Profits at British Gas have “surged” tenfold, reports the Daily Telegraph, after the industry regulator Ofgem “relaxed restrictions on how much money energy companies could make from their bills”. The newspaper explains that operating profits at the utility provider “surged to £751m last year, up from £75m in 2022” and comes after Ofgem “increased how much profit suppliers could claim from household bills to make up for costs incurred” when energy prices spiked as a result of Covid-19 lockdowns and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Guardian says that the price cap rise and subsequent increase in British Gas profits pushed the pre-tax profit of parent company Centrica to £6.5bn for 2023, compared with a loss of £240m a year earlier. It adds that “the company’s preferred figure, which allows for bespoke adjustments, shows profits fell 17% to £2.8bn for the year to December”. Reuters says that Centrica has increased its annual dividend payout to shareholders by 33%. The Sun reports that the firm has come “under fire” for its profits, and quotes Fiona Waters of campaign group Warm This Winter, who said the profits were “obscene” and “epitomise rip-off Britain”. The Unite union said the profits were “astonishingly high” and said they came off the back of “exorbitant” energy bills, reports Sky News. Both the Big Issue and Press Association report on new official figures that show 3.17m low-income households were in energy poverty in 2023. Chris O’Shea, chief executive of Centrica, renewed calls for a “social tariff” to enable people on lower incomes to pay less for their gas and electricity, notes BBC News. O’Shea said: “The poorest in society are really struggling but it’s not just the energy. It’s energy, it’s rent, it’s mortgages, it’s food and all manner of costs…What I’m focused on is how do we fix this in energy and that’s why we need a social tariff, that’s why we need the standing charge to disappear.” The Times, Daily Mirror, Press Association and City AM also cover the news, while the Daily Express has the story on its frontpage with the headline: “Now just do it! British Gas told to cut prices after record profit.”

Reacting to the news, the Daily Telegraph’s associate editor Ben Marlow says that “British Gas and Ofgem are taking us all for fools”. He writes: “[T]he timing of this latest windfall is particularly unwelcome, coming on the same day that Britain sank into recession and the latest fuel poverty statistics showed that a depressing 13% of families in England cannot afford to properly heat their homes. That’s 3m households in Britain going cold.” An editorial in the Daily Express (not yet online) says that there is an “easy way” for British Gas and Centrica to help the public, which is “by properly cutting bills”.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that Centrica “is considering investing in the planned UK nuclear power plant Sizewell C [in Suffolk], making it a potentially key stakeholder in the British government’s plans to draw private investors to build the project”. [Centrica previously invested in the much delayed and over-budget Hinkley C project in Somerset – which is being built to the same design as Sizewell C – but wrote off £200m when pulling out of the scheme more than a decade ago.] And the Times reports that Ithaca Energy, one of Britain’s largest independent oil and gas companies, “has confirmed that earnings will be more than a 10th lower amid the easing of commodity prices”.

Switzerland is proposing to create the first UN expert group to “examine risks and opportunities” of solar geoengineering techniques, Climate Home News reports. The outlet has seen a draft resolution submitted by Switzerland for the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) annual meeting next week in Nairobi, Kenya. The group would focus on solar radiation management (SRM) – “a suite of largely untested technologies aimed at dimming the sun”, the outlet says. It notes that the proposed panel would be made up of experts appointed by member states of UNEP and representatives of international scientific bodies. Governments will negotiate and vote on the proposal, which has been formally endorsed by Senegal, Georgia, Monaco and Guinea, the article adds. A Swiss government spokesperson tells Climate Home News that SRM is “a new topic on the political agenda” and Switzerland is “committed to ensuring that states are informed about these technologies, in particular about possible risks and cross-border effects”. The article reports a mixed reaction from scientists, with one noting the “urgent need to continue researching the benefits and risks of SRM to guide decisions around research activities and deployment”, and another warning that “risk of such an initiative is that it elevates SRM as a real solution and contributes to the normalisation of something that is still very premature and hypothetical from a scientific perspective”. [For more on solar geoengineering, see Carbon Brief’s explainer.]

Two of the world’s biggest asset managers are quitting the Climate Action 100+ investor group – set up to put pressure on companies over climate change – and a third is scaling back its participation, reports the Financial Times. JPMorgan Asset Management (JPMAM) and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) both confirmed they were leaving the group, the article says, while “BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager, is pulling out as a corporate member and transferring its participation to its smaller international arm”. Climate Action 100+, which was launched in December 2017, “challenges airlines, oil majors and other polluting companies to reduce their carbon footprint”, the FT explains, with BlackRock, JPMAM and SSGA all joining in 2020. It adds: “However, the group announced last year that it would be shifting from pressuring companies on climate disclosures to pushing them to actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SSGA said these ‘phase 2’ corporate engagement requirements had gone too far. ‘SSGA has concluded the enhanced Climate Action 100+ phase 2 requirements for signatories are not consistent with our independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement,’ SSGA said in a statement.” The moves to leave the group “highlight a growing split between the largest US-based asset managers, which are under intense pressure from Republicans over climate issues, and those elsewhere”, the FT says, with “smaller competitors and European firms [largely remaining] with various climate coalitions”. Reuters notes that the “decisions together remove nearly $14tn of total assets” from the group. Bloomberg and Agence France-Presse also have the story, while the Times reports on how “global investors turned their backs on so-called ethical funds last year, withdrawing more than $10bn amid claims of greenwashing”.

New analysis shared with BBC News has revealed that “one of the worst methane leaks ever recorded took place last year at a remote well in Kazakhstan”. The outlet explains that “the leak began on 9 June 2023, when a blowout was reported during drilling at an exploration well in the Mangistau region, south-western Kazakhstan, starting a fire that raged continuously until the end of the year”. The article estimates that 127,000 tonnes of methane escaped, although Buzachi Neft, the company that owns the well, denies a “substantial amount” of methane was leaked. It could be the second-worst human-caused methane leak ever recorded, the outlet says, with one expert noting that “only the Nord Stream [pipeline] sabotage may have led to a stronger leak”. The environmental impact of the Kazakhstan leak is “comparable to that of driving more than 717,000 petrol cars for a year”, the article adds.

New research warns that a campaign to plant trees across Africa risks “double jeopardy” because it will damage ancient grassland ecosystems that absorb CO2 while failing to fully restore depleted forests, reports the Financial Times. The paper – published in the journal Science – focuses on one project in particular, the 34-country African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100), the FT explains: “[It] seeks to restore at least 100m hectares of degraded land – an area the size of Egypt – in Africa by 2030…The initiative’s backers include the German government, the World Bank and the not-for–profit World Resources Institute. But about half of the approximately 130m hectares that African countries have committed to restore through AFR100 is earmarked for non-forest ecosystems, principally savannahs and grasslands, according to the paper. The researchers said they could only find evidence of one AFR100 project – in Kenya – dedicated to restoring grasslands. More than half a dozen countries with no forest cover have made AFR100 pledges, including Chad and Namibia.” Lead author Prof Kate Parr tells the Guardian that “restoration of ecosystems is needed and important, but it must be done in a way that is appropriate to each system. Non-forest systems such as savannahs are misclassified as forest and therefore considered in need of restoration with trees…There is an urgent need to revise definitions so that savannahs are not confused with forest because increasing trees is a threat to the integrity and persistence of savannahs and grasslands.” Trees can harm these ecosystems by introducing too much shade, says New Scientist: “This may prevent smaller plants from photosynthesising, which would have knock-on effects for the rest of the ecosystem.”

New government data shows that no new proposals for general-use windfarms were submitted for planning permission in England last year, reports the Guardian, “despite the government’s much-vaunted relaxation of planning restrictions”. The newspaper continues: “Only seven applications were submitted for onshore wind turbines for the whole of 2023 in England…and all of those developments were for the replacement of existing turbines or for private sites, where the energy produced is destined for a particular consumer, such as a business. The number was even lower than the 10 applications submitted in 2022, when the de facto ban was still in force…Last September, ministers announced changes to the restrictive regulations that had in effect ruled out onshore wind turbine construction in England since 2015.” By contrast, the outlet notes, “at least 46 applications for onshore wind development applications were made over the same period in Scotland, where no such ban has ever been imposed”. The article references analysis by Carbon Brief from last year, which found that “the onshore wind ban had cost consumers about £5bn – or £180 per household across the UK – in annual energy bills”. 

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the UK’s “round six” renewable energy auction next month offers a price cap of £73 per megawatt hour (MWh) [in 2012 prices] for offshore wind developers “after the government increased the price by 66% following no eligible bids in last year’s auction”. It notes: “The higher price cap in round six has been welcomed by the offshore wind industry and experts predict fervent interest from developers. Offshore wind has also been allocated its own revenue pot in the auction, avoiding competition from other renewable energy sources. The UK must accelerate offshore wind deployment to meet its goal of a decarbonised power sector by 2035. The government aims to install 50 [gigawatts] GW by 2030, up from a current level of 15GW.”

Elsewhere, the Guardian has a feature on the “fears for UK energy generation as green projects [are] delayed”. The article looks at the challenges facing the forthcoming “national transmission plan” being devised by National Grid, which could be published in time for March’s budget. It says: “The drive to net-zero is expected to increase demand for electricity supplies, and Great Britain’s grid is being rewired and expanded to accommodate the many new green energy projects. Policymakers face a tricky decade as the target of decarbonising the electricity system by 2035 collides with the day-to-day job of keeping the lights on and ensuring electric vehicles, heat pumps and industrial machinery are powered.” Finally, the Economist has a briefing – and related editorial – on how the electrification of energy-intensive industries “could be a major new way to slow global warming”.

A feature article in the Economist says that “climate change has never been a core issue at a British general election”, but “at the next one it will be”. This “partly reflects rising salience: since the last ballot in 2019, the environment has risen to become one of voters’ bigger concerns, alongside the economy, the National Health Service and immigration”, the article says, but “there is also an increasingly acrimonious divide between the two big parties over green policy”. The article looks at the policy moves of the Conservative and Labour parties, noting that prime minister Rishi Sunak has offered “plenty of ammunition for other parties to target the Conservatives on the environment”. However, climate is also an issue where Sunak “spies an opportunity to take the fight to Labour”, the Economist says: “He would like to paint the opposition as green radicals who want to kill the oil-and-gas industry, jack up the cost of driving and rip out your boiler.” The decision by Labour leader Keir Starmer to “slash” the party’s plan to spend £28bn a year on climate investment should it win the next election “does not close down this line of attack”, the article says: “The Tories will doubtless argue that if Labour is not going to borrow its way to net-zero, it will tax or regulate its way there.” The outlet concludes: “Optimists might hope that the ground is being laid for an invigorating debate about the next wave of climate policies and the relative merits of taxes, regulations, subsidies and industrial strategy. The reality will almost certainly be dirtier and more depressing. Everyone will attack the Tories as wanton polluters. The Tories will say that Labour cares more about the environment than the struggles of the average voter. And the political consensus that once prevailed over the climate will continue to fracture.”

Elsewhere, the Times reports that “just three megadonors could give more to Labour before the general election than [former leader] Jeremy Corbyn managed to raise for his whole campaign”, as insiders predict the party will hit a new boosted £35m limit on spending. The newspaper notes that one of these donors – Dale Vince, the founder of the green electricity company Ecotricity – “who has given about £1.5m to Labour in the last decade, is expected to donate up to £5m before the election”. Separately, Financial Times European comment editor Tony Barber writes that “gains for the hard right in June’s EU parliament vote could disrupt climate, migration and trade policies”.

The price of solar panels “produced without Chinese involvement in countries like the US would be ‘double’ [their current cost]”, Dennis She, vice-president of Chinese solar manufacturer Longi Green Energy Technology, tells Edward White, China correspondent at the Financial Times. She argues that increasing imports from China would create more  “downstream” jobs, such as in construction of new solar developments, as well as engineering, design and installation, the interview notes. “Kill[ing] most of the jobs from the downstream to protect 1% [of the European jobs in solar manufacturing] – it doesn’t make sense,” the Financial Times quotes She as saying. According to research by Wood Mackenzie, the newspaper adds, “China is set to continue to lead solar technology and dominate more than three-quarters of the world’s solar…manufacturing capacity” for at least three more years. Concerns in western countries about China’s “unfair trade practices” have led to the Chinese solar industry “expanding its manufacturing footprint closer to offshore customers”, it says. The paper adds She noting that Longi is increasingly “trying to work with countries”, including through local joint venture partners, to set up more solar production capacity and avoid geopolitical risk.

A new study finds that tree-planting had a “discernible impact” on temperatures in Europe over three decades. By comparing regional climate models of Europe both with and without afforestation, researchers quantify the effects of this land-cover change on local climate. They find that during warm periods, afforestation had a cooling effect of up to nearly 2C, while the same trees had a slight warming effect in wintertime. They write that these local climate impacts “may have mitigated the general warming trend in Europe” over this time period.