“Poor countries will be able to pause their debt repayments if hit by climate disaster, under plans announced by the World Bank at the finance summit in Paris”, reports the Guardian. It adds: “The international development organisation said it would insert new clauses in any agreements with developing countries, allowing them to suspend debt payments in the case of extreme weather events, starting with some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations.

The UK also said it would apply similar arrangements to its loans to 12 countries in Africa and the Caribbean. Debt relief for governments struggling with the impacts of the climate crisis has been a key demand of poor countries. However, the World Bank will only apply the clauses to new loans, and the announcements do not add up to the debt forgiveness that some countries would like to see.” In his opening remarks to the Summit for a New Global Financial Pact in Paris, French president Emmanuel Macron told delegates that “policymakers and countries shouldn’t ever have to choose between reducing poverty and protecting the planet”, reports France 24.

Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva used his visit to Paris to make a speech before a large crowd in front of the Eiffel Tower, reports Reuters. Speaking at the “Power Our Planet” event, he said that richer nations with their “historic debt” to the planet should pay for the environmental damage that is being hoisted on poorer countries. The newswire quotes him saying: “Who polluted the planet in these last 200 years were those who made the industrial revolution and for this they have to pay the historic debt they have with planet Earth.”

Reuters notes that the International Monetary Fund announced at the summit yesterday it had hit its target of making $100bn in special drawing rights available for vulnerable nations. The newswire adds: “A coalition of countries said it would provide €2.5bn ($2.7bn) to Senegal to help it achieve its target of 40% of installed capacity from renewable energies by 2030, president Macky Sall said on Thursday. The agreement with Senegal is the fourth such Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) and follows deals with Indonesia, Vietnam and South Africa struck since 2021.”

Meanwhile, the Chinese premier Li Qiang is also attending the summit which aims to “spur efforts to support the world’s poorest nations and address the threats of climate change”, writes Bloomberg. France’s finance minister Bruno Le Maire commented that “strong cooperation [with China] in aerospace and agriculture should be expanded to new areas, including low-carbon fuels and green finance,” the outlet adds. Radio France Internationale also covers the summit. (See Comment below.)

There is continuing coverage of the extreme heat affecting parts of China. The Guardian reports that “Beijing logged its hottest June day since records began on Thursday, the national weather service said, as swathes of northern China sweltered in 40C heat”. It adds: “On Friday, the capital upgraded its warning for hot weather to ‘red’ – the highest in a colour-coded alert system – saying most parts of the city could roast in temperatures of up to 40C. China has a four-tier weather warning system, with red the most severe, followed by orange, yellow and blue…At the Nanjiao weather station in southern Beijing, considered a benchmark for temperatures in the capital, the mercury hit 41.1C (106F) at 3.19pm on Thursday, the weather service said in a statement also carried by state broadcaster CCTV. The figure is half a degree higher than the station’s previous monthly record of 40.6C taken in June 1961 – the year China began keeping weather records – and second only to the 41.9C measured in July 1999, according to weather data.” The prolonged heatwave is expected to “persist until the end of June”, reports BBC News. Shanghai Securities News writes that the China Meteorological Administration has deployed work to address climate change by asking officials to “actively participate in global climate governance”, the newspaper adds. Sixth Tone, an English-language magazine based in China, reports that China’s “primary hydropower centres” are facing a significant decrease in hydropower production, with southwestern provinces, such as Sichuan and Yunnan, experiencing long droughts. Reuters says that “record heat across Asia is putting its surging renewable power fleet to the test, highlighting the need for backup supply, transmission system upgrades and tariff reforms to ensure reliability and stave off a slowdown in green energy adoption”. It continues: “In China, where renewables account for more than half of the power mix, authorities kept backup coal and gas-fired plants on standby to meet demand and sudden spikes in consumption from the early heat, consultancy Rystad said.”

Separately, Time carries a comment by climate journalist Alejandro de la Garza who says that the US secretary of state Anthony Blinken’s visit in Beijing earlier this week may “reopen the door to the two countries working more closely to address climate change”. He adds that “nothing of substance really got hashed out in the meetings between Blinken and top leadership in Beijing”, but for those “hoping to see the world’s two largest emitters work together to fight climate change, it’s better than the alternative”. People’s Daily, a newspaper affiliated with the Chinese communist party, carries an editorial, which says: “It is hoped that the US side can adopt a rational and pragmatic attitude, work with China in the same direction.”

Meanwhile, the Economist carries a comment piece by former climate negotiator Thom Woodroofe, now with the Asia Society, who says: “There is talk of US president Joe Biden’s climate envoy visiting China in the coming weeks. If the trip goes ahead, John Kerry will be the second senior American official to hold talks in Beijing in under a month…Kerry talks often of how he and his seasoned Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, have spoken almost weekly since calls from their respective presidents brought them both out of retirement…The two countries are, of course, arch-rivals. Indeed, competition – in green tech, semiconductors and much besides – is a defining element of the Biden administration’s stance towards China. Nevertheless, it may still be possible to agree on areas in which competition might actually be helpful to the global fight against climate change and conducted in an orderly way, for instance in the provision of green finance and renewable-energy technologies to other countries. The true test will come when climate-related issues that cut across particularly sensitive areas of the bilateral relationship, such as trade protectionism and human rights, make their way onto the agenda. One question is whether America will, along with Europe, impose tariffs on imports of carbon-intensive products such as steel and cement, which would hit China hard; American officials are reportedly looking into the idea.”

Elsewhere, China’s “largest new-energy-integrated electrochemical energy storage power station” – a giant bank of containerised lithium iron phosphate batteries – has been connected to the grid in eastern China’s Anhui province, reports China Energy News. The initial phase, with the scale of “300 megawatts/600 megawatt-hours”, is of “great significance” to enhance the stability of the power system, build a “clean, low-carbon, safe and efficient” energy system, and accelerate the achievement of the “dual carbon” targets, the state-run industry newspaper adds. Finally, as the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) market, China is “intensifying its endeavours to recycle used batteries”, writes Chinese outlet Caixin. And Reuters’ “Breakingviews” has a comment piece by Katrina Hamlin headlined: “China’s $72bn tax break heralds green-car crunch.”

An Oregon county has sued Exxon, Chevron and other major oil and coal companies, plus industry groups, seeking more than $50bn to “counter the harms caused by extreme weather fueled by climate change”, reports Reuters. The newswire adds: “Multnomah County said in the lawsuit filed in state court in Portland that fossil fuel companies and trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute intentionally deceived the public about the dangers of burning their products for decades. It said the companies and trade groups must now help pay for past and future harms from the extreme weather that has resulted, including a 2021 heatwave in the Pacific Northwest that killed dozens. Rather than acknowledge the dangers of climate change, the lawsuit said the fossil fuel industry worked to undermine the scientific consensus around the problem ‘with pseudo-science, fabricated doubt, and a well-funded, sustained public relations campaign to promote their spin’. The lawsuit also targets the consulting firm McKinsey, which it said advises major oil companies, including on strategies to downplay or deny the link between greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather.

Theodore Boutrous, an attorney for Chevron, said in a statement that lawsuits such as the one filed on Thursday are ‘counterproductive’ and distract from advancing effective international policy solutions. He said the county’s claims are ‘baseless and barred by the US constitution.” Axios quotes Korey Silverman-Roati, a senior fellow at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, who says that local governments are looking to opioid and tobacco lawsuits as models, which used state laws against making misleading product safety claims to win settlements. He tells the outlet that if fossil fuel companies eventually end up paying settlements, it could make the cost of doing business more expensive: “As a result it makes alternatives to fossil fuels more cost competitive. It’s not a direct result on climate change, but I think it would have a significant impact.”

The Church of England is to ditch about £100m of investments in oil companies, including Shell and BP, accusing them of not doing enough to tackle climate change, reports the Times. The newspaper continues: “The Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board each will divest from companies producing fossil fuels this year, after concluding that they had failed to meet a mid-2023 deadline that the General Synod had set for alignment with the Paris climate accord. The Most Rev Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury and chairman of the Church Commissioners for England, said: ‘We have long urged companies to take climate change seriously. In practical terms, that means phasing out fossil fuels, investing in renewables and plotting a credible path to a net-zero world. Some progress has been made, but not nearly enough.’” The Financial Times says: “The church said it would also exclude all remaining smaller companies involved in oil and gas exploration, production and refining by the end of the year. Although a small investor – its oil and gas holdings account for less than 1% of the endowment fund, while the pension pot has about £7m invested – the church has played an outsized role in shareholder discussions with oil companies over climate change.” The Guardian quotes Charlie Kronick, an oil finance adviser to Greenpeace UK: “After years of trying to change these companies from within, the Church of England has clearly lost faith in Shell and other oil giants’ ability to redeem themselves. This should be a moment of moral reckoning for other investors and for our government.” Shell is quoted as saying “it’s disappointing, but not surprising”.

New research covered by the Guardian shows that a “rapid reduction in fossil fuels, essential to avoid devastating climate breakdown, would have minimal financial impact on the vast majority of people”. The newspaper adds: “The study, published in the journal Joule, found that, in high-income countries, two-thirds of the financial losses would be borne by the most affluent 10%. In contrast, governments could easily compensate for the minimal impact on those on middle and lower levels of wealth.” The Guardian quotes co-author Lucas Chancel, a professor of economics at Sciences Po in Paris: “We find that the bulk of financial losses associated with rotten, polluting assets is borne by the wealthy. Only a small share of financial losses is borne by the working and middle class because they have no or relatively little financial wealth. These latter groups have nothing to fear from rapid action, in particular if governments decide to compensate for their losses, which can be done at relatively low cost.”

Separately, the Guardian covers another new study, which “models how tipping points can amplify and accelerate one another”. It concludes that “ecological collapse is likely to start sooner than previously believed”. The newspaper continues: “Based on these findings, the authors warn that more than a fifth of ecosystems worldwide, including the Amazon rainforest, are at risk of a catastrophic breakdown within a human lifetime. ‘It could happen very soon,’ said Prof Simon Willcock of Rothamsted Research, who co-led the study. ‘We could realistically be the last generation to see the Amazon.’ The research, which was published on Thursday in Nature Sustainability, is likely to generate a heated debate. Compared with the long-established and conclusively proven link between fossil fuels and global heating, the science of tipping points and their interactions is relatively undeveloped.”

Brussels plans to “lift controls on some genetically modified crops to help farmers cope with climate change in a move likely to reignite a Europe-wide debate about the controversial techniques”, reports the Financial Times, adding. “A draft EU regulation seen by the Financial Times proposes that many modified plants should be approved as conventional rather than go through the bloc’s existing GMO regime, which is laborious and expensive. The plan would establish a category of plants that have used gene editing to create new varieties but could have been achieved through traditional breeding techniques. They include wheat that can withstand drought, tomatoes resistant to fungus and potatoes containing less acrylamide, which becomes carcinogenic when fried. EU officials say the new techniques are vital to maintain crop yields as farmers contend with changing weather patterns, such as drought and floods. They would also reduce the use of pesticides, fertilisers and other chemicals. The proposal could still be changed before being put forward by the European Commission on 5 July.”

Reuters reports that the approval of the planned Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk was lawful, the High Court in London ruled on Thursday, dismissing a legal challenge over the environmental impact of the project. The newswire adds: “The building of the plant by French energy giant EDF in southeast England, capable of producing around 3.2 gigawatts of electricity or enough to power around 6 million homes, was approved in July 2022. Campaign group Together Against Sizewell C argued at a hearing in March that Britain unlawfully failed to consider alternatives to nuclear power to meet its emissions targets. But Judge David Holgate rejected the group’s challenge in a written ruling on Thursday. Holgate ruled Britain approved the project in line with its energy policy, which he said aimed to achieve ‘diversity of methods of generation and security of supply’.” The Guardian says that the campaigners “cited the threat to water supplies in an area officially designated as seriously water-stressed, the threats to coastal areas from the climate crisis, and environmental damage”.

An editorial in the Guardian says: “The French president, Emmanuel Macron, should be congratulated for hosting a summit to reimagine financial solutions to the interlinked global goals of tackling poverty, curbing planet-destroying emissions and protecting nature. But there is still a long way to go…Leaders in North America and Europe are intent on reshaping their energy systems, but the key materials required are found in the developing world. Even China, which dominates critical rare earth elements and their processing, lacks vital metals. This should allow for a grand bargain, where poorer countries are given policy space to address the three structural deficiencies that hinder their development – a lack of food sovereignty, a lack of energy sovereignty, and low value-added manufacturing – in return for sharing their minerals…it was Martin Luther King who warned against the ‘tranquilising drug of gradualism’. This sense of urgency is needed now to stop an environmental disaster.” Writing for the Times Red Box, Preet Gill, shadow international development secretary, criticises UK prime minister Rishi Sunak for failing to attend the summit under the headline: “Sunak is missing from the Paris summit. A Labour government will lead by example.”

Alan Beattie writing in the Financial Times argues that “advanced and emerging economies alike need to restore the clout and credibility of multilateral lending”. He continues: “A logical outcome would be the big middle-income powers given more say in existing multilateral institutions. But so far it’s not just the rich world’s jealousy of existing prerogatives – the US and Europe in effect appoint the heads of the World Bank and IMF respectively – preventing a shift. China in particular has traditionally eschewed the kind of leading role that might threaten its image as a developing country.”

Writing in the FT, Graham Allison, a professor of government at Harvard University and author of “Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap”, says: “The vast majority of the solar panels on which the world will spend more this year than on oil will come from just one nation. China manufactures 80% of all the solar panels produced globally. And, as the IEA notes, China’s dominance is even more pronounced when one examines the entire supply chain. It produces 85% of the global supply of solar cells, 88% of solar-grade polysilicon, and 97% of the silicon ingots and wafers that form the core of solar cells…The factors driving China’s success in this arena are the same ones that have made it the uncontested manufacturing workshop of the world. These include low-cost capital, rapid regulatory approvals, protection from foreign competition, lower labour costs, an unparalleled network of suppliers, and fast-growing domestic demand…While it is painful to recognise and may be politically unacceptable to say so, the brute fact is that in solar, as in other green technologies including electric vehicles, the west’s green future will be red. To be dependent on a nation the EU has declared a ‘systemic challenge’ and the US sees as its principal rival is troubling. Nonetheless, the larger truth is that Europeans, Americans and Chinese inhabit a small planet. Unconstrained greenhouse gas emissions from any of the three can so disrupt the climate that no one can live in it. To ensure their own citizens’ survival, the leaders of these nations will have to find ways to co-operate alongside the imperative to compete. This will require crafting a strategy that passes what F Scott Fitzgerald defined as the test of a first-class mind: ‘to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.’ That is their challenge.”

Meanwhile, in other comment, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times berates the US Republicans: “Of all the urgent problems House Republicans could be tackling – gun violence, voting rights, climate change – they are using some of their power to fan the flames of a cultural war over gas stoves.…The Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act and the Save Our Gas Stoves Act amount to little more than political posturing. Yet the measures show how much Republicans are trying to cling to the polluting fossil fuel technology of the past in a world that is slowly but surely going all-electric.” Talking of clinging to the use of fossil fuels, the Daily Telegraph gives yet more space to the climate-sceptic Conservative politician David Frost to list his “10 policies” to save his party from electoral “oblivion”, which includes: “Delay the net-zero 2050 target. Abolish the deadlines on boilers and EVs. Get fracking and build low-carbon modern gas power stations and zero-carbon nuclear. Stop wasting money on green levies and if we must use renewables make them stand on their own two feet.” [Earlier this week, a poll for the Sun found overwhelming public support for the net-zero by 2050 target, including a significant majority of Conservative voters.]

A new study finds that a projected “significant” increase in temperatures in Taita Taveta, a county in southern Kenya, will lead to a “probable” decrease in food production in the future. Equipped with meteorological and agricultural data, the researchers use climate models to project how rainfall and temperature will change under two different emissions scenarios, as well as the likely impact of these changes on food systems. They find that climate change will impact all elements of food systems, from production to consumption to disposal of food waste. The researchers recommend that climate-smart agricultural approaches be adopted in the region and early-warning systems deployed to reduce the risks to farmers’ livelihoods.