting resources to parts of the state…In Phoenix, Arizona, the high temperature was 112F on Tuesday afternoon – just one degree less than the record breaking temperature of 113F set in 2019.” The Associated Press says a “major heat alert is in place for Texas, reflecting what the weather service called ‘rare and/or long-duration extreme heat with little to no overnight relief’”. A separate article in the Guardian covers new research showing that “wildfires [in the US] pose serious risks to pregnant people and their developing foetuses, including low birth weight and preterm birth”. It quotes Skye Wheeler, a researcher at Human Rights Watch and one of the report’s authors, saying: “While we know that wildfires are continuing to intensify in the US, and we’re increasingly clear on what damages wildfires represent to maternal and newborn health, we’re still not seeing the kind of response from policymakers and public health officials that we need.”

In other US news, the New York Times says that Kamala Harris has so far “gone light on climate policy”, but that “green leaders are OK with that”. The article adds: “In the 2020 presidential election, climate activists demanded that Democratic candidates explain, in detail, how they planned to tackle the planet’s greatest environmental threat. But in the weeks since vice president Kamala Harris ascended the 2024 Democratic ticket, she has mentioned climate change only in passing, and offered no specifics on how she would curb dangerous levels of warming. Climate leaders say they are fine with that. ‘I am not concerned,’ said Jay Inslee, the Democratic governor of Washington, who made climate change the centrepiece of his own 2019 bid for the presidency. Mr Inslee said he believes it is more important for Ms Harris to draw a distinction between her and her Republican rival, former president Donald J Trump, than to drill down on policy nitty-gritty. ‘I am totally confident that when she is in a position to effect positive change, she will,’ Gov Inslee said.”

The current state of South America’s Atlantic rainforest is “below the minimum needed to maintain biodiversity”, Folha de São Paulo reports. It cites new data from MapBiomas revealing that Brazil’s portion of Atlantic forest, which extends down the country’s coastline and inland into Paraguay and Argentina, “only has 35% of native vegetation and 25% of dense forests” left. Separately, the Brazilian newspaper has published an editorial based on an interview with Marina Silva, Brazil’s minister of the environment and climate change, who argues that wealthy individuals should contribute to preserving forests and countries that “deforest less” should receive financial support.

Meanwhile, in Mexico, “climate-related events” such as forest fires, floods, landslides and cyclones have led to the migration of more than 362,000 people from 2019 to the present, according to data from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC) cited by Excélsior. The UN Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that Hurricane Otis, which hit south-west Mexico in 2019, caused the largest number of displacements within the Americas, with 187,000 people moving, the outlet adds. Separately, the newspaper reports that Mexico has been experiencing a record-breaking year for forest fires, with more than one million hectares of forests so far destroyed. Mexico’s Forest Commission has reported more than 7,600 fires this year, the highest number since 2017, the outlet adds. 

Elsewhere, Argentina’s La Nación reports that, as of 2025, the EU deforestation law – which aims to ensure that various commodities are sourced from “deforestation-free” supply chains – will enter into force, but representatives of Argentina’s Southern Agricultural Council are concerned about the “negative impact that this regulation may have on international trade”. The newspaper adds that the country is working to comply with the new regulations by introducing a certification system to “guarantee that domestic meat does not come from deforested areas and by conducting a pilot test to export meat to Germany”. 

Brian Deese, the former climate advisor to Barack Obama and current advisor to the Harris-Walz campaign, explains in Foreign Policy “how the fight against climate change can renew American leadership”. He says: “Seventy-six years ago, also facing a fractured world order and an emerging superpower competitor, US president Harry Truman and US secretary of state George Marshall launched an ambitious effort to rebuild European societies and economies. Although often associated with free-market neoliberalism, the 1948 Marshall Plan was hardly laissez-faire. It was, in fact, an industrial strategy that established the US as a generous partner to European allies while promoting US industries and interests. Generations later, the Marshall Plan is rightly understood as one of the great successes of the postwar era. Although today’s challenges are undoubtedly different, the US should draw lessons from that postwar period and launch a new Marshall Plan, this time for the global transition to clean energy. Just as the Marshall Plan assisted those countries most ravaged by the second world war, the new Marshall Plan should aim to help countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change: the US’s partners in the developing world. Developing countries and emerging markets will need access to cheap capital and technology to transition away from fossil fuels quickly enough to halt global warming.” He concludes: “Such a plan requires political focus and money, but it is not impossible. The US can spend far less than it did on the Marshall Plan, thanks to the better financial tools available today and falling clean technology costs. And it could recycle the proceeds from a carbon-based border adjustment tariff into the finance and resilience authorities, thus setting up a system that pays for itself.” (See Carbon Brief’s 2017 interview with Deese.) Separately, the Financial Times has published a Lex column headlined: “US coal producers [are] wise to join forces during a moment of strength. A sector once marked by bankruptcies and ESG worries is now [a] huge cash generator for shareholders.”

An editorial in the Guardian says: “Meat and dairy are the most carbon-intensive foods by far. Most of us should eat less of them. But the messaging around this continues to be poor…In the UK, the Climate Change Committee, which advises the government on policies to meet net zero, has proposed a 35% reduction in meat per person by 2050. The national food strategy recommended a 30% reduction over 10 years. But having commissioned the review, Boris Johnson disregarded it – and also postponed restrictions on junk food advertising (as did Rishi Sunak). The current government will have to be bolder on food policy. Lab-grown meat is one possible answer; in July the UK became the first European country to approve its use, initially in pet food. Methane-reducing feed additives are also being developed. Ministers can influence the food served in schools and other public institutions. South Korea and Japan both have lower obesity rates than other developed countries, and policies promoting healthier food have played a role in this. But diet is also an area where the public can make a difference, by choosing alternatives to red meat and dairy products.”

Elsewhere, an editorial in New Scientist is headlined: “The 1.5C target is dead, but climate action needn’t be.” Referring back to the “keep 1.5C alive” phrase that “entered the lexicon” at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, the outlet says: “Will this finally be enough for policymakers to sit up and realise that platitudes and slogans aren’t a sufficient form of climate action? Promises to keep any such goal ‘alive’ are pointless without doing the only thing that will prevent temperatures rising: reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere to net-zero.” The editorial concludes: “Unfortunately, the phrase ‘net-zero’ is losing its true meaning as a description of atmospheric physics, instead being used by many to mean ‘an environmental policy I don’t like’. This is dangerous, as temperature extremes have us trapped in a vicious cycle of emissions that only a net-zero energy system can break…If we are to have any hope of limiting warming, we must learn from the mistakes of ‘keep 1.5C alive’ and not let ‘net-zero’ become meaningless.” [The editorial refers to a recent study on the feasibility of 1.5C, which finds that factoring in the ability of governments to implement climate policies effectively reduces the likelihood of holding warming to this limit. For more, see Carbon Brief’s coverage.]

In other UK comment, the Times has published a comment piece by Sky News economics editor Ed Conway in which he sets out “my big, radical solution” for how to heat UK homes: “A far better long-term solution [than wet heating from radiators] would be to encourage people to replace their radiators with air-based systems…I think it’s a decent idea, but this government and the ones that preceded it are pushing consumers in the opposite direction. While you can get a grant for a heat pump plumbed into your radiators, you can’t get a grant for one of the air-based heating/cooling systems in which we should be investing. So, very few people are installing them, leaving us even more vulnerable to the next heatwave. Why are we doubling down on the wrong system? Perhaps it’s down to the fact that for many climate scientists, air conditioning is a bad word. In tropical countries, where fossil fuels predominate, AC use is actually pushing up carbon emissions. But if my plan encouraged more people to buy heat pumps sooner, it could actually reduce our eventual emissions.” Finally, the Daily Telegraph has given space online to Craig Mackinlay, the climate-sceptic former Conservative MP who enters the Lords tomorrow, to claim that “Labour’s plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 is both impossible and potentially dangerous”. 

A new study finds that the Thwaites glacier in west Antarctica may be less vulnerable than previously thought to marine ice cliff instability (MICI) – a theory that towering cliffs of glacier ice could collapse under their own weight into the ocean. The researchers use three different ice-sheet models to estimate the future evolution of the Amundsen Sea Embayment – an area in west Antarctica that contains the Thwaites glacier – after a hypothetical “complete collapse of its ice shelves”. Models show that the glacier “would not retreat further in the 21st century”, the study says. The researchers note that the findings “do not suggest that the west Antarctic Ice Sheet is stable”, but that “the hypothetical process of MICI may not play a role in its demise in the 21st century”. [For more on the MICI theory, see a Carbon Brief guest post from 2021.]