今天《纽约时报》进行其首页新闻“millions of people are being promised frequent, cheaper and greener bus services as part of a £3bn plan that the prime minister has said will be one of the first acts of ‘levelling up’”. The article continues: “In a reform of the bus sector, services on main routes will be so frequent that traditional timetables will be ditched and it will be easier to change between train and bus, the government said. Boris Johnson will say today that buses will no longer be ‘last in the queue’ for funding as he promises flat fares in towns and cities as well as flexible services to reconnect communities, with London-style services across the country. Price caps will be introduced so that people can use the bus as many times as they need and all buses will accept contactless payments.” TheDaily Mailcarries the same story under the headline: “Now for bus lane bedlam! After cycling chaos, now Boris Johnson finds £3bn for ‘clean, green’ revolution to put thousands more buses on British roads (and keep motorists off them)”. ThePress Association, via the Guardian, notes that “critics say the strategy ‘lacks ambition’ in addressing challenge of getting people back on to public transport”. Writing in theDaily Mirror, Labour’s shadow bus minister Sam Tarry says “Boris Johnson’s bus plan is not the ambitious revolution that was promised”. An editorial in theDaily Telegraphsays “by all means make it easier to use a bus, but not at the expense of private drivers”, adding that “this war on car drivers is fundamentally unconservative”.

In other UK news, there is continuing coverage of the Cumbria coal mine controversy.BBC Newssays it has “reignited” the “planet versus jobs debate”. Cumbria’sNew & Starhas a lengthy feature carrying a range of local views. TheGuardianhas a feature examining “what will the public inquiry look at?” Meanwhile, theSunday Timessays that the UK government’s new “integrated review of security, defence and foreign policy”, due out this week, will say that “tackling climate change is the UK’s ‘No 1 priority’ on the world stage and maps out plans for Britain’s chairmanship of the G7 and COP26 climate summits this year”. TheDaily Telegraphreports that “ministers are considering declaring the beginning of the end for the North Sea oil industry with a ban on new exploration licences”. It adds: “The radical move is on the table as part of a decisive shift away from fossil fuels and as part of preparations for the crucial climate summit the government is due to host in Glasgow in the autumn.”Sky News‘s climate change correspondent Lisa Holland reports that former IPCC vice chairman Prof Jean Pascal van Ypersele has “called on the British government to review its policies surrounding the burning of wood for energy”. TheObserversays that “UK scientists attack ‘reckless’ Tory cuts to international research”, adding: “Hundreds of key research projects aimed at tackling some of the world’s major problems – from antimicrobial resistance to the climate crisis – will have to be cancelled or cut back thanks to budget cuts imposed by the government.” TheDaily Mailreports that “Boris Johnson’s plan to cut the foreign aid budget is set to be dramatically scaled back over fears of a Tory rebellion”.Bloombergsays that “Johnson is working on a major overhaul of one of his government’s most important climate change policies after it failed to deliver, people familiar with the matter said”, adding: “With a budget of £2bn ($2.8bn), the Green Homes Grant program launched in September to provide vouchers for homeowners to help pay for insulating their properties and switch to low carbon heating. But ministers and officials have become frustrated with the slow roll out of the work, partly blaming the pandemic, and funding has been cut. Johnson is now in talks with finance minister Rishi Sunak over what comes next.”

Separately, theTimesreports that “turbine towers for the world’s biggest offshore wind farm could be made in Scotland under plans for a £100m factory that would create hundreds of jobs”. AnotherTimesarticle says that “Britain’s largest independent chain of petrol stations is to spend £400m on installing 3,000 fast electric chargers across its nationwide estate”. TheGuardianhas an investigation which it says reveals that “Britain’s biggest car manufacturers lobbied the government to delay a ban on petrol and diesel cars by warning that sales would plunge and jobs would be at risk from accelerating the transition to electric vehicles”. TheFinancial Timesreports that “Nest, the UK’s largest workplace pension scheme with 10m members, has begun a £1.4bn green energy push after agreeing an infrastructure partnership worth an initial £250m with Octopus Renewables, a specialist clean energy provider”. And thei newspaperhas an article on “how the government’s ambition for London carbon offset markets may prove diplomatically tricky”.

The Guardian reports that there “climate experts have expressed dismay” at the appointed of Mathias Cormann, a former finance minister in an Australian government, to be the next secretary general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The newspaper says Cormann has “a record of strong hostility to climate action” and that “developing countries [are] particularly concerned” by his appointment. It quotes Saleem Huq, the director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, who says: “The appointment of a climate sceptic from Australia to head the OECD is very disappointing and will reduce the credibility of the OECD as an institution in the eyes of developing countries.” It also quotes Mohamed Adow, the director of the Power Shift Africa thinktank, who says: “It’s terrible to see a politician with such a poor record on climate action getting the job of leading the OECD. What makes it worse is that apparently his appointment was backed by the UK, despite them [being] about to host the crucial COP26 summit.”BBC Newsalso picks up on the same concerns, saying Cormann is “a centre-right politician, had faced opposition stemming from his record on climate change”. It adds: “He tried to abolish Australia’s renewable energy targets and has called carbon pricing a ‘very expensive hoax’.”Australian Associated Press, via the Guardian, covers Cormann’s reaction to be appointed in which he “singled out climate change as a key challenge, saying he planned to pursue an ambitious and ‘global’ approach to help countries become carbon-neutral by 2050”. TheFinancial Timesexplains that the “50-year-old politician narrowly beat Cecilia Malmstrom, the former EU trade commissioner, who was unable to secure a unified bloc of European countries to support her”.

中国的碳排放峰值可以viewe计划d as a “second turning point” for the country’s economy (after the first in 1978), according to Chai Qimin, director for strategy and planning at the National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation. Chai, whose centre is affiliated with China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment. He tells 21st Century Business Herald (in Chinese) that an emissions peak driven by “green, low-carbon strategies” would have “significant meanings” to China’s “high-quality” overall development. He also explains in the interview why, in his view, the government has not set a carbon cap. Meanwhile, a report from state-run radio channelThe Voice of China(in Chinese) explores the global role of China’s climate targets, as laid out in the nation’s 14th “five-year plan” last week. Prof Wang Can from the School of Environment at Tsinghua University says China’s pledges and initiatives can create a “good atmosphere” to propel technology innovation worldwide for carbon neutralisation. On Friday,亚慱官网published a detailed Q&A on what China’s 14th “five-year plan” could mean for climate change.

Separately, Gu Shuzhong, research fellow at the Institute for Resources and Environment Policies within the Development Research Center of the State Council, says cooperation on climate change should act as an “adhesive” in the China-US and China-Europe relations, both of which have been under the strain. Gu makes the comments toChina Economics Times(in Chinese).

Meanwhile,Energy Monitorhas a feature headlined: “Will China gamble on a nuclear future?” It says: “China plans to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, but how it gets there remains an open question. Nuclear is likely to play a role, but the exact contribution of it, renewables and other energy sources is still unclear.” AndReuterscarries a column by market analyst John Kemp in which he says the “burgeoning consumption [of natural gas in China] has not been matched by a similar increase in domestic production, leaving the country ever more reliant on imports, which is becoming a growing threat to national security”.

英国政府“是正确的”的公共秩序quiry into the proposed new coal mine in Cumbria, says a Times editorial. The “blunt truth”, says the paper, is that “the investment, had it gone ahead, would have looked hypocritical in the year that Britain is chairing the COP26 global climate conference”. It continues: “Britain has long criticised other countries for pushing ahead with new coal-related investments, not least China. Proceeding with the Cumbrian mine would have sent a terrible message about Britain’s willingness to exercise global leadership.” While “some argue that mining the coking coal used by the steel industry in Britain will reduce emissions compared with importing it”, it is “not even clear what domestic use there will be for the coking coal mined in Cumbria beyond 2035”, the editorial says, as “that is the date by which the British steel industry…is expected to itself achieve net-zero emissions”. The paper warns that the “government’s dithering over the Cumbrian mine reflects a wider muddle at the heart of its approach to climate change”, adding: “Britain has done remarkably well over the past two decades in decarbonising its electricity sector but has so far little by way of a strategy for reducing emissions in hard-to-decarbonise sectors, such as heavy industry, construction, heating and transport that account for the bulk of remaining emissions.” An editorial in theIndependent– the paper thatbroke the storyof the public enquiry last week – says “there is nothing wrong with a U-turn if it means that a government abandons the wrong policy and adopts the right one”. And while “there will now be a public inquiry that will take months”, the paper says that Boris Johnson “has made the right decision – even if he pretends he has not yet finally decided – and we predict that he will stick to it”. AGuardianeditorial notes the public inquiry announcement comes “within days” of US climate envoy John Kerry “warning Mr Johnson that coal has no future”. It adds: “The US had the good sense to understand the implications if Britain was allowed to press ahead with a plan to dig out coal and send it abroad without busting its own carbon budget. If everyone took the same view, the world would be toast. The US reasons that if jobs are the issue, then use state investment in green technologies for coal-free steel.”

Also commenting on the government’s decision,Timesenergy editor Emily Gosden says: “If a new British coal mine doesn’t sound green – and indeed isn’t green – it sets a dangerous example to other countries as Britain hosts November’s climate summit. If it in any way encourages other countries to weaken their own climate action, the CCC [Climate Change Committee] says that the negative impact of that on global emissions would ‘swamp the other effects’ of the mine.” John Connolly, news editor of theSpectator, says the government’s latest decision “has exposed a rift in the Tory party, between a government keen to make a success of the UN climate summit, COP26…and backbench MPs fighting for the North and Midlands to be ‘levelled up’”. Writing in theDaily Telegraph, Conservative MP Jake Berry – chair of the Northern Research Group of Conservative MPs – warns that “at the last election it was ‘Workington Man’ not ‘Wokeington Man’ nor Extinction Rebellion who gave Boris Johnson the largest Conservative majority for a generation”. He concludes: “To all those armchair activists ‘woke-ing from home’, I say this: the North is not some green playground you can visit after lockdown; we are the cradle of the new green industrial revolution and we want ‘coal not dole’. You don’t knit wind turbines. You make them from steel. Let’s make it British Steel, made with British Coal.” And finally, former Labour MP Tom Harris writes in theDaily Telegraphthat “in a role-reversal of the 1980s, Labour is opposing a new mining scheme – while the Conservatives are keen to invest in ex-mining areas”. He explains: “In truth, both of the main parties have discovered new priorities. Labour now considers the fight against climate change more important than its historic debt to mining communities that no longer exist. The Conservatives, on the other hand – or at least, some of them – have discovered the value of creating jobs and generating wealth in local areas, and welcome any private sector investment that will achieve such ends (and if those ends also include their own re-election, so much the better).” Finally,Financial Times专栏作家亨利·曼斯有一篇文章问:“为什么are the Tories putting up the wrong taxes?” He criticises the government for freezing fuel duty and planning to cut air passenger duty and adds: “The government is making the same mistake it did with coronavirus: it underestimates its own ability to lead, and the public appetite for change.”

《星期日泰晤士报》的欧洲编辑彼得•多•looks at how “green could be the colour of Germany’s political future if the slide of chancellor Angela Merkel’s sleaze-hit Christian Democrats (CDU) and the seemingly irresistible rise of Die Grünen, the Greens, lead to a political explosion this year”. He continues: “The CDU and the Christian Social Union (CSU), their Bavarian sister party, have been grappling with a scandal involving two MPs who admit earning hundreds of thousands of pounds in kickbacks for brokering deals for Covid masks. The conservative partners face a testing six months culminating in a general election in September when Merkel is due to retire after 16 years in power. The national vote is expected to propel the Greens into government for the first time since 2005 – either as junior partner to the CDU/CSU or even as the leader of a so-called “traffic light coalition” with the Social Democrats (red) and the liberal Free Democrats (yellow).” Overnight,Deutsche Wellereports that “Greens are jubilant while Merkel’s CDU suffers defeat”, with this weekend’s election results showing that “Winfried Kretschmann, Green party premier of Baden-Württemberg, and Social Democrat Malu Dreyer in Rhineland-Palatinate will remain in office for another five years”. Meanwhile,Clean Energy Wirehas a feature about how climate activists are taking on “Germany’s super election year”. And theSunday Timesruns a column by the climate sceptic Dominic Lawson who says “The worst fallout from Fukushima was hysteria”, adding that “Merkel’s hasty rejection of nuclear energy looks more unwise than ever”.

An editorial in the Financial Times argues that savings products promising to make it easy to be green still require scrutiny. It adds: “Investors need to check whether the products they are buying meet their ethical standards rather than just being packaged attractively; accusations of ‘greenwashing’ abound. The latest deal to raise eyebrows is Europe’s first sustainable junk bond, from the main Greek utility the Public Power Corporation, which, while using renewable sources such as wind turbines, also invests in fossil fuels. Those who want to make sure their pension funds are entirely low-carbon might be disappointed.” The editorial concludes: “Capitalism’s restless innovation when it comes to electric cars or plant-based food has helped consumers to enjoy the same standard of goods, or something close, while cutting their carbon footprint. But canny marketers have also used environmentalism to relabel many, at best, neutral products as world-saving. Environmentally friendly finance is shaping up in a similar vein: investors will find that new product badging cannot replace the hard work of scrutinising exactly what is being offered. Despite the promises, it is never easy being green.” TheFinancial Timesalso carries a comment piece by its US business editor Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson on why “distant emissions pledges [by companies] will ring hollow unless boards are held to account for progress now”. And a separateFinancial Timescomment piece, by Lex research editor Alan Livsey argues that “accounting needs to be stepped up for climate change costs”.

Meanwhile, theWall Street Journalcarries a feature on “the green investing standard that could set the global bar”, saying that “Wall Street needs to watch the European Union’s early efforts to regulate what counts as sustainable investing [because] EU standards could easily end up as the global norm”.Politicosays that “[US climate envoy John] Kerry is leveraging personal relationships with Wall Street players as well as banks’ public promises to help fund climate efforts”, while anotherPoliticoarticle says that “the EU’s enthusiastic effort to drive more money into green finance risks backfiring as the political agenda turns into a legislative muddle”.

Separately, theDaily Telegraphcarries a comment piece by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in which he warns that “rocketing carbon prices risk breaking the €100 barrier this year, making a mockery of Europe’s green deal”. And theGuardian‘s Simon Hattenstone interviews Mark Carney to mark his new book in which he explains his views on climate change.

Global progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions was “limited” between 1990 and 2018, with “few signs of emerging limits to demand, nor of a deep shift towards the delivery of low and zero carbon services across sectors”, according to new research. The study uses data and past literature to estimate emissions from five economic sectors – energy, industry, buildings, transport and “agriculture, forestry and other land uses” (AFOLU). It finds that Europe and North America saw “moderate decarbonisation of energy systems”, driven by fuel switching and an increase in renewable energy. However, it notes that in “rapidly industrialising regions”, fossil-based energy systems “continuously expanded” over the period and “only very recently” slowed in growth. A rise in emissions from the industry sector was particularly notable in eastern, southern and south-east Asia, according to the paper, while an expansion of agriculture into carbon-dense tropical forest areas drove AFOLU emissions in Latin America, south-east Asia and Africa to rise.